• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

February 11, 1998
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Research and Media Reaction

Opinion Analysis:
U.S. Public Views Military Strikes Against Iraq

Summary

Six recent polls show most Americans (69% average) favor U.S. air strikes against Iraq. These and other recent polls show support for taking military action against Iraq is enhanced when:

1. the threat of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction is stressed;
2. non-military measures are seen as having been exhausted; and
3. the proposed mission is described as being multinational in nature, rather than a unilateral U.S. action.

Most Americans (75%) now believe that stopping Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction can be accomplished only by using military force. A similar majority believe President Clinton's motive for launching air strikes against Iraq would be legitimate -- that is, "in the best interests of the U.S." (71%), rather than an attempt to "divert attention" from allegations about his personal conduct (21%).

Majority Supports Air Strike Mission Against Iraq

Six polls taken during the past two weeks found support for air strikes ranges from 55 percent to 74 percent. Five of the polls specified that the purpose of the mission was to ensure against Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction.⁽¹⁾ Each of these polls found two-thirds or more favored air strikes. However, the ABC News poll stated that "Iraq has been interfering with U.N. weapons inspection teams," but did not specify the type of weapons involved. It found only 55 percent in favor of air strikes. This suggests that to some respondents, particularly those not well informed, interference with inspections may seem nothing more than a procedural infraction. (See Table 1)

Less support for using ground forces -- The Time/Yankelovich poll (2/4-5) found the public is closely divided about "the U.S. and its allies" using ground troops to "attack sites which Iraq may be using to develop weapons of mass destruction" (46% in favor vs. 44% opposed).

Recent polls offer limited insight about the relative importance the public gives to obtaining Iraq's compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors compared to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power. A Los Angeles Times poll (1/29-31) asked whether the purpose of a U.S. air strike "should only be to force Saddam Hussein to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (24%) or whether an air strike "should also be designed to remove him from power" (68%). Not surprisingly, the poll found most Americans choose the option containing the bold assumption that air strikes can be used to achieve both objectives -- Iraqi compliance and Saddam's ouster.

No poll has asked yet whether the public prefers using air strikes to gain Iraq's compliance with U.N. inspections or using ground forces to achieve Iraqi compliance and ousting Saddam Hussein. For achieving the more limited objective of gaining Iraqi compliance, the public clearly prefers using air strikes (68%) rather than ground troops (46% -- Time/Yankelovich, 2/4-5).

Public's Perception of Iraq's Threat

Previous polls have shown that controlling weapons of mass destruction and containing Iraq are among the public's top priorities in foreign affairs, and underpin support for a tough approach toward Iraq.⁽²⁾ Also, Americans seem to have become less patient about using non-military measures against Iraq since the last inspection crisis. Gallup (1/16-18) found 75 percent believed military force "will eventually be necessary to keep Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction" -- up from 56 percent last November (11/21-23), after inspections were resumed.

Three polls taken in late January concur that a large majority of Americans (ranging from 65% to 77% on the three polls) believe that if President Clinton gave the order to launch air strikes against Iraq, he would be acting in what he thought were the country's best interests, rather than attempting to divert attention from his personal problems. (Table 2)

Multilateral Operations Receive More Support

Questions which describe military action against Iraq as involving the cooperation of U.S. allies or U.N. members show about 15 points greater support than questions which explicitly describe the U.S. as acting unilaterally. ⁽³⁾ The latest CBS News poll (2/8) shows support for air strikes drops from 69 percent (see Table 1) to 53 percent when divisions among former coalition partners are highlighted. CBS asked: "Great Britain is willing to participate in a joint action with the U.S. against Iraq, but some allies, like France and Russia, oppose air strikes at this time. Under these circumstances, would you favor or oppose the U.S. using its Air Force to bomb in Iraq?"

How the Polls Were Taken

The Table below shows each of the polls used in this report, most of them conducted in January-February, 1998. All interviews in these polls were conducted by telephone with adults 18 years or older. The sample sizes range from 500 (Gallup's split samples) to 1,314 (LA Times poll).

