U.S.-Syria | Public opinion

Poll: Voters question U.S. leadership

 

A majority of Americans opposes airstrikes in Syria and wants Congress to reject the president’s request for approval

South Florida feedback

 The Miami Herald asked members of the Public Insight Network, an online community of people who have agreed to share their opinions with The Miami Herald and WLRN, if the U.S. should intervene in Syria. Here are a few of their responses:

• “If it is verified that the regime used chemical weapons, then we cannot sit idly by, and frankly, neither can the Russians,” says Paul Kavanaugh, from Weston. “With no real partner in the country, boots on the ground are not an option. Airstrikes, a no-fly zone and perhaps a few missile strikes on intelligently vetted targets can accomplish something. We may have to embargo the country to stop Iran from rearming and supporting them. The end game has to be to force change from within — and making it abundantly clear to [any] government that the U.S. will not abide the use of chemical weapons.”

• “What Congress decides, and I hope it is to support the president for reasons outlined by Secretary Kerry and supported by Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey,” says Alexander Davit, from Coral Gables.

• “The U.S. should work multilaterally to continue building the international institutions we need (but do not yet truly have) to implement [the concept of] responsibility to protect,” says Cheryl Duckworth, from Davie. “Our current policy dilemma comes precisely from the lack of effective international institutions with an adequate mandate. We should not intervene militarily, as violence usually proves to be an ineffective tool.”

• “We should do absolutely nothing,” says Matthew Reibel, from Aventura. “First, I think the findings that Assad used the chemical weapons are highly suspicious. Assad was beating the rebels, and he knows using the chemical weapons would encourage the U.S. and other countries to intervene. He had absolutely nothing to gain by using the chemical weapons on his own people. Second, the rebels consist of many al-Qaida members. So us attacking Assad’s military means we are helping al-Qaida. Do we really want al-Qaida taking over Syria? I see no good outcomes coming from us getting involved in any way with this conflict.”


McClatchy Washington Bureau

When President Barack Obama addresses the nation Tuesday in his bid for airstrikes against Syria, he will confront the most unfriendly political landscape of his presidency, one where opposition knows no boundaries and Democrats, Republicans, whites, blacks, Hispanics, old, young, men and women all are deeply skeptical of the mission.

A solid majority of voters opposes airstrikes and wants Congress to reject Obama’s request for approval, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll. A majority thinks he does not have a clear idea of what he’s doing with Syria. The ranks of Americans who approve of the way he’s handling foreign policy has dropped to the lowest level since he assumed office. And an overwhelming majority insists he stand down should Congress vote no.

“Clearly this president needs to be very persuasive Tuesday,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York, which conducted the poll.

The survey of 963 adults, which included 856 registered voters, was conducted Sept. 7-8.

Adults 18 and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone.

There are two hints of openings for Obama as he presses his case, in a luncheon Tuesday with Republican senators and then in a nationwide, prime-time television address at 9 p.m.

First, Americans do see Syria’s use of chemical weapons as a potential danger to this country and its interests — 54 percent said it posed a significant threat. Second, support for airstrikes would jump from 31 percent to 47 percent if Congress did approve, while opposition would drop from 58 percent to 46 percent.

Obama appears to have more support in the Senate than in the House of Representatives, where public opinion often weighs more on members who face voters every two years.

“They don’t think he’s made the case,” Miringoff said of the voters.

Regardless of how pollsters asked the question, the same doubts surfaced. “The public worries we won’t accomplish our goals and a strike will have long-term consequences,” Miringoff said.

Voters by 58 percent to 31 percent oppose airstrikes. They also think members of Congress should not authorize an attack, by 54 percent to 38 percent.

If Obama should go ahead with his Syria plan after a no vote in Congress, as the administration has suggested it could, the public outcry could be thunderous. Voters by 74 percent to 20 percent said he should not launch an airstrike without congressional approval.

Unlike most presidential initiatives, the usual partisan pressure tactics don’t often work on a vote for military action. Such votes tend to be very personal, and more so than most, driven by constituent sentiment.

That sentiment is clear, regardless of political party. Democrats were opposed to airstrikes, 50 percent to 36 percent, while Republicans were against a strike 66 percent to 24 percent. Independents rejected the idea 60 percent to 31 percent.

People indicated a yes vote could mean political peril for members of Congress. About one in four voters said they would be less likely to vote for their lawmaker if he backed Obama on Syria, while 13 percent said they were more likely to vote for a supportive lawmaker.

Republicans could feel the most heat — one in three Republicans say they’d be less likely to back someone who supported the president, compared with one in five Democrats.

The president’s job approval rating was 44 percent, up slightly from July. But 54 percent dislike his handling of foreign policy, a sharp increase from July and the first time since he became president in January 2009 that a majority have disapproved. The 38 percent who do approve of his foreign policy work is the lowest of his presidency.

Obama’s recent action “makes us look weak. He has made a mockery out of our foreign policy,” said Rick Turner, 39, who works in the Dallas restaurant industry. “I would have supported America’s use of force if we hadn’t of hemmed and hawed about it. I think we have lost every advantage that we had.”

Judy Crow O’Donnell, a retired clergywoman from Fort Worth, Texas, still backs Obama but opposes the airstrikes.

“I am glad that he is bringing in Congress, but I am also a pacifist, and I think violence begets violence,” she said.

Americans also want help from other nations. By 77 percent to 21 percent, respondents wanted the U.S. to have support from other countries.

Great Britain, traditionally one of the United States’ strongest allies, won’t be part of a coalition since its House of Commons voted against the mission.

Even limited strikes — “unbelievably small,” Secretary of State John Kerry has said — worry Americans.

By 55 percent to 39 percent, they said such action would make it likely the U.S. was in for a long-term military commitment in Syria. Nor do people think Syria will be discouraged from using chemical weapons. By a slim margin, 49 percent to 47 percent, the public thinks that country is likely to use such weapons.

Read more World stories from the Miami Herald

  • Guantánamo detainee severed from 9/11 trial

    The decision delivers another in a series of delays to the government’s effort to prosecute Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni described as a key figure in the plot who acted as a liaison between the hijackers and al-Qaida’s leadership in Afghanista

  •  
Israeli police officers secure a destroyed house that was hit by a rocket fired by Palestinians militants from Gaza, in Yahud, a Tel Aviv suburb near the airport, central Israel, Tuesday, July 22, 2014. As a result, Delta Air Lines and U.S. Airlines decided to cancel their scheduled flights to Israel.

    ISRAEL

    Travel to Israel slows after FAA ban

    The FAA issued a 24-hour ban on commercial flights to and from Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv following a rocket strike a mile away.

  •  
Joel Bofshever of Davie displays his feelings at Sunday’s rally in Miami Beach.

    Miami Beach

    Hundreds turn out for pro-Israel rally in Miami Beach

    Wrapping Israeli flags around their shoulders, bearing signs saying “Israel we stand with you,” singing and dancing along to songs about peace, about 400 people gathered at a pro-Israel rally in a Miami Beach park Sunday in an event organizers described as both in support of peace and Israel’s right to defend itself.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category