In a recent Zogby Interactive survey of adults nationwide, respondents were asked to choose a statement that came closest to their view on the War on Terror. About 45% of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on addressing anti-American sentiment in the world, compared to 37% of the respondents who strongly or somewhat agreed that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on using military force. About 18% of the respondents chose “none of the above” or “not sure.”

Significant differences were found between ideological groups. Seventy-seven percent of liberals are in favor of focusing on anti-American sentiment, compared to 18% of conservatives who think so. Moderates are leaning towards liberals on this issue; sixty-one percent of them believe that dealing with anti-American sentiment should be the priority. Around two-thirds (67%) of conservatives believe that the focus should be on using military force, compared to 22% of moderates and 4% of liberals who believe so.

Where do you stand on this issue? If you believe that anti-American sentiment in the world is the primary issue here, what do you think should be done to address it? If you think that our efforts in the War on Terror should focus on using military force, what do you think would be the best course of action for the government?

Grace military, peace, politics, war military, war, zogby

Why do wars happen?  Power, land, money, oil, the girl, or is it simply that bad guys attack the good guys?  Those over 65 are particularly likely to agree with the latter. According to Zogby data, 31% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree with the statement “more often than not, wars are a conflict between good and evil” compared to 51% of people 65 years or older.  The other age groups fall somewhere in between.

This suggests that First Globals™ might be less likely to perceive international conflicts in black and white.  Interestingly, Zogby data on humanitarian interventions suggest that when First Globals™ do perceive a conflict as a conflict between good and evil, they are more likely to demand military action to rectify it.

Does this propensity of First Globals™ to act for humanitarian reasons make them easier to be manipulated to serve causes they don’t fully understand? Or are they protected from it by their tendency to see the world in shades of gray? What is your view?

Zeljka first globals, future, global issues, international, military, peace, war first globals, international, military, war, zogby

One of the biggest criticisms of President Bush’s foreign policy was the deterioration of our relationship with the European Union (remember “freedom fries”)? Consequently, one of the biggest promises of President Barack Obama’s campaign was that he will put our relationship with European on a better footing. President Obama seemed to have hope for more European commitment in Afghanistan and also more activity in stimulating European economies thus strengthening aggregate demand.

However, recent developments on  the eve of the G20 meeting amd NATO and USA-EU summits have put some question marks on whether this will happen. In the words of Stratfor analysts: “Europe and Obama loved each other, but for very different reasons. The Europeans thought that the United States under Obama would ask less, while Obama thought the Europeans would give more.”

So far, Germany appears opposed to increasing deficit spending. The  EU hopes to transfer at least some responsibility for a growing problem of East European banks to IMF – i.e Washington. And calls for less American-centered international regulation are becoming stronger. Even Czech (ex) prime-minister Topolanek has called President Obama’s plan a “road to hell”.

What are your expectations of the G-20 and NATO summits? Do you expect that our relationship with Europe will become better or it will stay the same?

Zeljka future, global issues, international, military, peace, politics international, Obama