|
Global Issues >> Terrorism
Terrorism
General Support for Military Action
An overwhelming majority supports the bombing campaign
against Afghanistan, with a very strong majority supporting
the goal of overthrowing the Taliban government. Support for
strong military action, including the possible use of US ground
troops, has been consistently overwhelming since September
11 and has remained strong even when questions mention the
possibility of retaliation against the US, US troop casualties,
innocent civilian casualties, or a long war. At the same time
the public has shown patience, with a strong majority willing
to restrain military action to ensure that it is correctly
targeted. Support for taking such military action in response
to terrorist attacks predates September 11.
Overwhelming support for strong military action has been
in place since September 11 through to the present. Questions
that have asked about taking action against the responsible
parties show support ranging from 85 to 92%. Most recently,
in a December 12-13 Fox News poll 91% said they supported
"US military action being taken in response to the terrorist
attacks." On December 6-7 Newsweek found 88% approving
"the current US military action against terrorism."
At the time bombing began, NBC found 90% approving of the
action. [1]
Only 6% thought the action was too strong, while 76% said
it was about right (53%) or not strong enough (23%). [2a]
A growing portion of the population is showing satisfaction
"with the amount of progress made by the US military
in the war in Afghanistan." On December 14-16 69% said
they were very satisfied and 23% somewhat satisfied. This
is up from November 2-4 (very 27%, somewhat 52%) and November
26-27 (very 58%, somewhat 35%; (CNN/USA Today). [2b]
Overwhelming majorities have favored the more ambitious
goals of overthrowing the Taliban government and taking out
the terrorist networks there, not just capturing or killing
Osama bin Laden. The ABC/Washington Post poll asked on October
7, "What do you think should be the main goal of the
United States in this military action-capturing or killing
bin Laden and his associates, overthrowing Afghanistan's Taliban
government, or both equally?" Seventy-one percent said
both, while an additional 6% specified overthrowing the Taliban
government as the main goal. Only 19% chose killing Osama
bin Laden as the main goal. When NBC/Wall Street Journal on
November 9-11 presented three different goals for the operation
in Afghanistan, the majorities saying it was necessary to
fulfill the more ambitious goals of "removing the Taliban
from power" (75% extremely important) were essentially
the same as those endorsing the necessity of "capturing
bin Laden" (72% extremely important). This has not varied
from findings of earlier weeks. When CNN/USA Today (October
19-21) asked what is the most important goal and presented
the same three options, a plurality (41%) thought "destroying
terrorist operations in Afghanistan" was the most important
goal, while 29% chose "removing the Taliban from power"
and only 25% chose "capturing or killing bin Laden."
[3]
Americans have not been dissuaded by the prospect of retaliation
against the US. Asked in an October 7th NBC News poll (taken
the day of the first strikes against Afghanistan) whether
"combating terrorism is worth risking retaliation against
the United States," an overwhelming 89% said that it
was; on November 9-11, this view was unchanged (87%). [4]
Also (as discussed below) support for military action is strong
even though overwhelming majorities have believed that there
is a substantial likelihood of further terrorist strikes against
the US in response to US action.
When polls have mentioned the prospect of employing ground
troops, support is a bit lower but still a strong majority
(now that ground troops are present, however, there is no
new question at the time of writing that mentions this fact).
A November 6 ABC/ Washington Post poll found 71% in support
of "sending a significant number of U.S. ground troops
into Afghanistan" with 26 opposed. The October 7 ABC/Washington
Post poll asked in two questions about "sending a significant
number of US ground troops into Afghanistan." Seventy-five
percent supported it if the goal was overthrowing the Taliban,
while 80% supported it if the goal was to capture or kill
Osama bin Laden and his associates. Earlier, Pew found 82%
supporting "military action, including the use of ground
troops, to retaliate against whoever is responsible"
(September 13-17). [5]
Support for using ground troops has been somewhat lower,
though generally still fairly strong, when the prospect of
large numbers of fatalities or a long war is mentioned. Seventy-seven
percent favored "taking military action, including the
use of ground troops…even if that means that US armed
forces might suffer thousands of casualties" (Pew, September
13-17). Reasked on November 13-19, the question found exactly
the same majority. More recently (November 9-11), 74% told
NBC/Wall Street Journal that the "war on terrorism in
Afghanistan" was "worth risking substantial numbers
of American military casualties." A lesser 60% majority
thought it was "worth risking a large number of US military
casualties" just to effect bin Laden's capture or to
kill him (34% not worth the risk; ABC/Washington Post, November
27). [6]
Several polls took the overwhelming percentage of those
who said they favored military action and then asked a follow
on question that mentioned the possibility of casualties.
