New Page: Public Opinion Polls

Recently, I have become interested in the effect of Foreign Policy on the 2012 elections, and thus have been searching out a lot of polling numbers.  I have begun to compile them on a blog page here, located on the top left hand corner of the site.  So far, I have only collected polls taken during the Obama Administration, and have looked at surveys done by Pew Research, ABC News, and Gallup Polls.

Please read, and if you have any polls you would like added, put a link in the comments section.
Here is a nice inforgraphic from a recent poll on Afghanistan

For the full list of polls so far, continue reading, or look at the page on the left

"The Lebanonization of Syria: New Observer Delegation Report

Source: University of Texas

Today a new report on Syria came to my attention (h/t Syria Comment), published in January 2012 report by the "French Centre for Intelligence Research (CF2R)" and the "International Centre for Research and Study on Terrorism and Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT)."  These groups sent a delegation of four experts to Syria between 12/3/11 and 12/10/11, to interview leader on the ground and gather evidence.  Of note, their mission ended when the Arab League Observer Mission began.
     Their 55 pg. report, titled "The Lebanonization of Syria," portrays a state that is cracking apart along social and religious fault lines, to the dismay of a majority of the Syrian population that desires stability above all else.  The report gives a good timeline of the 2011 uprising, detailing both the actions of the government security forces and the armed opposition, as well as the protest centers in Homs and Deraa.  Their thesis is that violence by both sides is working in sync to radicalize the crisis.  When the Syrian security forces were overly brutal at the beginning of the protests in March 2011, it sent the opposition to arms, and then then when Assad backed off, it only encouraged opposition fighters to become more violent.  The report states that as early as March 18, three days after protests began:

Military weapons were spotted not only in Deraa, but also in Homs, Hama and in different towns near the Turkish border.  However, for three months, demonstrations were mostly peaceful...after several weeks of revolt and repressions, many peaceful demonstrators were arrested, leaving the streets to the more radical elements.  The population then observed the appearance of armed demonstraots with support from abroad...As of June 2011, the movement began to radicalize in most of the centers of protest and the activists began to demand the resignation of Bachar al-Assad and the end of the regime. According to many witness reports from among representatives of the domestic opposition and leaders of the religious communities, after the appearance of these armed activists in the summer of 2011, demonstrations were no longer peaceful and protesters were actively seeking direct confrontation with the security forces and started making use of their military hardware.

     The report also highlights the extensive anti-Assad propaganda being put out by Arab, Gulf-funded media (such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya), as well as U.S. and U.K. media, which omits facts on the ground, and in some cases even has faked video evidence.  "The media coverage is overly one-sided and appears to fit the dominant geopolitical agenda, that of the American neoconservatives who have divided the Middle East between 'moderate Arab nations' (Egypt, Jordan and the oil-rich monarchies) and the 'forces of the axis of evil' (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas)," the report states.  In the words of Melkite Patriarch Gregorios III, a Christian leader in Damascus, "the position of the international press and foreign players is to act as if absolutely nothing true or good could come from the Damascus regime, and to make them responsible for every problem.  This has made Syrian public opinion turn against Western countries and their journalists."  Asma Kaftaro, the director of the Sunni Women's Organization, notes that "no international media organization covers the demonstrations against foreign intervention which take place frequently," and that "the harshest criticism of the regime comes from abroad, from the international press, far more than from inside the country."

For much more information, please read the full report below.       The Lebanonization of Syria

Republicans moving away from pro-war message

Following up on last weeks post on the public's increasing anti-war views, The Hill recently published an article on the GOP's move away from unchecked bellicosity.  Titled "Republicans shift from McCain on War," the article details the divide growing between the hawkish wing of the party that is calling for an extended mission in Afghanistan and intervention in Syria, led by Senator's John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the numerous Congressmen who have not signed onto these positions:

In the case of the surge in Iraq, Republicans followed McCain, the party’s standard-bearer in the 2008 election. But they haven’t been as quick to follow him on Libya last year, and on Syria and Afghanistan this year.

