The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Gemma Archive
Neocon Policies Rejected by Public
Polling Shows Big Disconnect
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Good news and bad news: market research confirms most Americans side to one degree or another with former Congressman Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Bad news? The neo-cons are still at the switch.

In 2003, with flags flying and trumpets blaring, opinion polls showed some 60 percent of Americans supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As doubts about the war became facts, public opinion polls showed a majority opposed the war within two years and that remains the case today. Last year, one survey revealed that 54 percent of Americans believed the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq right from the start, while just 38 percent said the military incursion was a good idea. Still, the bi-partisan military-industrial complex isn’t budging. In a 2012 address to the Democratic National Committee, President Obama concluded, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did.” According to an April 1, 2014 report in Time magazine however, there were 133 U.S. military killed in action and 23,565 Iraqi civilian deaths since the President’s “peace is at hand” proclamation.

President Obama’s 2013 promise of having a “specific plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014,” recently morphed into a guarantee withdrawal by 2016 — 20 days before he leaves office. However, in a November 2013 survey, just over half of U.S. voters wanted all troops out of Afghanistan by 2014 and no military personnel left behind for support or training. A month before, another poll revealed that only 19 percent of Americans thought we could win the war in Afghanistan.

In July and again in December of last year, ABC News/Washington Post polled the question, “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?” In both studies, 66 percent of Americans thought the military excursion was not worth it.

However, the neo-con war machine slouches forward. Retired General Robert Scales, a FOX News Channel military analyst, maintains, “A small residual American force of 10,000 will be able to operate about three small bases near the Pakistani border. Drones would be dispatched from these camps to keep an eye on the enemy. Should military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities be necessary, an American Afghan base would be the ideal tactical ‘lily pad’ from which to launch and recover American strike forces.”

Wars and rumors of wars have left Americans cynical, depressed, and broke (last year a study issued from Harvard University tallied the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at somewhere between four and six trillion dollars — and counting.) The public knowingly or unknowingly, seeks a foreign policy based on John Adams’ admonition that, “We do not go abroad in search for monsters to destroy.” Consider:

  • Seventy percent of Americans believe the Navy’s primary mission is to protect and defend the United States. Only 20 percent prefer having the Navy serve as a global force for good.
  • Rasmussen Reports finds that 48 percent of poll respondents believe the United States is too involved in the affairs of other countries but just 33 percent think the current level of U.S. involvement around the globe is about right.
  • A 2012 survey showed that 51 percent of Americans want all U.S. troops withdrawn from Europe.

The Washington power elites won’t have any of it. Bill Kristol asserts, “A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied,” adding, “events right now are doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast.”

And so on to Syria. According to Mother Jones magazine (“How to Be a Good Neocon When It Comes to Syria”), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) maintains that, “there’s a growing consensus in the U.S. Senate that the United States should get involved.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate intelligence committee, says, “Action must be taken.” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also claims, “I myself think that we have tolerated for too long all of the assaults on the Syrian people made by its own government. I think we have to take it to the next step.”

But respondents to a CBS/NY Times poll reject that idea. A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents hold the opinion that the U.S. does not have a stake in the conflict in Syria: 62 percent of Americans say the United States does not have a responsibility to intervene.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on its polling which revealed that the percentage of Americans who want their government to be “less active” in world affairs has quadrupled over the past 13 years. The Washington Post wrote about the survey (“What if Rand Paul is right about foreign policy?”) and noted, “The party breakdowns on the questions are even more revealing. Nearly half of all Democrats and Republicans (45 percent for each) say that the U.S. should be less active in world affairs. A whopping six in ten political independents feel that way.”

Political honchos and social scientists agree that survey findings and poll results can be confusing, even contradictory. But when a variety of credible researchers come up with the same results, as noted above, there can be a trickle up effect in public policy and politics. In 2008 and 2012, presidential candidate Ron Paul moved from the outer limits to a worthy debater. Anti-war Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) recently fended off a war hawk primary opponent backed by the Israel lobby and the establishment GOP. Mark Sanford (R-NC), one of the most reliable libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House, has no opponent. Rand Raul protégé, Congressman Tom Massie (R-KY), will win re-election. Justin Amash (R-MI), representing a Democrat leaning congressional district, faces a well-funded “mainstream” GOP primary opponent, but is way ahead in the polls. Amash is often referred to as “the next Ron Paul.”

The trickle up tremors may have even reached White House speechwriters. In President Obama’s recent address to the United States Military Academy at West Point he stated, “Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.”

 

Peter Gemma has been published in a variety of venues including USA Today (where more than 100 of his commentaries have appeared), Military History, the DailyCaller.com, The Washington Examiner, and the EconomicPopulist.org

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Neocons, Ron Paul 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. As we speak Iraq is falling apart. This is the result of deposing Saddam Hussein who kept the place together, much as Tito kept Yugoslavia together. George Bush deserves universal condemnation for his war against Saddam Hussein. It has brought only chaos and a use of American military power since then in all the wrong places.

    Bush should be arraigned before the International Court of Justice at the Hague for his war crimes.

  2. Not only is Iraq falling apart, but everything the Bush Administration sought to accomplish, with the support of Democrats, Zionists, Evangelicals, and just plain fools is coming to an end.

  3. CCR says:

    Actually, the mistakes started back under G. H. W. Bush when we went into Somalia. But, I can’t see why Bush should be tried for war crimes. Lying about WMD? I don’t believe he did lie, but even if he did, that doesn’t make him a war criminal.

  4. He’s a war criminal for starting the war with Saddam, killing countless Iraqis and American troops, depleating our resources, and then there’s Afghanistan. Had Bush not been obsessed with going into Iraq he might have taken seriously the threat from Osama bin Laden. Condoleeza Rice should also be tried for crimes. They both ignored this threat in favor of the false threat they manufactured from Saddam.

  5. Jake says:

    Undisputable facts!

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 – yet our government started a war with them under manufactured false pretences – look at all the death destruction it caused. Our government maliciously used our natural outrage over 9/11 to kill people who did NOTHING to us. Shame Shame!

    By any and every moral standard – Saddam was better for Iraq then Bush/Cheney

  6. KA says:

    CamelCaseRob
    Why are you waking up ?

  7. Peter Gemma says: • Website

    I’m delighted to see that some polls are flat out wrong. However, Eric Cantor can speak to that better than I can.
    😉

  8. The neocons will be hard to dislodge, and not only because of the Israeli Lobby. The Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street, the Chamber of Commerce, Big Business — all want our military kept strong and large for their own economic, financial benefit. If you have a large military you need sooner or later to use it. It is of no use sitting around, as in Korea for 50 years, doing nothing.

  9. Trumped says:

    Good article, but amash is hardly the next Ron Paul. For one thing, he always votes for the spending appropriation bills – which Paul never did.

    He is still better than 99 percent of congress though, but that isn’t saying much.

  10. Fred says:

    Not to diminish the value of polls or the wisdom of the American people…. but the question should not be whether a policy is popular but whether a policy is wise or good, especially when you have a 24/7 news cycle constantly drumming it’s viewpoint and shaping perceptions. Perhaps the US should not have gone into Iraq but once there our obligation would be to leave it in better shape than we found it.

    Saddam Hussein and his sons were vicious nasty animals who were not good for Iraq. Is the current situation better? No it isn’t. Would it be if our beloved leader had not foot dragged and delayed and ignored his responsibilities and failed to establish bases for our troops? I’d bet it would be.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Gemma Comments via RSS