Public Agenda:Anguish Over Iraq Shakes Public’s Faith in Military Solutions
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 4, 2007
8:45 AM
|
CONTACT: Public Agenda
Email: Michael Hamill Remaley or Claudia Feurey at
Phone:
212-686-6610
|
| |
|
Anguish Over Iraq Shakes Public’s Faith in Military Solutions
|
| |
NEW YORK CITY - In a joint online release today, Public Agenda and
its partner Foreign Affairs made public new results from the fourth
edition of the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The new
research provides striking evidence that Americans' anguish over Iraq
is spilling over to other areas of foreign policy - with serious
potential effects on the policy options available to current and future
leaders.
This latest Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index
(CFPI) - which tracks attitudes on more than 110 items covering nearly
all major aspects of foreign policy - along with its Anxiety Indicator
based on five key "leading indicators" provide mounting evidence of
widespread public doubt about the country's international position.
Using a scale of 1 to 200, Public Agenda's Anxiety Indicator gauges
Americans' anxiousness or contentment with the nation's foreign policy.
The Spring 2007 Anxiety Indicator stands at 137, well above the neutral
mid-point of 100 and a seven point increase since September 2006.
"The Anxiety Indicator is moving closer to the 150 mark, the 'red zone'
that to me would signal a full blown crisis of public confidence," said
Public Agenda Chairman Daniel Yankelovich.
Analysis and data for questions asked in all four editions of the CFPI are available at: www.publicagenda.org/CFPI4
Anxiety Indicator Results
The 137 reading on the Anxiety Indicator is a composite score,
reflecting the public's concern on multiple dimensions of foreign
policy. The indicator reflects a majority view among the public that
they're worried about the nation's position in the world, that the
country faces increasing danger abroad, U.S. policy is on the wrong
track and that the United States is viewed negatively abroad.
To take the five indicator questions point-by-point: - 84 percent are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs (32 percent worry "a lot")
-
82 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United
States and its people (48 percent say "much more dangerous")
-
73 percent say the United States is not doing a good job as a leader in
creating a more peaceful and prosperous world (34 percent say a "poor"
job)
- 68 percent believe the rest of the world sees the United States negatively (34 percent say "very negatively")
- 67 percent say U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track
Iraq and the Spill-Over Effect
Public sentiments on so many of the CFPI questions can only be
described as dispirited, and overwhelmingly negative opinions on the
efficacy of military options can't help but impact future decisions
made by our country's leaders. Despite majority belief (60 percent)
that the United States has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq,
strong majorities (70 percent) favor withdrawal from Iraq. Americans
give the government low marks across the board on its foreign policy
efforts. -
73 percent now give low grades (C, D or F) to the U.S. for succeeding
in Iraq (32 percent give an F); up from 57 percent in June 2005 (F's up
from 16 percent in June 2005)
- 61 percent say America's
safety from terrorism does not depend on our success in Iraq and 70
percent say we should leave within the next 12 months (19 percent say
immediately)
- 59 percent say they do not trust the government to tell the truth on foreign affairs, up ten points since September 2006
The public's Iraq frustration is affecting other areas of foreign
policy, which is likely to decrease the government's room to maneuver.
- The public's belief that the government can do "a lot" about a host of foreign policy issues is dropping.
- Only 13 percent say there is a lot the government can do to create a democratic Iraq (down from 20 percent in September 2006)
-
Only 24 percent say there is a lot the government can do on preventing
the spread of weapons of mass destruction (down from 32 percent in
September 2006)
- Only 36 percent say there is a lot the
government can do on preventing another major terrorist attack against
the United States (down from 45 percent in September 2006)
- Public support for military solutions in many scenarios is virtually off the table for most of the public.
- In dealing with Iran, for example, support for possible military action is in the single digits (8 percent).
-
Presented with a list of proposals for strengthening our nation's
security, "attacking countries that develop weapons of mass
destruction" was ranked at the very bottom (only 17 percent say it
would strengthen our security "a lot;" compared to two items at the top
of the list: 63 percent for improving intelligence operations and 55
percent for becoming less energy dependent)
-
70 percent say that criticism that the United States has been too quick
to resort to war is at least partly justified (31 percent say it's
"totally justified"). On what the government must do to fight
terrorism, 67 percent say we should put more emphasis on diplomatic and
economic methods, while 27 percent say more emphasis on military efforts
-
84 percent say "initiating military force only when we have the support
of our allies" should be important to our foreign policy (51 percent
say "very important")
"Many recent polls have said that
Americans are disillusioned with the Iraq war, but this research goes
deeper," said Foreign Afffairs Managing Editor Gideon Rose. "We are
seeing the public seriously inclined to limit America's foreign policy
options because they no longer trust Washington's judgment."
