Americans Overwhelmingly Say 'No' to US Military Intervention in Syria
Survey shows overwhelming majority are not enticed by another war in foreign land
Despite a recent clamor within Washington policy circles and troublesome commentary in the US media regarding further military intervention in Syria's ongoing civil war, a new survey of US opinion shows little appetite for another war of choice in a region far from home.
The poll, conducted by CBS News and the New York Times, shows 62 percent of Americans believe "the U.S. does not have a responsibility to intervene in Syria."
As CBS News reports:
Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to say the United States does not have a responsibility to intervene in the fighting in Syria, while 24 percent of Americans think the United States does have a responsibility to do something about the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups there - a four point increase since last month.
Most Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to get involved in the conflict in Syria.
Progressive foreign policy analysts, for their part, have been consistent in their warnings against such involvement.
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says that a growing push for war in Syria should remind US citizens of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was was largely fueled by an uncritical press and a barrage of false information by some of the same power brokers now pushing for intervention in Syria.
"Now, we don't know that there is any fake information going on [in Syria]," Bennis said in an interview with Al-Jazeera. "But we certainly know that there is no valid information yet. So I think it is way premature to be talking about whether this should result in a 'game changing' scenario--whether it be boots on the ground, or helping the rebels with more weapons."
And Seumas Milne, foreign affairs columnnist at the Guardian, has described how "intervention by the western powers" could "increase the death toll," warning the possibility of "blowback" in Syria is extremely high and could push the region into "a still more devastating conflict."
Simply adding more arms to the region, Bennis argues, will make things worse, not better.
"We need to move towards demilitarizing, deescalating the number of weapons of all kinds that are flowing into the region, not sending in more weapons and escalating the civil war," she said. "Killing more Syrians on any side with conventional weapons in a so-called search for alleged chemical weapons that may or may not even exist...this is just making everything worse."
Watch the full Bennis interview below:
_______________________
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Despite a recent clamor within Washington policy circles and troublesome commentary in the US media regarding further military intervention in Syria's ongoing civil war, a new survey of US opinion shows little appetite for another war of choice in a region far from home.
The poll, conducted by CBS News and the New York Times, shows 62 percent of Americans believe "the U.S. does not have a responsibility to intervene in Syria."
As CBS News reports:
Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to say the United States does not have a responsibility to intervene in the fighting in Syria, while 24 percent of Americans think the United States does have a responsibility to do something about the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups there - a four point increase since last month.
Most Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to get involved in the conflict in Syria.
Progressive foreign policy analysts, for their part, have been consistent in their warnings against such involvement.
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says that a growing push for war in Syria should remind US citizens of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was was largely fueled by an uncritical press and a barrage of false information by some of the same power brokers now pushing for intervention in Syria.
"Now, we don't know that there is any fake information going on [in Syria]," Bennis said in an interview with Al-Jazeera. "But we certainly know that there is no valid information yet. So I think it is way premature to be talking about whether this should result in a 'game changing' scenario--whether it be boots on the ground, or helping the rebels with more weapons."
And Seumas Milne, foreign affairs columnnist at the Guardian, has described how "intervention by the western powers" could "increase the death toll," warning the possibility of "blowback" in Syria is extremely high and could push the region into "a still more devastating conflict."
Simply adding more arms to the region, Bennis argues, will make things worse, not better.
"We need to move towards demilitarizing, deescalating the number of weapons of all kinds that are flowing into the region, not sending in more weapons and escalating the civil war," she said. "Killing more Syrians on any side with conventional weapons in a so-called search for alleged chemical weapons that may or may not even exist...this is just making everything worse."
Watch the full Bennis interview below:
_______________________
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Despite a recent clamor within Washington policy circles and troublesome commentary in the US media regarding further military intervention in Syria's ongoing civil war, a new survey of US opinion shows little appetite for another war of choice in a region far from home.
The poll, conducted by CBS News and the New York Times, shows 62 percent of Americans believe "the U.S. does not have a responsibility to intervene in Syria."
As CBS News reports:
Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to say the United States does not have a responsibility to intervene in the fighting in Syria, while 24 percent of Americans think the United States does have a responsibility to do something about the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups there - a four point increase since last month.
Most Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to get involved in the conflict in Syria.
Progressive foreign policy analysts, for their part, have been consistent in their warnings against such involvement.
Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says that a growing push for war in Syria should remind US citizens of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was was largely fueled by an uncritical press and a barrage of false information by some of the same power brokers now pushing for intervention in Syria.
"Now, we don't know that there is any fake information going on [in Syria]," Bennis said in an interview with Al-Jazeera. "But we certainly know that there is no valid information yet. So I think it is way premature to be talking about whether this should result in a 'game changing' scenario--whether it be boots on the ground, or helping the rebels with more weapons."
And Seumas Milne, foreign affairs columnnist at the Guardian, has described how "intervention by the western powers" could "increase the death toll," warning the possibility of "blowback" in Syria is extremely high and could push the region into "a still more devastating conflict."
Simply adding more arms to the region, Bennis argues, will make things worse, not better.
"We need to move towards demilitarizing, deescalating the number of weapons of all kinds that are flowing into the region, not sending in more weapons and escalating the civil war," she said. "Killing more Syrians on any side with conventional weapons in a so-called search for alleged chemical weapons that may or may not even exist...this is just making everything worse."
Watch the full Bennis interview below:
_______________________