Fox found 64% continued to support the current military action
in Afghanistan when a follow on question added "even
if it means thousands of American soldiers' lives will be
lost" (Fox, October 17-18). A September 27 ABC/Washington
Post poll, found 67% of the full sample favored this course
of action even when the follow on question asked about "getting
into a long war with large numbers of US troops killed or
injured." CBS/New York Times (September 20-23) found
72% still supporting action "if that meant that thousands
of American military personnel will be killed"; and,
in a second follow on question 72% expressing support even
if "the United States could be engaged in a war for many
years." Most recently, CNN/USA Today found only 41% (36%
of the full sample) who were willing to say they would "prefer…to
stop using combat forces if the number of US military service
people who are killed becomes too high"; 53% (47% of
the full sample) chose the rather dramatic alternative offered,
"to continue with the use of combat forces regardless
of how many US military service people are killed." While
it is unlikely that the latter phrase really expresses the
views of those who chose it, the fact that a plurality would
accept such far-reaching language does show an unwillingness
to be deflected from the military pursuit of terrorists by
the prospect of casualties. [7a]
Two polls have found somewhat lower support in the face
of casualties. One is a November 6 ABC/Washington Post poll
that started with the 71% who supported "sending a significant
number of US ground troops into Afghanistan" (unlike
the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph that found 9
out of 10 favoring military action per se). When asked the
follow-on question "What if it meant getting into a long
war with large numbers of US troops killed or injured?"
the number reaffirming their willingness to send troops went
as low as 52%. Also, on October 25-28 CBS/New York Times told
respondents to "Suppose several thousand American troops
lose their lives in Afghanistan?" and then asked--not
whether they favored or opposed taking action--but whether
they thought that "the war in Afghanistan would be worth
that cost or not." Sixty-one percent said that it would
be worth it, 27% that it would not, and 12% said they did
not know. (While it is noteworthy that these lower numbers
are more recent, the fact that they are so different from
earlier questions makes them non comparable.) [7b]
Furthermore, public support for the operation has been high
even though most Americans have the expectation that casualties
will be significant. When Newsweek probed public expectations
about what "the number of Americans killed or injured
in the fight against terrorism will be" several days
after bombing began, the median estimate was more than several
hundred and "up to a thousand" (October 11-12).
More recently-November 27-in the wake of the Taliban's rapid
loss of territory, a bare 51% majority still said it was very
(14%) or somewhat (37%) likely "that there will be a
large number of US military casualties in Afghanistan (46%
unlikely; ABC/Washington Post). [7c]
When Fox News asked "how many soldiers…the US
military should be prepared to lose in Afghanistan before
stopping military involvement," only a 12% said "under
a hundred." Ten percent said "between 100 and 1,000,"
7% said several thousand and a 44% plurality replied "as
many as it takes to stop terrorism." (October 17-18).
[7d]
Consistent with the current support for action against al-Qaeda
and the remains of the Taliban, earlier polls that asked about
attacking countries that harbor terrorists found overwhelming
support. Ninety-three percent said that "If the United
States can identify the groups or nations responsible,"
they would support military action (ABC/Washington Post, September
13). Eighty-three percent favored "military action against
any nation found to be aiding or hiding the September 11th
terrorists" (Fox, September 19-20). Seventy-five percent
favored such action "against a nation that knowingly
allowed the terrorists who are responsible for these attacks
to live in their country, even if the country played no role
in the attack" (NBC/Wall Street Journal, September 15-16).
[8]
However, when asked directly whether they believe that a national
government was involved in the September 11 attacks, only
a slight majority (51%) thought this was the case, while 36%
thought the terrorists acted independently (NBC/Wall Street
Journal, September 15-16). (Back in 1993, when terrorists
exploded a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center,
an even smaller number assumed a foreign government was involved.)
[9]
Early polls also showed a strong readiness to take military
action against Afghanistan specifically if the Taliban government
did not turn over or was determined to be harboring bin Laden.
When ABC/Washington Post posed this question on September
13, 85% said they would favor attacking Afghanistan if it
did not turn over bin Laden.The Los Angeles Times found that
82% favored attacking Afghanistan if it was determined that
the Taliban was harboring bin Laden. (September 13-14). [10]
The prospect of going to war did not deter support. On September
27, in a follow-on question, 83% still supported military
action "if that meant getting into a war" (ABC/Washington
Post). CBS/New York Times found 83% willing "if that
meant going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible"-up
from 67% on September 13-14. Eighty-six percent said they
would "describe [the] attacks as an act of war against
the United States" (CNN/USA Today, September 11). [11]
The prospect of large numbers of innocent civilians being
killed has driven support lower, but still the majority in
favor of military force has been quite strong. Asking four
times since the attacks, CBS/New York Times consistently found
two thirds saying that military action "against whoever
is responsible for the attacks" should go forward "even
if it means that innocent people are killed." Likewise,
ABC/Washington Post found on September 27 that 70% supported
military action even "if it meant innocent civilians
in other countries might be hurt or killed." Sixty-five
percent favored "attacking terrorist bases and the countries
that allow or support them even if there is a high likelihood
of civilian casualties" on September 27-28 (Newsweek).