This extends to the presidential race, where Newt Gingrich this week questioned whether the mission in Afghanistan was “doable,” and Rick Santorum suggested faster withdrawal should be a possibility. 

Eaglen said McCain’s call for staying on the current course in Afghanistan “is an increasingly solitary position in this town, not just among members but also among pundits and movement leaders... 

On Syria, McCain has constantly been out front calling for arming the rebels and an international coalition launching air strikes, as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has continued to attack opposition forces.

The Obama administration has opposed getting involved militarily, and Republicans have also been reluctant.

“We should be extremely skeptical about actions that could commit the United States to a military intervention,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, at a hearing on Syria.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) warned that aligning with the opposition could be joining with groups like al-Qaeda.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told The Hill that most, if not all, Republican lawmakers abhorred the violent response of Assad's troops against Syrian rebels, but said, “we should be careful about stretching our military.”

One of the main quandries in this situation is that the Obama Administration has already built a very hawkish foreign policy resume, pushing the entire spectrum to the right, thus making McCain and his crew seem extremist.  In Afghanistan, the White House escalated the American troop numbers there throughout 2009, without ever really signing on to the military's counterinsurgency doctrine.  This led to a large, and essentially mission-less, military presence stretched across the mountainous country, attempting to "degrade" but not "defeat" the Taliban, creating the conditions for what Daniel Ellsberg calls "an atrocity-generating situation."  And now, when the atrocities are starting to pile up, the Obama administration is still advocating for a tempered withdrawal.  Anybody looking at this situation would find it hard to push for an even more militarist policy, and yet this is McCain et al's position.

    The situation in the Middle East is little different, with the U.S. military leading the NATO intervention in Libya, the White House putting almost no restraints on Israel's military occupation and settlement policies, and the U.S.'s relationship with the Arab Monarchies of the GCC strengthened even more.  These are all policies that Republican's would usually smile at, but McCain has made the GOP's position one of calling for another, more difficult, intervention in Syria, and to bash the White House for not allowing Israel more freedom to attack Iran.  But now McCain is finding himself lonely, with many of his fellow Grand Old Partiers noticing the prevailing war weary public, as well as the American Empire's less and less secure hold on the role of World Policeman.  

All GCC states close their embassies in Syria

Last week, it was announced by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary General Abdullatif Al-Zayani that Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Oman were closing their embassies in Syria, joining their fellow GCC-states Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who made a similar announcement earlier in the week.
This is just the latest provocation by the Gulf's autocratic monarchs during the Arab spring.  Qatar and Saudi Arabia helped lead the charge against Libyan leader Gadaffi, and have been openly arming the Syrian opposition fighters (with the tacit approval of Washington).  This is all in contrast to any internal opposition in the GCC states, which has been violently cracked down on, most blatantly in Bahrain, where Saudi and UAE troops were called in by the Bahraini rulers to put down protests.  While revolutions are fine elsewhere, the GCC monarchs are happy to hold onto their own thrones.
    Concerning their recent moves in Syria, the GCC is attributing the cause to the Syrian government's wanton use of violence, however with a short study of the regions history, other, less harmonious, motives are easily seen.
     Primarily, the GCC governments must be viewed as vassals of the U.S.-U.K military alliance in the Persian Gulf.  The area, known (minus Saudi Arabia) as the British Empire's "trucial coast," were some of the last states to receive independence after World War Two, some as late as the 1970s.  Moreover, this was a particular type of "independence," as the ruling monarchical families held onto their thrones, and the Western military powers maintained their arrangements.  In Saudi Arabia, which had never been under British dominion, the situation was not much different, dating back to the 1945 meeting between President Franklin Roosevelt and Saudi King Ibn al-Saud aboard a war-ship on the Suez's Great Bitter Lake, where the U.S.-Saudi oil for protection relationship was born.

