|
Global Issues >> Terrorism
Terrorism
[ Last
revised January 14, 2002 ]
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.
Support for Large-Scale
Effort Against Terrorism in General
Support for a large-scale effort to fight terrorism, while
not as strong as support for acting against the perpetrators
of the September 11th attacks, is nonetheless a majority.
When it is specified that such an effort would be multilateral
and have UN approval support becomes overwhelming, but when
it is specified that the operation would be the US acting
on its own support becomes a plurality.
Support for Multilateral
Approaches
A near-unanimous majority favors the US dealing with the
problem of terrorism in a multilateral fashion. Overwhelming
majorities favor seeking UN Security Council approval for
military action. Working through NATO elicits a positive,
though milder response. Contrary to US policy, a very strong
majority has favored including other countries' forces in
the military action in Afghanistan, even though the US would
be constrained by the need to make joint decisions. A majority
prefers for the US to act multilaterally in responding to
the problems of post-war Afghanistan.
Empowering the UN in
War on Terrorism
An overwhelming majority favors having the UN playing a
stronger role than it has in the fight against terrorism,
including strengthening international laws on terrorism and
the means to enforce them. Overwhelming majorities support
the UN Security Council being able to require UN members to
allow a UN-sponsored police force to enter countries and conduct
investigations, to freeze the assets of suspected terrorist
groups, to provide intelligence on them, to arrest them, and
if the member country refuses to do so, to send in an international
military force to capture suspected terrorists. A strong majority
favors using international judicial bodies for trying terrorists,
with a plurality even favoring trying bin Laden before an
International Criminal Tribunal over a federal court in New
York.
Military and Non-Military
Means for Addressing Terrorism
When assessing the effectiveness of various means for addressing
terrorism, the public has shown at least as much support for
nonmilitary means--such as cutting off terrorists' funds,
enhancing intelligence, strengthening international law, and
building goodwill toward the US--as it has for military means.
While it appears the public even believes non-military means
will generally be more effective than military efforts in
preventing future terror attacks, an overwhelming majority
nonetheless feels that a failure to take any military action
in response to the September 11 attacks will increase the
chances of terrorist attacks in the future.
Perception of Risk
of Terrorist Attacks
An overwhelming majority believes that there is a significant
likelihood of further terrorist attacks on US soil and expresses
concern and worry about the prospect. About half worry that
a close friend or relative will be the victim of an attack,
but only a minority are concerned that it would happen in
their community. The onset of military action in Afghanistan
has not led to notable changes in these attitudes. Though
traditional attacks, such as truck bombs are seen as the most
likely terrorist threat, the majority believes that terrorists
have access to weapons of mass destruction and are likely
to use them at some point. Of these weapons, chemical and
biological weapons are seen as a greater danger than nuclear
arms, and concern about a chemical or biological attack has
grown over the past weeks. Americans have been fairly pessimistic
about the prospect of eliminating terrorist attacks for some
time.
Emotional Response
to September 11
An overwhelming majority of Americans has had a
strong emotional response to the September 11 terrorist attacks,
with nearly all Americans saying that they have followed the
story closely and a strong majority saying they wept or felt
depressed in response to the events. Substantial minorities
reported trouble concentrating and sleeping. Fears and concerns
about the possibility of terrorist attacks-which had been
rising over the last decade--showed a sharp upward movement,
higher than the response to earlier events, such as the Gulf
War or the Oklahoma City bombing.
|
