Polls Show Broad Opposition to U.S. Strikes in Syria

Whitehouse.govWhitehouse.govWhen Secretary of State John Kerry outlined the Obama administration's case for military strikes against Syria last week, he acknowledged that "the American people are tired of war." 

Kerry, of course, dismissed the public’s war-weariness. But it’s worth emphasizing just how opposed Americans are to taking military action in Syria. Every recent poll shows broad opposition to strikes against Syria. 

A RealClearPolitics average of polling data on the question find that opposition outweighs support by more than 17 points, with 51.3 percent against strikes and just 34 percent in favor.

The RCP average comes from polls by Reuters/Ipsos, Pew Research, ABC News/Washington Post, and NBC, all of which find that the public opposes strikes by big margins.

NBC News finds the most support, with 42 percent in favor of military intervention. But that still trails opposition by eight points. (NBC’s poll also used the smallest sample.)

The ABC/Washington Post poll, released yesterday afternoon, shows the most opposition, with 59 percent of respondents opposed to strikes and just 36 percent in favor.

Polls by Pew Research and Reuters/Ipsos both find that just 29 percent support taking action against Syria, while 48 percent oppose.

A HuffPost/YouGov poll taken a few days earlier and not included in the RCP average puts support for air strikes at just 25 percent, and opposition at 41 percent.

Obama and his aides are currently making the case for war to Congress. But the administration has clearly failed to make the case to the American people. Regardless of what happens on the Hill, if seems clear that if Obama takes the nation to war, it won’t be with the support of the public. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If you're a Democrat you definitely don't want to lose the support of the broads.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The people of America are ignorant swine, and if they didn't generate the tax revenue that support Important Peoples' crucial work, the White House and Congress would do them the favor of putting an end to their failed, pointless lives.

  • ||

    Pfft, better than working in a diner, you lazy hack. Talk about failed lives.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You know Jimbo, if Obama really wanted popular support for intervention, he would advocate dropping you on Libya.

  • ||

    I continue to find these polling stories kinds of quaintly amusing in the standard depressing way.

    Given that the big O does not feel the need for Congressional approval of, well, anything, and given that he does not seem to care about the citizens' approval of assassination policy, drone policy, wiretapping, drug policy, or anything like that... "the support of the public" does not appear to be that big of a deal. Especially for a second term lame duck.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Lack of public support certainly didn't stop them from pushing through Obamacare.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Your agonizer, please, Mr. Obama."

  • ||

    Screw that, he'll be the first one disintegrated by the Tantalus field.

  • Pro Libertate||

    After the agonizer. And the tranya.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    You know who else went to war with broad opposition?

  • Brian D||

    BOOOOOSH!!! (in hindsight, once it became fashionable)

  • Hugh Akston||

    Lincoln?

  • ||

  • ||

    Oh, and btw, ecstasy is apparently super dangerous now. Way more dangerous than the last time we thought it was dangerous, when it turns out it really wasn't.

    http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy.....08176.html

  • Fatty Bolger||

    “When a buyer abuses something called Molly, there’s no way to tell what’s in it,” Rusty Payne, a spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Agency told Yahoo Shine. “That’s the most dangerous thing about these drugs.”

    Indeed it is, motherfucker. And guess who makes sure that nobody knows what's in those drugs?

    How can a drug warrior say this, without having a sudden epiphany and resigning from his job immediately?

  • db||

    The "Rusty Payne" is Warty's signature move, I hear.

  • Mainer2||

    The other dangerous thing is the government will lock you in a cage.

  • Killazontherun||

    Where have I heard that story before? Oh, yeah, super pot! Sweet purple Jesus.

  • Killazontherun||

    And Molly is a good drug name. Like they were trying to ape a science fiction writer.

  • Tony||

    What's with Rand Paul's creepy single-minded focus on the Christian minority in Syria? Sorry, don't mean to ask a question whose answer is obvious.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What's with BHO's creepy single-minded focus on going to war in Syria?

    Sorry, don't mean to ask a question whose answer is obvious.

  • tarran||

    Actually, Obama isn't being single-minded.

    His childish need to have people like him has put him in a situation where he is painted in a corner, and he is desperately looking for a way out of it that doesn't have people laughing at him.

  • tarran||

    Ah yes, Tony land, where stealing is being charitable, not taking is giving, and advancing a multitude of arguments intended to sway disparate audiences to agree on a common policy is single-mindedness.

  • ||

    How is it creepy or single-minded? He's pointing out that many of the rebels we are supporting are pretty fucking crazy and would create a lot of havoc if they gained control over a country.