Nineteen times out of twenty, the results based on a sample size around 500 will differ by no more than 6 percentage points in either direction from what would be found if it were possible to interview every adult in the country. The results based on samples sizes of 1,000 and 1,300 will differ by no more than 4 points and 3 and one-half points, respectively, in either direction from the real figure in the population from which the sample is drawn.

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting a survey of public opinion may introduce other sources of error into the results.

Table 1. U.S. Public Support for Air Strikes Against Iraq

A. CBS News: "United Nations weapons inspectors are in Iraq to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction. If the government of Iraq continues to restrict United Nations weapons inspections, would you favor or oppose the United States using its Air Force to bomb targets there?"

B. Los Angeles Times (1/29-31/98): "As you may know, the U.S. Government is considering launching an air strike against Iraq if Iraq does not allow United Nations inspectors to check any building in the country for the presence of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States launching an air strike against Iraq for this reason? (IF APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE:) Do you {approve/disapprove) strongly, or (approve/disapprove) only somewhat?"

C. Time-CNN/Yankelovich (2/4-5/98): "Do you think that the United States and its allies should or should not conduct air strikes to attack sites which Iraq may be using to develop weapons of mass destruction?"

D. ABC (1/28-29/98): "As you may know, the United States says that Iraq has been interfering with U.N. weapons inspection teams in Iraq. If that continues, should the United States bomb Iraq, or not" (IF YES:) Should it be a major bombing attack or a limited bombing attack?"

Table 2. Public's Perception of U.S. Interest at Stake

A. Los Angeles Times (1/29-31/98): "Which of these statements comes closer to your view: 'Clinton is considering an air strike against Iraq in response to Iraq's recent actions,' or 'Clinton is considering an air strike against Iraq primarily to divert attention away from the allegations surrounding him."

B. Time-CNN/Yankelovich (1/28-29/98): "If Bill Clinton orders a U.S. military strike against Iraq in the next few weeks, do you think he would do so mostly because it was in the best interests of the United States, or mostly because he wanted to divert attention from the allegations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair?"

C. Zogby International/NY Post-Fox 5 (1/28-30/98): "Saddam Hussein continues to defy U.N. weapons inspectors seeking information on possible germ warfare production in Iraq. If Clinton decides to strike Saddam, which best describes your feelings ... ?"

1. The latest CBS News poll (2/8) shows 69 percent favor (vs. 21% oppose) U.S. air strikes against Iraqi targets if Iraq continued to restrict U.N. inspections for weapons of mass destruction. This support level is down 5 percentage points from the level prevailing one week ago.

2. For example, a Time/CNN poll (2/97) asked about the priority -- from top priority and high priority to low priority and no priority -- the U.S. should give to 12 different foreign policy objectives. "Promoting chemical and biological weapons control" (78% top or high priority) is nearly on a par with the priority the public accords to "promoting nuclear arms control" (80% top or high priority). Among the eight regional issues rated, "keeping Saddam Hussein from threatening Iraq's Arab neighbors" (65% top or high priority) received the highest priority -- higher than "promoting peace between Israel and its neighbors" (56%), "promoting peace in Bosnia," (48%), "promoting political stability in Russia" (45%), "enlarging NATO" (37%), and "pressuring Fidel Castro to bring democracy to Cuba" (33%).

3. When the public is asked directly whether it prefers the U.S. to take military action cooperatively with our allies or unilaterally, a clear majority opts for a multilateral approach. For example, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (1/17-19/98) asked: "Do you think that the United States should use military force against Iraq even if no other countries do, or do you think that the United States should use military force only if other countries also agree to join the effort?"

Military Force Options:

Multilateral approach -- U.S. should use force only if other countries join the effort	57%
Unilateral approach -- U.S. should use force even if no other countries do so	30
U.S. should not use military force (volunteered)	8
Not sure	5

---

This report is based mainly on findings from 10 separate nationwide polls taken January- February, 1998:
Gallup/CNN-USA Today (1/16-18)
Time-CNN/Yankelovich (2/4-5 and 1/28-29)
ABC News (1/28-29)
CBS News (2/8, 2/1 and 1/28)
NBC/Wall Street Journal (1/17-19)
Los Angeles Times (1/29-31)
and Zogby International (1/28-30)

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Enter Your Email Address