Several bogus left wing groups, in the run-up to the U.S.-led bombing of Libya, proudly proclaimed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to such things and that there would be no popular mandate in the U.S. for direct, open military actions on America's part against Libya. Bullshit. There have been many opinion polls over the last couple weeks, both in the run-up to the start of the bombing and since it's actual beginning, that could be cited to make this point, but the following one by CNN is the one I'll focus on simply because it asks the most questions, thus going into the greatest detail on American public opinion on the subject. I will highlight the questions out of their original order to emphasize the main point, but if you wish to see the full survey and all questions placed in sequence, it can be found here at PollingReport.com. So anyhow, here's my rundown of the highlights:
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 18-20, 2011. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"Some people have suggested establishing a 'no-fly' zone in Libya which would be an area patrolled by military planes from the U.S. and other countries to prevent Gadhafi from using his air force. No U.S. ground troops would be involved but U.S. airplanes or missiles might be used to shoot down Libyan airplanes or attack ground bases used by the Libyan air force. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries attempting to establish a no-fly zone in Libya?"
Favor: 70%
Oppose: 27%
Unsure: 3%
COMMENTS: This is the most basic thing. The No-Fly Zone is the formal justification for the current U.S.-led military actions against Libya. Continuing...
"The military actions to create a 'no-fly zone' might not be directly targeted at Gadhafi's troops who are fighting the opposition forces in Libya. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using planes and missiles to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"
Favor: 54%
Oppose: 43%
Unsure: 3%
COMMENTS: This goes beyond the No-Fly Zone mandate. It goes beyond targeting the Libyan air forces. Moving on:
"As far as you are concerned, should protecting civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"
Very important: 44%
Somewhat important: 39%
Not too important: 10%
Not important at all: 7%
COMMENTS: In other words, 93% of the U.S. population does not oppose the general idea of the United States actively "protecting [so-called] civilians and civilian-populated areas [they have captured] under threat of attack from Gadhafi's military forces", and 83% believes it should be a national priority. So even fewer Americans are opposed to the principle than are opposed to the particular conduct that is being undertaken. In fact, almost no Americans are opposed in principle. Let's investigate further:
"As far as you are concerned, should the removal of Moammar Gadhafi from power in Libya be a very important foreign policy goal of the U.S., a somewhat important goal, not too important, or not an important goal at all?"
Very important: 34%
Somewhat important: 43%
Not too important: 13%
Not important at all: 10%
COMMENTS: This highlights the percentage of Americans who believe it is our national responsibility to either assassinate Gadhafi or take him into custody. As you can see, 77% believe it should be a national priority, and fully 90% are not opposed to the idea.
"And would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using ground troops to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?"
Favor: 28%
Oppose: 70%
Unsure: 1%
COMMENTS: While I'm sure this type of statistic can be unfortunately changed with another press conference by the president, it demonstrates the underlying cowardice of the U.S. population in a certain way. They're willing to ravage a foreign country so long as it doesn't sully their boots. Minimal effort for maximum effect is the key to American popular support for the rape of the Third World.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya?"
Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 41%
Unsure: 9%
COMMENTS: This is the most commonly asked survey question, but, as you can see by the rest of the above responses to other questions, Americans are able to separate "the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Libya" on the one hand and the actual bombing, assassination, etc. campaign on the other, and are specifically more committed to the latter. It would seem that, if anything, a good percentage of Americans believe their president acted too slowly in response to developments in Libya. At any rate, 3 out of 5 do not in any way oppose the exact policies being pursued on the ground at present.
I have skipped some of the more secondary questions that just deal with predictions of the outcome since they're not really relevant to my point.
For my last highlight, I'll look at one question from a CBS poll of Americans dated from the same time frame, since in my next post I'll be seeking to highlight how both of the main U.S. parties are equally reactionary relative to the principal contradiction. This question highlights that by breaking down opinions on the No-Fly Zone along party lines:
"As you may know, the U.S. military and other countries have begun cruise missile and air strikes in Libya in order to protect civilians from attacks by Qaddafi's forces. Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. and other countries taking this military action in Libya?" March 20-21, 2011. N=622.
REPUBLICANS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 19%
Unsure: 11%
DEMOCRATS:
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 25%
Unsure: 5%
INDEPENDENTS:
Approve: 65%
Disapprove: 30%
Unsure: 5%
OVERALL:
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 26%
Unsure: 6%
