Nobody's war
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Nobody's war
I told you the other day thet the Libya War -- that's what we're calling it here at Attytood -- is less popular, at the outset, than anything before it, and now here's more numbers to back that up, from Gallup, which I consider to be the gold standard for polling:
The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades.
Americans showed the highest level of support for the 2001 military action in Afghanistan that was a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Americans also widely supported U.S. airstrikes against Iraq in 1993 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Support for the current involvement in Libya is also much lower than support for U.S. airstrikes against Libya in 1986 in response to the Libyan bombing of a German nightclub that killed two American servicemen.
What's most interesting to me is that if you check out the chart at top, you'll see that four of the five least popular wars were polled when Democrats were in the Oval Office (the Somalia numbers are hard to guage, since the poll was taken while Bill Clinton was president in 1993, although the action there was initiated by George H.W. Bush in his lame duck final days, with a rationale that sounded very much like R2P....but I digress.) The GOP president on the list -- Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983 -- presumably is there because a) it was so recent after Vietnam and b) even your average disengaged citizen could see that invading Grenada was kind of dumb.
So what is it about "Democrat wars" -- as Bob Dole once called them, including "Democrat war" World War II -- that leads to lower poll numbers. Is it because a) liberals are more anti-war and more likely to voice disapproval even when their guy is in the White House, while normally hawkish Republicans won't back military action by a Democrat (that's my broad opinion) or b) "Democrat wars" are stupid (which I'm guessing a lot of the commenters are going to argue below)?
Discuss.
Maybe the Democrat Presidents do a less then stellar job communicating the need for military action. I thought Obama was a great communicator?— Captain Terrific- My guess on the lackluster support for the current war in Libya is two-fold. One, like Grenada, America has been at war for 10 years now, so we are generally war-weary. Americans are not in the mood to chase around another Middle-eastern despot. Two, which is my reason for criticizing the mission, is that we can't afford it. Americans are focused on economic issues, especially the irresponsible spending of government. Spending billions of dollars we don't have on military operations isn't helping our fiscal health. If you don't like those reasons, there's always racism.— jmc
- Another possibility is that Democrats are less likely to look at polls in order to make decisions that affect national security.
Unlikely, but possible.— Talking point sleuth - highly unlikely. — savetherepublic
- Any more unlikely than the oft-heard delusional meme that Bush invaded Iraq without regard to public opinion? — Talking point sleuth
- Good points, jmc -- the cost is probably one reason the American people have also lost their appetite for the war in Afghanistan, although that fact is roundly ignored inside the Beltway.— will
- The chart has the wrong date for the first Gulf war (Iraq) -- it was January 17 1991 (GHW Bush), not one week before Clinton's inauguration in 1993.— gordonminor
- Maybe it means Desert Storm vs. Desert Shield. Doesn't matter, this whole premise is a stupid analysis. — tomhanks
"liberals are more anti-war and more likely to voice disapproval even when their guy is in the White House" .... I think that theory is voided by the overwhelming support for both of Bush's wars. Liberals were against Bush from day 1 (as conservatives were against Obama) yet the country supported Bush's actions at least initially. I think in addition to jmc's very valid points that not only are Americans tired of war at this point but even when they initially support an action they expect almost immediate results - our culture as a whole suffers from ADD.— bird11- Let's face it, the USA is an empire and our President has imperial powers to wage war without the consent of Congress or the people. How did we come to this? This has been true whether the President is Republican or Democrat.— Mr_Cool
- Based on the numbers in these polls the only military action which hasn't had the support of the American people appears to be the current situation in Libya. — bird11
- ///So what is it about "Democrat wars" -- as Bob Dole once called them, including "Democrat war" World War II///
It's a bit disingenuous to put WWII in here when referring to the lower numbers, since WWII isn't part of the poll. I suspect this "democrat war" would have very high approval. Also missing from the poll was Vietnam and Korea.
By the way, Will, the link for "now here's more numbers to back that up, from Gallup, " no-workey.— General Turgidson - If you look at three of the lowest levels of support (Libya, Kosovo, & Haiti) they are also actions where the U.S. was led into war by the international community and not our President. While liberals and Democrat Presidents seem to crave the approval of the "international community", I think the polls show American citizens generally support actions based on U.S. interest and not the interest of the U.N.— bird11
- You're right on the money. I'm a definite hawk on foreign policy, but I just don't see why this ought to be a priority for us. I view this as us further subsidizing the foreign policy of England and France. We already do almost all the serious R&D for NATO, as well as supplying the bulk of the actual equipment, now we have to enter into their wars not even 10 years after France refused to even offer diplomatic cover?
"The chart has the wrong date for the first Gulf war (Iraq)" . . . . I think the date refers to when the poll was taken, making the comparisons even more meaningless than Will's premise. Nobody really approves of war, per se. The issue is whether they approve of the stated goals, and then whether they believe the war is the best way to meet those goals. Let's face it, "humanitarian" concerns are low on the list of your average American's priorities, at least in terms of committing troops. But add an element of "fear", and bingo! Obama needs to scare us, if it's poll numbers you want.
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
