Today, the politics of Afghanistan are Obama’s problem, and what he said during the campaign now gives him much less room to maneuver in Afghanistan, especially politically.
A Zogby Interactive poll of nearly 2,300 likely voters conducted Nov. 4-6 reinforces the dilemma Obama now faces with Afghanistan.
Read John Zogby’s column at Forbes.com that discusses the latest public opinion on the War in Afghanistan and finds several similarities to the Vietnam War.
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?
In his recent speech to the United Nations, President Obama said, “yearning for peace is universal”. However, according to Zogby Interactive data, a majority of Americans believe that, at the very least, yearning for war is, likewise, universal. According to our July 2008 poll of American adults, 58% of adults agree that “waging war is a part of human nature”, compared to 32% who disagree. Although Republicans are much more likely to hold this view than Democrats (75% vs. 41%), First Globals™ (18 – 29 year olds), the age-group most likely to have voted for Obama, is also the generation most likely (63%) to believe that humans are naturally violent.
This runs contrary to the view of young adults as naïve and idealistic and shows them to be in some ways perhaps more cynical than older generations such as President Obama’s. Do you think that First Globals’ apparent cynicism could play a role in the First Globals’ support for the President?
Fresh on heels of President Obama’s first official meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iranian government recently announced that it test-fired a missile with a 1,200 mile range. According to the New York Times, this missile is “within striking distance of Israel and of American bases in the Persian Gulf. Though the Iranian leader did not allude to any specific target beyond Iran’s borders in the news agency account.”
We’ve also been asking about Iran in our surveys, most recently in our Top Question Tuesday survey consisting of user-submitted questions. Our question asked, “Some people believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have said that an Iranian nuclear capability is unacceptable. Would you support or oppose a US attack on Iran to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon program after diplomacy had run its course, even if it meant a wider war in the Middle East?”.
Overall, 57% of those surveyed either strongly supported or somewhat supported a US attack, while 36% either somewhat opposed or strongly opposed an attack and 7% were not sure. 87% of Republicans strongly or somewhat supported an attack , compared to 47% of Democrats . Likewise, 87% of conservatives strongly or somewhat supported an attack, compared to 44% of moderates and 25% of liberals. Younger people were also less likely to strongly or somewhat support an attack than older people - 47% of those 18-29 felt this way, compared to 59% of those 30-49, 59% of those 50-64, and 62% of those over 65.
What (if anything) do you think is most likely to happen between the US and Iran? And would you support or oppose a US attack on Iran to stop development of Iran’s nuclear weapons, if diplomacy was no longer an option?
What gives one country right to intervene in other country’s internal affairs? Is it a pursuit of self-interest or protection of the indigenous population? Zogby data show that Americans of different ages significantly disagree in this respect.
For example, First Globals™ are much more likely than other age groups to say that “protection of human rights” gives America a right to intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, with 48% of First Globals™ choosing that as a legitimate reason to intervene compared to only 23% of Americans over 65. They are also the generation least likely to say that “protection of America’s own interests” gives the U.S. a right to intervene in other countries’ affairs, with only 28% of them recognizing such right compared to 44% of Americans over 65.
It appears that First Globals have less respect for country’s boundaries – feeling, to a lesser extent than other generations, that countries are not allowed to act in their own self-interest or ignore what is happening in other places. If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. Do you believe that that will, in fact, happen? And, in your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?
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?
Is the USA supposed to seek other countries’ approval before it engages itself militarily in international affairs? If you ask a 100 Americans say you can expect about 58 to answer negatively. Those disagreeing with them might find comforting thoughts in the fact that youngest Americans are most likely to say yes.
Thus, our data show that First Globals are the age group least likely to approve of the U.S. taking action on its own. For example, they are more likely to believe that UN Security Council approval is needed to wage war against another country. More than a third (38%) of First Globals would seek UN approval, compared to about a quarter of all other age groups. In roughly the same numbers, First Globals would seek the approval of NATO countries before taking military action against another country.
However, while multilateralism is more prevalent among First Globals than other age groups, unilateralism is still the most popular option. A plurality of First Globals would not seek UN Security Council (44%) or approval of NATO members (43%) for military action against another country.
People usually give two types of justification for unilateralism. One is the idea that U.S. can do it alone because it, like any other country, has a right to act in its own best interest. The other is the belief that the history of freedom and democracy in the U.S. makes it morally superior to other counties, and therefore gives it a moral right to do it alone – a right that other countries do not have. Do you believe in unilateralism; and if so, why?
The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream
Available Now
Order your copy today from one of these retailers:
Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Indie Bound, Powell’s, Borders, Random House
John Zogby invites you to be part of the The Way We’ll Be
Notes
"Unless otherwise noted, all data used on this blog comes from various surveys conducted by Zogby International. Please contact us with any additional questions relating to survey data and methodology."
Loading ...