By Steven Kull, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Steven Kull is director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, affiliated with the University of Maryland, and director of the international research project WorldPublicOpinion.org. The views expressed are his own.
President Barack Obama must pull off a difficult balancing act if he wishes to bring the American public around to supporting – or at least not opposing – military action against Syrian targets. But contrary to some reporting, public opinion is not overwhelmingly opposed and is not even fully yet crystallized. Indeed, large numbers say they are not sure and, most significant, polls show that different ways of framing the objective of the action can elicit very different responses.
While the Obama administration has tried to frame the action as limited and narrowly targeted at degrading Syrian capacity to deliver chemical weapons and deterring their use, much analysis and commentary portrays the United States as potentially entering into military conflict with the Syrian government with an implied or explicit objective of influencing the outcome, of the civil war, by those who favor as well as oppose such a move. These different framings poll very differently.
When polls present the action as an attack against the Syrian government, not chemical weapons capabilities, the public tends to be opposed and assumes that this will entangle the United States in a long-term commitment. Opposition is as high as 59 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, for “launching military strikes against the Syrian government.” NBC News found 50 percent opposed to “military action against the Syrian government,” with 42 percent in favor. Pew found 48 percent opposed to “military airstrikes against Syria” with just 29 percent in favor. In the Pew poll, 61 percent said that they believed that such airstrikes would “lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment there.”
However, when the action is framed as a narrowly targeted strike against chemical weapons capabilities, there is plurality support. Asked by NBC News, “if US military action were limited to air strikes…that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks,” half were in support and 44 percent opposed.
More from GPS: Syria's latest sad milestone
Americans appear to be responsive to the principle that the use of chemical weapons requires some type of response, though not necessarily going to war with the Syrian government. In the NBC poll 58 percent agreed with the statement that “The use of chemical weapons by any country is a ‘red line’ – that is, an action that would require a significant US response, including the possibility of military action.”
A May 2013 CNN poll asked: “If the United States were able to present evidence that convinced you that the Syrian government has chemical weapons and used them to kill civilians in that country, do you think the United States would or would not be justified in using military action against the Syrian government?” Even with the target being the Syrian government, when placed in the context of Syrian use of chemical weapons, 66 percent said military action would be justified.
This points to one of Obama’s biggest challenges. Many Americans are not entirely convinced that Syria has used chemical weapons. In the Pew poll, only just over half said they thought “there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.” Twenty-percent said there is not clear evidence and about a quarter were unsure. Those who believe there is such evidence are twice as likely to support military action. If Obama were to solidify the evidence, support would probably solidify as well.
Another factor suppressing public consent is the lack of multilateral support. In the Pew poll, 59 percent said that the United States should “first get a United Nations resolution to use force before taking military action against Syria,” while only 28 percent said it is unnecessary.
Historically, Americans have been quite resistant to using military force without U.N. approval. However, in some cases, such as in Kosovo, support from allies is enough to bring Americans around to supporting action, even without U.N. approval. Support from more European allies than France, and from more Muslim countries than Turkey, would help bridge the gap. But it is unlikely that, without U.N. approval, Americans will ever really be comfortable, even if they come around to accepting it.
The biggest challenge that Obama faces will be the pressures to define the conflict in broader war-fighting terms. In his speech to the public he put the emphasis almost entirely on the need to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons through a limited and targeted action. However, much of the reporting and analysis of the speech has framed the possible action as the United States getting involved in the civil war against the government.
Clearly there are, and will continue to be, pressures to up the ante and to define success as more than deterring the future use of chemical weapons. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already introduced language to the effect of influencing the outcome of the civil war. Governments with an interest in bringing down the al-Assad government, but that are reluctant to support U.S. military action, will sniff at anything less as lack of U.S. leadership.
Ultimately, Obama will need to find his way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the competing forces for non-engagement and large-scale intervention if he is to sustain even a moderate degree of public consent.
Steven you forgot to mention that US has been supporting Al Qaeda in Syria for the last 2 years if not longer, and that the chemical weapons attack was a false flag organised by bandar bush. That's why there's still no evidence that Assad did it. You are willfully ignorant and you deliberately misinform the public.
Through such ommisions you have the blood of innocents in your hands.
The bottom line is Syria's Civil War is not America's Civil War,therefore, other than Syria, no other player (nation) should tamper with the outcome of Syria's Civil War. How would Americans like it, if the British or French intervened in America's Second Civl War (19th Century)? I'm sure Linclon and America told the Queen: :"Hands-Off." If America did allow the British to intervene then perhaps all Americans today would still be bowing down to the British Queen and using the British Pound instead of the US Dollar, Michael Jordan would actually be a Brit, and so on. Syria is Syria. US is US. Therefore, US hands-off Syria.