Mounting Concerns on Nuclear Proliferation
Perhaps because of the recent developments in negotiations with North
Korea, the public has not given lower grades in this edition of the
CFPI to how well the United States is doing on stopping countries from
getting nuclear weapons (38 percent give an A or B, 36 percent gave an
A or B in September 2006). But stable perceptions of performance have
had no apparent impact on increasing worries about nuclear
proliferation.
Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the possibility of
unfriendly nations becoming nuclear powers (41 percent worry "a lot").
Asked about foreign policy priorities, the public puts preventing the
spread of nuclear weapons at the very top of the list. Seventy-five
percent say it should be "very important" to our nation's foreign
policy. And yet there may be a certain fatalism in the public's mood -
63 percent say it is unrealistic to expect that the U.S. government
will be able to prevent more countries from developing nuclear weapons.
United States Should Lead on Global Warming
Seventy-five percent of Americans say they worry about global warming
(41 percent worry "a lot"), up from 68 percent in September 2006 (33
percent worried "a lot" in September 2006). The public believes this is
a problem that calls for United States leadership, with 65 percent
saying it is realistic to expect that international cooperation can
reduce global warming (up from 58 percent who said it was realistic in
September 2006). The public considers this a high priority for U.S.
foreign policy. And seventy percent say there is at least something the
government can do to reduce global warming (34 percent say there is "a
lot" it can do).
Say it Again, Public
The public has been remarkably consistent over the past two years in
the CFPI questions on what should be most important to our nation's
foreign policy and what policy options would strengthen our nation's
security the most. As in previous editions of the CFPI, topping the
list of policy options to strengthen the nation's security are:
improving intelligence operations (63 percent say it would enhance our
security "a great deal") and increasing energy independence (55 percent
say "a great deal").
In this edition of the CFPI, a new item on preventing the spread of
nuclear weapons was added to the battery of questions on what
strategies should be most important to our foreign policy, and it came
out on top, over the previous, but still popular "cooperating with
other countries on problems like the environment or control of
diseases" and "helping other countries when they are struck by natural
disasters" Seventy-five percent say preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons should be "very important" to our foreign policy, 72 percent
say international cooperation on the environment and the like should be
"very important" and 68 percent say helping out on natural disasters
should be "very important."
By comparison, "actively creating
democracies in other countries" has consistently ranked at or near the
bottom of list of strategies, and is now thought to be "very important"
by only 17 percent of the public. This is not surprising given that
nearly 3 in 4 (74%) now agree "democracy is something countries only
come to on their own" (compared to 58 percent in January 2006).
"When you listen to the whole of what the public is telling us in the
CFPI, you hear a kind of collective cry of exasperation that comes with
what they see as an identity-crushing policy failure," Public Agenda
President Ruth A. Wooden said. "The public has come to the conclusion
that military solutions aren't the answer, they're talking about the
strategies they think would work and are feeling very frustrated that
other methods aren't being employed more effectively."
Methodology
Public Agenda's study probes much deeper than typical polls, examining
core strategies and beliefs about America's role in the world and how
much the public holds the government accountable on specific issues.
Supported with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
and the Ford Foundation, the index covers more than 25 different issues
through more than 110 different survey questions and has been issued
biannually. Public Agenda's foreign policy survey has been fielded four
times, first in June 2005, again in January 2006 and Septebmer 2006,
and most recently March 2007. Public Agenda interviews a nation-wide
random sample of adult Americans to track the changing state of mind of
average Americans toward foreign policy - what worries people most,
where they support or resist present foreign policy, what their
priorities are, and what foreign policy initiatives make sense to them.
Sampling: This fourth iteration of the study was based on interviews
with a national random sample of 1,013 adults over the age of 18
between February 21 and March 4, 2007. It covered over 25 major policy
areas in more than 130 different survey questions. The margin of error
for the overall sample is plus or minus three percentage points. Full
survey results can be found at www.publicagenda.org or
www.confidenceinforeignpolicy.org.
Since 1922, the Council on
Foreign Relations has published Foreign Affairs, America's most
influential publication on international affairs and foreign policy.
Foreign Affairs has a circulation of 140,000 and was ranked #1 in
influence by U.S. opinion leaders in last year's national study of
publications conducted by Erdos & Morgan, the premier
business-to-business research firm. Inevitably, articles published in
Foreign Affairs shape the political dialogue for months and years to
come. www.foreignaffairs.org
Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan
public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of
State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and
author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public
opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission
is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public
Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage
citizens in discussing complex policy issues.
### |
|
Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