CBS/New York Times used the phrase "What if…many
thousands of innocent civilians may be killed?" and still
found 68% support. On October 7th (while the US bombing was
underway) NBC News found 78% saying that "combating terrorism
is worth risking civilian casualties in Afghanistan."
On October 17-18 Fox used strong language in a follow-on question
("even if it cost the lives of thousands of civilians
in the countries we attack?") and still found 62% of
the full sample in support. [12]
Support Includes Patience
At the time of the first air strikes on Afghanistan, the
public certainly did not feel that action was premature. Eighty-two
percent said the US "had done enough" "to find
a diplomatic solution," and only 14% thought it "should
have done more." [13]
In the same poll, 69% thought the US was doing enough "to
win the support of Muslim people around the world" (not
enough: 18%; ABC/Washington Post). [14]
At the same time, in the four weeks following September
11 the public showed remarkable patience, with a strong majority
saying it was willing to restrain military action to make
sure that the military strikes were properly prepared and
correctly targeted. Asked when military action "should
start," 63% said it "should take as long as necessary
to plan something that will work," while an additional
4% said it should start within the next six months--making
67% looking at a longer time horizon. Ten percent said it
"should start within the next few weeks" and 18%
said "it should have already started" (Newsweek,
September 27-28). In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 81%
thought that the US "should not retaliate until we are
completely sure who is specifically responsible, even if that
means we have to wait"; only 15% preferred to "retaliate…immediately,
even if we are not completely sure who is specifically responsible"
(September 15-16). Similarly, 73% told CNN/USA Today that
"the US should take military action only against terrorist
organizations responsible for the attacks, even if it takes
months to clearly identify them," while 26% said action
should be immediate "against known terrorist organizations,
even if it is unclear which organizations are responsible
for the attacks" (September 14-15) [15] At the same time,
when it comes to bin Laden or his associates, a majority has
not demanded absolute certainty that they are responsible.
Fifty-six percent favored "attacking people suspected
of terrorism against the US like Osama bin Laden even if we're
not sure they're responsible", with 38% opposed (Newsweek,
September 20-21). [16]
Both before and after the air strikes began on October 7,
Americans also expressed the patient expectation that the
operation will be quite extended. Asked in a September 13-17
Pew poll, "Once their mission starts, how long do you
think it will take for US forces to kill or capture those
responsible…Will it be a matter of days, weeks, months
or years?" only 18% thought it would be days (7%) or
weeks (11%), while 69% thought it would be months (31%) or
years (38%). On October 7, the day of the first air strikes,
82% thought this was "the start of a long war" while
just 12% thought it would "be a quick military action"
(ABC/Washington Post).When challenged as to whether their
support would hold up for a long war, large majorities persist
in their views. Seventy-seven percent (72% of the full sample)
supported "the military action even if it means a war
lasting up to five years" (Fox, October 17-18). [17]
The public's expectations for the broader war on terrorism
are also quite extended. When an NBC News poll taken November
9-11 asked about the "duration of a campaign against
terrorism," 58% said that it would take several years,
35% thought it would take one or two years, while just 4%
thought it would last a few months. Similarly, CBS found 65%
expecting "a year or longer" (October 8) and Newsweek
found 76% expecting several years or more for the "struggle
against terrorism" (October 11-12). Fox asked, "Not
just counting Afghanistan, how long do you think the current
war against terrorism will last" and 80% chose the longest
option offered of a year or more (October 31-November 1).
[18a]
In relation to this broader war, a majority expresses readiness
to support a long term effort. Two-thirds described themselves
as "very supportive" of "a war that lasts six
months to two years" with another quarter saying they
would be "somewhat supportive" (Zogby, October 11-13).
[18b]
Past Support for Military Action Against Terrorism
Support for taking strong military action against terrorists
is not entirely new. In the October-November 1998 poll conducted
by Gallup for the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, respondents
heard a list of possible measures to combat international
terrorism. Seventy-four percent favored "US air strikes
against terrorist training camps and other facilities."
More strikingly, though, 57% favored "attacks by US ground
troops" against such camps (34% opposed). This was just
several months after the August 1998 airstrikes against terrorist
training camps in Khost, Afghanistan. At the time of the August
1998 strikes, 73% supported them (Newsweek), and 65% said
they would "generally approve of future attacks using
ground troops to attack terrorist groups or facilities"
(Gallup). [19]
However, support for taking military action against a country
that supported the terrorists is far higher now than it was
in response to a hypothetical question about TWA Flight 800
in August 1996. Told to imagine that "we find out that
the crash…was caused by…[a] group connected to a
country that is known to support terrorism," and that
the suspects were put on trial in the US, respondents were
asked whether and how the US should retaliate against the
country involved. A 40% plurality chose the option of economic
sanctions; 24% wanted military force (10% of this group wanted
these combined with sanctions); and 26% said there should
be no retaliation aimed at an involved country. [20]
|
|
Report Contents
|