  In 1967, following London's proclamation that it was pulling back its military forces from east of the Suez canal, the U.S. moved in to be the international protector of the Persian Gulf.  Their first strategy was the "Nixon Doctrine," which aimed for regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia to serve as American proxy forces.  Accordingly, during the 1970's much of the new oil wealth in the region was spent on American weapon systems.  However, once the Iranian revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979, Washington increasingly moved to exert its own military control over the region.  The Pentagon created a military command for the region, known originally as a "Rapid Deployment Force" and then as "Central Command," putting the area on the same footing as Europe, South America, and Asia.  Concurrently the White House began to exert more energy meddling in regional affairs.

Maybe someone should campaign on these issues (updated)

Today, Pew Reseach published the results of a recent poll they took on American's foreign policy opinions.  Conducted between March 7th and 11th, Pew interviewed 1,503 people, and found that the country is in no mood to provide any military support in Syria, and a majority (57%) of people want the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan "as soon as possible."  On Iran's nuclear program however, there is still fear, as across the political spectrum a majority of people are worried that the U.S. "will wait to long to act" as opposed to "act too soon."

The overall picture is of a country very weary of war, and hesitant to take on new interventions.  In Libya last year, polls showed even less support for an intervention than currently in Syria, and although these numbers jumped slightly once the bombs began to fly, even when Tripoli was captured by the rebels in September, airstrikes were seen as "the right decision" by less than 50%.

The war in Afghanistan is also incredibly unpopular in Pew's poll (which was conducted before the recent night time shooting spree by an American soldier).  69% of Democrats say removing troop "as soon as possible" in the right policy, as do 58% of Independents and 41% of Republicans.  Among Democrats, only 25% approve of the policy of "keeping troops there until stable."  Moreover, the Republican base is divided, with a slight majority (51%) of moderate republicans favoring a cut and run policy, and only 57% of conservative Republicans favoring to prolong the mission until stability is achieved.

Update:  An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted over the same time frame gives similar numbers.  On Afghanistan, 54% of respondents thought that the U.S. should withdraw its troops "even if the Afghan Army is not adequately trained."  Given the question "has the war in Afghanistan been worth fighting?" 60% thought that it was "not worth fighting," and 44% of them strongly so, while only 35% thought that it has been worth fighting.   (See chart below).

On Iran, the poll shows a remarkable phenomenon.  Despite the fact that the public is convinced (84%) that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, which is not the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community,  81% still favor direct diplomatic talks between Washington and Tehran to solve the situation, a policy the U.S. has distanced itself from for over 30 years. A majority of people also oppose both the U.S. or Israel bombing Iran's nuclear sites, an idea discussed exhaustively over the past year in the media.  Here you have an American public that has bought into the fear-mongering, and yet is still far more open to diplomacy with this supposed "enemy" than the government is.


One wonders what effect these type of numbers will have on the rhetoric of the 2012 elections.  Both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have already mentioned their doubts of ever achieving success in Afghanistan, and the less mainstream candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have campaigned against the war stridently.  If Democrats are polling even lower than Republicans on the issue, this message has to be taken up by Democrats running for Congressional seats.  It is absurd for the Democrats to suddenly become the pro-War party in the face of GOP anti-war messaging.  It makes much more sense for a bi-partisan consensus to be reached on the failure of the Afghanistan troop presence, realigning the Congressional ideology away from nation building

Moreover, what effect does the unpopularity of intervention, whether "humanitarian" or not, have on the current Republican power structure.  The hawkish duo of John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been foaming at the mouth for nearly a year to send the military into Syria, and they have brought along Senate wunderkind Marco Rubio, a name being bandied about for Vice President, to help carry the banner.  If it is clear that American's are not in favor of these missions, can the GOP build a national strategy on the backs of those who have loudly called for another Middle East intervention?