  • Mainer2||

    creepy is just one of those words that people use when they don't really have an argument

  • tarran||

    Tony is trying an old tactic of his, to start with a sweeping falsehood that is partially true (Rand Paul has advanced many arguments one of which is the likely destruction of one of the most ancient Christian Churches) and then to argue that the true part makes the falsehood true.

    Whenver he resorts to it, I am cheered; it means on a subconscious level he knows he is full of shit.

  • ||

    Rand is obviously trying to get his constituents to relate to the situation and understand the gravity of it. Explaining that good, peaceful Christians are in danger of being persecuted by the Islamic fundies Obama wants to help is a perfectly valid point.

    The liberals are just pissed off beyond belief that Rand is right.

  • Tony||

    And he's right but he is neglecting to show equal concern for the Muslims currently being killed by the thousands. It is absolutely clear that he is favoring the Christian minority over other factions in Syria, and he's doing so for the same reason Sarah Palin said let Allah sort it out. Well, not exactly. He's probably not the real bigot she is, he just wants to run for president in the GOP and needs such people's votes.

  • ||

    And he's right but he is neglecting to show equal concern for the Muslims currently being killed by the thousands.

    So conversely Obama is neglecting to show equal concern for Christians.

    Also did Obama tell you in a secret conversation that less Muslims are going to die if we bomb? How many Muslims did he tell you were not going to die?

    How many Christians are one Muslim worth? are they 1 to 1 ratio? Is Obama only going to let die as many Christians as he plans on Muslims he is going to bomb?

    So if he he thinks 1000 Christians are going to die does this now allow Obama to kill 1000 Muslims in his bombings? Or wait is he saving Muslims by killing Muslims? How many Muslims does he save for every Muslim or christian that dies because of his bombing?

    Do these numbers equal Muslims created and saved or just Muslims saved?

    Should both Christians and Muslims be required to use birth control? Or just one of those groups be required to use birth control?

  • Tony||

    So conversely Obama is neglecting to show equal concern for Christians.

    Not so. The goal is not regime change (which could lead to the persecution of Christians by the new regime) but punishment and deterrence for the use of chemical weapons.

    How many Christians are one Muslim worth? are they 1 to 1 ratio?

    Yes. One human life is equal to one human life.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In Tony w/o spaces land, Christians are the "wrong" kind of minority (you know, Crusades n' shit). So it's really okay to burn them out of church and home, rape their women, steal from them, force them to convert, whatever because, uh, Pat Robertson?

  • ant1sthenes||

    He's trying to push evangelicals from team neocon to team anti-war? What a bastard!

  • Tony||

    More like trying to court them for his presidential primary run.

    It's not wrong to be concerned about the potential of harsh persecution of a minority. It is creepy because he doesn't seem concerned at all about the thousands of dead Muslims.

  • ||

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    Do you actually make any effort to observe the world around you beyond these retarded partisan soundbites?

  • tarran||

    It's Tonyland!

    We should bomb muslims to show them we care about them and want them to live!

  • ||

    It's Tonyland!

    I think we should call it Tonytown.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw

  • ||

    What's with Rand Paul's creepy single-minded focus on the Christian minority in Syria? Sorry, don't mean to ask a question whose answer is obvious.

    I am sure you know when you are reaching Tony.

    What the sad part is though is that we all can see when you are reaching and you don't even realize it.

    Anyway tell us what you think about Obama wanting to bomb Syria. Are you all super exited about it like you were with Libya?

  • Tony||

    My preferred scenario is that despots accused of war crimes are tried in an international court. There is some logic to punishing the use of banned weapons so as to deter future use, but I'll admit there is some amount of face-saving on Obama's part going on here.

    There has not been a good track record with respect to Americans intervening in sectarian wars in the Middle East, so of course I'm skeptical that much good would come of this action.

  • tarran||

    So Obama should be tried in an international court for violating the UN treaty's ban on aggressive war?

    I could get behind that.

  • db||

    Polls Show Broad Opposition to U.S. Strikes in Syria

    Are women finally beginning to abandon their support for Obama?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Senate FRC passed the resolution to authorize military strikes against Syria. 10-7, with one Present, Markey.

    FOR: Boxer, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Durbin, Kaine, Corker, Flake, McCain (Yeah, that adds up to 9, not sure who they missed.)

    Against: Udall (D-N.M.), Murphy, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Barrasso, Paul.

    Tell me why Jeff Flake is supposed to be this great Libertarian hope again?

  • RBS||

    He was pretty good when he was in the house then I guess the Senate got to him. He was the darling of reason awhile back though wasn't he?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm actually surprised that Rubio voted against.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That asshat Kaine represents my state unfortunately.

  • ||

    Count your blessings, I'm represented by Barbara Boxer.