SQUEEZE A CONFESSION TO POLITICIANS.
CNN ORGANIZATION MAY BE A KILLER?.
COMPLAINT WHY DO ALL THESE POLITICIANS.
YOU OBSERVE THE REVISED AND TECHNOLOGIES OF 50s, YA THINK THESE ARE NOW AFTER MORE THAN 30 YEARS HAVE YOU SAY THAT THESE VICTIMS OF CRIMES, DYING IRRADUIADOS.
WE DID IN THE CIDH.
CNN THAT HAPPEN WITH THE VICTIMS THAT HAVE DIED WHEN ASK THEM.
THE DEAD ARE FOR STUDIES OF THE HUMAN RACE YOU OR PATHOLOGY MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT ONLY HANDLE.
WHY ARE KILLING THESE AGENCIES THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES.
BY WATCHING THESE CRIMES CONCIDERADOS YOU SHOULD HAVE AS GENOCIDE:
TEXTS AND TAKEN TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
BE CAREFUL BECAUSE SOMETIMES JUDGES SAY YOU ARE MANIPULATED.
DENUNCIA A HIJOS Y FAMILIA DE POLITICOS NORTE AMERICANOS POR ROBO VIOLACION ASESINATOS Y NARCOTRAFICO:
Malia Ann, Natasha.
Chelsea Victoria Clinton.
Barbara Pierce Bush, Jenna Hager.
William Henry Gates.
Revisen los crimenes que se encuentran realizando se les ha enviado la informacion de los crimenes de los padres y al FBI se le esta pagando para que no haga la investigacion.
This two bit President will stop at nothing to garner up support for his upcoming dastardly attack on Syria! These alleged "chemical attacks" on civilians probably never took place and now Obama wants to use these for an excuse to get us into this obscene war of his. He wants to do a repeat of Bush's all too successful effort in 1991 to rile up American public opinion against Saddam Hussein of Iraq. He wants to make himself look good to the public!
QUE ES UN CANDIDATO DE MANCHURIAN O CHIVO EXPIATORIO PARA AGENCIAS DE INTELIGENCIAS LO VENDEN – LO TORTURAN MENTALMETE – TRATAN DE ROBARLO – MANIPULAN SUS RELACIONES – Y ORGANIZACIONES COMO EL VATICANO TRATAN QUE SE COMA USTED LOS PECADOS. REVISEMOS EL GUARDIAN – WHAT IS CANDIDATE A SCAPEGOAT MANCHURIAN OR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SOLD YOU – TORTURE MENTAL – TRYING TO STEAL – HANDLED THEIR RELATIONS – VATICAN AND ORGANIZATIONS AS YOU TRY TO EAT THE SINS . Let's check the GUARDIAN.
Sidney Gottlieb, who has died aged 80, was everything you have dreamed of in the mad scientist in a pulp novel about the CIA. Except that he was real. He was even, by common account, a rather nice man.
Gottlieb's most notable feat was to introduce the world to lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD. What started as a deeply secret programme for Cold War mind control became the sacrament of the 1960s. He did not discover the drug. That honour belonged to Dr Albert Hoffman, who in April 1953 accidentally stumbled on its mind-altering potential. He was looking for a circulatory stimulant when he absorbed some LSD through his fingers and went for the first 'acid trip'.
Sidney Gottlieb , quien murió 80 años de edad, era todo lo que ha soñado en el científico loco en una novela de la pulpa de la CIA. Sólo que él era real. Incluso fue , por cuenta común, un hombre bastante agradable.
Más notable hazaña de Gottlieb era introducir el mundo de la dietilamida del ácido lisérgico , más conocido como LSD. Lo que comenzó como un programa profundamente secreto para el control mental Guerra Fría se convirtió en el sacramento de la década de 1960 . No descubrió la droga. Ese honor le pertenecía al Dr. Albert Hoffman , quien en abril de 1953 tropezó accidentalmente en su potencial de alteración mental . Buscaba un estimulante circulatorio cuando absorbió parte LSD entre los dedos y se fue para la primera ' acid trip ' .
ORGANIZACIONES RELIGIOSAS GENETICAS MEDICAS EJERCITOS TODAS IRRADIANDO USTEDES CREEN QUE PUDIESE HAVER MANIPULACION.
America need also think business, not only military. While protecting innocent Syrian civilians is utmost moral and wise, military airstrikes against Syria target for the benefit of other countries is not what America needs. USA also needs to go in with American business, and not let Asian corporations rule.
If a strike could destroy Assad's chemical weapons, it would also degrade its military capabilities. Then the UN should opt for a ceasefire; topple the Assad regime and have key members extradited to the Hague for war crimes; hold a referendum for the Syrians to decide whether they want to stay together or break up.
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,855 other followers