Attacking Syria Is the Least Popular Intervention Idea in Recent Memory

But it would probably get significantly more popular if Obama actually orders a strike.

It's often said that the U.S. military is perpetually fighting the last war -- and the backlash against President Obama's plan for strikes has shown just how menacingly Iraq looms in the American consciousness. Poll after poll, and call after call into congressional offices, show that war-weary citizens really don't want to attack Syria.

And not only is it unpopular -- it's historically unpopular. Here's a Gallup poll out Friday, with comparisons to other major military operations since 1991, with Syria lagging well behind:

This doesn't tell us everything -- we don't know, for example, how excited Americans were about the 2011 bombing of Libya or, say, the 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory (presumably there was too little lead-up for Gallup to ask). But it does provide some useful context for the widespread outcry in recent days.

What ought to give folks like Ben Rhodes, Obama's spokesman for national security, ulcers isn't just that strikes against Syria are less popular than past attacks -- it's that their favorability is deeply underwater, with a 15-point deficit between support and opposition. Even if every undecided in this poll were persuaded, it'd still be overall unpopular. Kosovo wasn't well-regarded, as you can see, but the numbers were more or less equal.

So how about some Rolaids for Rhodes? Here's the silver lining for the White House: If Obama does launch cruise missiles and planes, history suggests that citizens will line up to back the troops. Nothing like some good old-fashioned jingoism patriotism! (Gallup calls this "the rally effect.")

With the exception of Iraq (an amazing 18-points), the average post-attack bounce seems to be closer to eight or nine points. A bounce of that size would still leave an attack on Syria with a lower approval rating than disapproval.

One might find it surprising that even though their party made opposition to the Iraq War a litmus test during its 2008 primaries, a slight majority of Democrats (45-43) tell Gallup today that they back intervening in Syria, while Republicans and independents overwhelmingly oppose it. But political scientists have shown that party identification is more based in tribal identity than policy agreement. This is more evidence.

Presented by

David A. Graham is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers political and global news. He previously reported for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and The National.

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we still save the night sky?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we still save the night sky?

Video

The Faces of #BlackLivesMatter

Scenes from a recent protest in New York City

Video

Desegregated, Yet Unequal

A short documentary about the legacy of Boston busing

Video

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life

The Supreme Court justice talks gender equality and marriage.

Video

Social Media: The Video Game

What if the validation of your peers could "level up" your life?

Video

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The F-35 fighter jet was supposed to do everything. Instead, it can barely do anything.

More in Politics

Just In