Washington Post/ABC News Relevant Poll Numbers

-17. On another subject: All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

            ----- Worth fighting ----   --- Not worth fighting --     No 
            NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion 
3/10/12     35       17         18      60       16         44         5
6/5/11      43       23         20      54       15         40         3
3/13/11     31       17         14      64       16         49         5
12/12/10    34       18         16      60       18         43         5
7/11/10     43       24         19      53       15         38         4
6/6/10      44       26         18      53       13         41         3
4/25/10     45       26         19      52       15         38         3
12/13/09    52       33         19      44       10         35         4
11/15/09    44       30         14      52       14         38         4
10/18/09*   47       28         19      49       13         36         4 
9/12/09     46       28         18      51       14         37         3
8/17/09     47       31         15      51       10         41         3
7/18/09     51       34         18      45       11         34         4
3/29/09     56       37         19      41       12         28         4
2/22/09     50       34         17      47        9         37         3
12/14/08    55       NA         NA      39       NA         NA         5
7/13/08     51                          45                             4
2/25/07     56        "          "      41        "          "         3
*10/18/09 "was" and "has been" wording half sampled. Previous "was."

-20. On another subject, based on what you’ve heard or read, do you think Iran is or is not trying to develop nuclear weapons?
 
           Is   Is not   No opinion
3/10/12    84     9          8
10/18/09   87     8          4



21. To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose [ITEM]? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
 
3/10/12 – Summary Table

                                       ---- Support -----    ----- Oppose -----   No 
                                       NET  Strgly.  Smwt.   NET  Smwt.  Strgly.  op.
a. The United States bombing Iran's 
   nuclear development sites           41     27      14     53    18      35      6
b. Increasing international economic 
   sanctions against Iran              74     54      20     21     9      11      5
c. Direct diplomatic talks between 
   the United States and Iran to try 
   to resolve the situation            81     60      21     16     5      12      2 

Trend:

a. The United States bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites

           -------- Support -------    -------- Oppose ---------     No 
           NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
3/10/12    41       27         14      53       18         35         6
10/18/09   42       NA         NA      54       NA         NA         4
1/26/06*   42       NA         NA      54       NA         NA         4
* “Iran says it is refining uranium to use in nuclear power plants. Other countries are concerned Iran may also use this uranium in nuclear weapons…”

b. Increasing international economic sanctions against Iran

            -------- Support -------    -------- Oppose ---------     No 
            NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
3/10/12     74       54         20      21        9         11         5
10/18/09*   78       NA         NA      18       NA         NA         4
1/26/06*    71       NA         NA      26       NA         NA         3
*”Imposing international…”

c. Direct diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran to try to resolve the situation

            -------- Support -------    -------- Oppose ---------     No 
            NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
3/10/12     81       60         21      16        5         12         2
10/18/09    82       NA         NA      18       NA         NA         1



22. Would you support or oppose Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites?
 
          Support   Oppose   No opinion
3/10/12     42        51          7

Mediterranean Control: The NATO Ascendency

Following up on last week's piece on the recent discoveries of massive energy deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, below I will attempt to sketch the history behind NATO's current posture in the vital water that connects Europe to Africa and the Middle East.

Part I:  The NATO Ascendency

      NATO's Mediterrean presence can be traced back to the military alliance's origins in 1949, when France and Italy were two of the treaties twelve original member states, along with the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.  At this time, the U.S. military also controlled Wheelus Air Force Base in Libya, as well as stationing what became the Navy's 6th fleet in Naples, Italy.  The U.K held on to their colony on the island of Cyprus, where they maintained two military bases--Akrotiri Air Base in the West and Dhekelia Army Base in the East.
     Shortly after NATO's birth, its true function as a Cold War political tool was revealed when Greece and Turkey, decidedly not on the North Atlantic, joined the alliance in 1952.  Both countries had been supported by American military aid since the declaration of the Truman doctrine in March 1947, which pledged to protect the two states from communist influences.  For Athens, this meant conducting a brutal civil war against the Greek communist party, the KKE, and its National Liberation Front (EAM) militia.  Historian Gabriel Kolko writes of this period:

The throttling of the opposition and the Left certainly provides the overriding framework within which one must assess the events in Greece; the repression persisted as the source of the domestic turmoil because it drove people to the mountains in desperation.  After the United States proclaimed the Truman Doctrine in March 1947 and assumed the military and economic costs that Greece's venal rules generated, the regime's incentive to find nonviolent, political solutions disappeared, and from the very beginning the U.S. consistently opposed a negotiated peace.  The cycle of repression and responses to it increased the scale of violence and eliminated human and civil rights, but the successive rightist regimes clearly initiated the casual chain...

Given their corruption and their inability to survive in a democratic political context, and the condition of the economy and the weakness of their army, repression was the Greek authorities' only recourse.  American officials nominally supported the demand of basic liberties but at the very same time encouraged a policy of massive forces evacuations in the regions where the rebels were strongest (Kolko, Century of War, 378). 

US Intelligence Officials: "Assad could survive the revolt"

McClatchy News continues to have the ears of DC intelligence officials skeptical of a Syrian intervention. They are now reporting on sources who state that Assad is still in control of Syria:

"Our sense is right now he's very much in charge," of their military operations, one U.S. official said. Another noted, "He (Assad) might survive this." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. 

The intelligence assessments run counter to a message voiced with confidence for months by senior administration officials including President Barack Obama, who told a White House news conference on Tuesday that "ultimately, this dictator will fall."

Perhaps more fundamentally, the analysis calls into question an American foreign policy that has been based on the idea that Assad's regime is overwhelmed and doomed.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/09/141392/us-officials-assad-could-survive.html#storylink=cpy

The McClatchy article also notes that U.S. intelligence considers the recent defections from Assad's government to be of unimportant officials, and is also not convinced that Assad has lost the non-Alawite population:

In particular, the officials made it clear that the United States does not have a clear picture of what's going on inside Syria. For instance, while there have been some seemingly high-profile defections from the Syrian military and government — including, this week, a man who described himself as a deputy oil minister — Assad's regime has stayed mostly intact, which could suggest that the level of popular discontent with the dictator isn't as high as perceived.

On Friday, Turkey said that three high-ranking Syrian military officers — two generals and a colonel — had defected. Neither these nor the oil official, however, were key players, the U.S. officials said...

The Syrian conflict is seen as a struggle of Assad's Alawite Shiite minority against the majority Sunni population. But the officials said that while the military's leadership ranks are largely Alawite, the bulk of the soldiers carrying out orders are Sunni conscripts. Yet the military remains cohesive, they said.

One official noted that other minority Syrian populations — Christians, Kurds and Druze — "have not abandoned the regime yet."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/09/141392/us-officials-assad-could-survive.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/09/141392/us-officials-assad-could-survive.html#storylink=cpy

The Syrian conflict is seen as a struggle of Assad's Alawite Shiite minority against the majority Sunni population. But the officials said that while the military's leadership ranks are largely Alawite, the bulk of the soldiers carrying out orders are Sunni conscripts. Yet the military remains cohesive, they said.


One official noted that other minority Syrian populations — Christians, Kurds and Druze — "have not abandoned the regime yet."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/09/141392/us-officials-assad-could-survive.html#storylink=

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/09/141392/us-officials-assad-could-survive.html#storylink=cpy

Media Censorship of Competing Narratives in Syria

       This week, two stories have come out of news organizations censoring their employees views on Syria, both in American and Arabic media.
       The first comes from Sharmine Narwani (see her interview on the Real News Network here), a Senior Associate at Oxford's St. Antony's College, and writer for al-Akhbar English and the Huffington Post.  Concerning the Huffington Post, which she is now charging with censorship, Narwani began working there in September 2009, hired by Hanna Ingber, the founding World Editor of the website (and no longer a Huffington Post employee). Narwani wrote articles and commentary on contentious issues like the Palestinian conflict, the War on Terror, and US-Iranian relations, and as she put it, quickly discovered that her "niche at the HuffPost was providing counter-narratives to Washington’s narratives on the region."  Despite these hot button topics, Narwani states that prior to July 2011, all 41 of her long and detailed articles were published by the Huffington Post.