  • Mainer2||

    My senator is Jean Shaheen, the dancin' machine, but yeah...you have my sympathy.

  • robc||

    My state elected Paul, so all yall can suck it.

  • Killazontherun||

    I've had little good to say about Rubio, but make today an exception. Good for you, Senator. You have the potential to be human someday. Very few politicians rise to that occasion. Your action here, in the party (in terms of the temperament of its establishment) you are a member, is exceptional.

  • ||

    Tell me why Jeff Flake is supposed to be this great Libertarian hope again?

    I am confused as to why everyone did not vote yes so it can go to the floor for debate and a vote. (and vote no there rather then vote no on the vote before the vote which is only a vote to allow the committee bring it to the floor)

    I thought that was the whole idea of giving the power of war to congress.

  • Tim||

    THey'll spin this as Barack bravely leading against a headwind.

  • Goldwin Smith||

    Like FDR?

  • pmains||

    A RealClearPolitics average of polling data on the question find that opposition outweighs support by more than 17 points, with 51.3 percent against strikes and just 34 percent in favor.

    That said, opposition is crumbling. Just last week, support was polling at or below 10%. Now, it's up to 34%. Give Obama another week to dangle the pocket-watch before the eyes of his highly impressionable supporters.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Give Obama another week to dangle the pocket-watch before the eyes of his highly impressionable supporters.

    This, unfortunately. From 7-15 to 34 in a week is impressive. And it'll get higher if the rebels cough, Assad decides to lob some more chemical rockets.

  • Mainer2||

    I've already seen one pickup truck flying two big american flags, so the fuck yeah, USA contingent may be growing.

  • DH||

    Too big for a pocket watch?

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/.....mdp_mobile

  • Calidissident||

    Is the 9% number an apples to apples comparison? I assume a lot of people may support a missile strike to retaliate for using chemical weapons, but at the same time be totally against a ground invasion.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama and his aides are currently making the case for war to Congress. But the administration has clearly failed to make the case to the American people. Regardless of what happens on the Hill, if seems clear that if Obama takes the nation to war, it won’t be with the support of the public.

    Obama continues to say that chemical weapons were used. He continues to say that he "believes"/"assesses" that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons.

    We the American people are supposed to quietly nod and infer, based on the assumption that chemical weapons were used at all, that the accusations of Obama are fact, rather than speculation.

    According to his own 3page press release/"intelligence summary", the intelligence agencies won't get behind the "Assad did it" story.

    This is shaping up to be another Gulf of Tonkin-type snowjob.

  • ||

    OT -

    Someone smarter than me explain what this means -

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....confirmed/

    Because to my dumb ass, it almost sounds like the whole "anthrowhatthefuckever global warming" thing just got beat up and its lunch money taken.

  • ||

    When Sun is active (lots of sun spots) it blocks cosmic rays. When it is less active it blocks less cosmic rays

    Cosmic rays help form clouds on earth

    clouds block sun light

    Less sun light means colder earth.

    So when sun is active the earth warms up

    When sun is less active the earth cools down.

  • tarran||

    Because to my dumb ass, it almost sounds like the whole "anthrowhatthefuckever global warming" thing just got beat up and its lunch money taken.

    Nah. It's merely suggesting a very nutty theory might be correct.

    Nobody really knows why sometimes you get lots of clouds, and sometimes you don't, despite conditions being very simmilar. Once a cloud has formed, the meteorologists are pretty good at predicting its future behavior, it's the creation that is very mysterious.

    Essentially, there has to be a nucleus for the water vapor to start condensing around, and Svenmark hypothesized that the rate at which these nucleation sites form in the air is tied to the rate with which cosmic rays ionize stuff in the Earth's atmosphere.

    A CAGW cultist in the EU scientific apparatus with control to the purse strings did a pretty good job of blocking Svenmark from testing his hypothesis for a number of years, but eventually Svenmark was able to run some experiments that didn't falsify his hypothesis. But it's really early days yet. Just because his hypothesis makes predictions that work in a cloud chamber does not mean that cosmic rays are driving cloud formation, just that they might be.

  • ||

    It's merely suggesting a very nutty theory might be correct.

    and

    Nobody really knows why sometimes you get lots of clouds

    So we "don't know why" yet a theory, now with some experimental evidence to back it up, that might explain it is "nutty"....

  • tarran||

    Dude, 20 years ago, if I told you that a major thermostat of the Earth's climate was the cosmic ray flux, you'd think I was bonkers.

    It's a nutty theory, kind of like one that some patent examiner in Austria proposed that the speed of light was always constant and that time and space warped as needed to make that happen.

    The universe is a nutty place.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement