Americans Support Strategy They Know Won’t Work, Ctd

Aaron Blake highlights a Pew poll that shows Americans are united in their support for military action against ISIS:

But that unity is only a few inches deep. That’s because it’s becoming clear that Republicans are angling for a more active role in combating the Islamic State, while Democrats are very much concerned about so-called “mission creep” — i.e. getting too involved and not being able to go back. Pew asked people whether they were more concerned about going too far in Iraq and Syria or not going far enough. Republicans and conservatives both say overwhelmingly that they worry about not going far enough; Democrats and liberals worry more about doing too much. It’s basically Iraq 2004 — 10 years later.

And who was right then? Waldman entertains the possibility that the public isn’t being hysterical after all:

Only 18 percent of Americans overall — 23 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats — think the new military campaign will decrease the chances of a terrorist attack here at home. You can slice these data a couple of ways, of course, but around two-thirds to three-quarters of every group believes that the campaign will either increase the odds of a terrorist attack or not make much difference. Yet a majority supports it anyway.

I don’t think there’s necessarily anything confused about that; in fact, it might be a mature, sober judgment. People may believe that ISIS is primarily focused on what it’s doing in the Middle East, and going after them could, in the short run, lead them to try to retaliate against us with a terrorist attack here. But the public might also believe that despite that risk it’s the right thing to do. If that’s so, it would indicate a public reluctantly going along with a limited military action, not one driven by fear and chanting for blood.

So the public wants to launch a war on terrorism that it doesn’t think will decrease terrorism. That leaves those who believe it is “the right thing to do.” Does that mean right as in ISIS is “identical” to the Nazis, as O’Reilly has it? Or as in: it’s so despicable we should attack it even though it won’t work? That does not encourage me about the future of American foreign policy. Drum picks up on the same theme:

Only 18 percent of Americans think that fighting ISIS will reduce the odds of a terrorist attack on US soil. And there’s not a big difference between the parties. Even among Republicans, only 23 percent think a military campaign against ISIS will make us safer at home. That’s a refreshingly realistic appraisal.

But why? Is it because the Republican fear campaign is so transparently unhinged? Or is it because of President Obama’s unusually low-key approach to the ISIS campaign? I’d like to think it’s at least partly the latter. I’m not very excited about any kind of campaign against ISIS at the moment, but as a second-best alternative, it’s at least nice to see it being sold to the public as a case of having to eat our vegetables rather than as yet another exciting bomb-dropping adventure in defense of our national honor. It’s a step in the right direction, anyway.

James Lindsay flags another new poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that illustrates Americans’ contradictory foreign policy tendencies in general:

At first blush the Chicago Council’s poll numbers reaffirm the current conventional wisdom that Americans are more skeptical toward foreign engagements. While a majority of Americans (58 percent) say the United States should take an “active part” in world affairs, the percentage who favor “staying out” (41 percent) is the highest since pollsters first began asking the question back in 1947. (The Chicago Council has been conducting its periodic foreign policy surveys since 1974.) As a result the gap between Americans favoring “active part” over “staying out” has shrunk to its smallest ever, just 17 percentage points.

But the public’s response to other questions in the poll suggest that an increased wariness about foreign policy is not the same as a sharp turn inward. More than eight in ten Americans say that strong U.S. leadership in world affairs is desirable, in line with previous responses to the question. Just as important, even those who want the United States to “stay out” of world affairs think that strong US leadership is either “very desirable” (19 percent) or “somewhat desirable” (50 percent).

But that’s such a vague question it’s had to know what to make of the answer. I mean: who would want the US not to exercise strong leadership? The question is: to what ends? And is it prudent? And can it be controlled?