A new poll finds that U.S. operations against Libya are viewed with skepticism by a large chunk of Americans, while the conflict between President Obama and Congress over proper authorization and debate over the launch of a UN-mandated no-fly-zone continued.
Results from a Gallup poll indicate that the number of Americans supporting U.S. military action against Libya is higher than those that oppose it at 47 percent to 37 percent. But the level of public support for the Libya bombing campaign is the lowest for any military action taken in almost the last 30 years.
Public skepticism over the need for military action, especially military involvement in the Middle East, has grown considerably in the last decade. 90 percent of Americans said that approved of the war in Afghanistan when it commenced. 76 percent backed the invasion of Iraq.
The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades.
Americans showed the highest level of support for the 2001 military action in Afghanistan that was a response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Americans also widely supported U.S. airstrikes against Iraq in 1993 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Support for the current involvement in Libya is also much lower than support for U.S. airstrikes against Libya in 1986 in response to the Libyan bombing of a German nightclub that killed two American servicemen.
While Gallup did not ask an approve/disapprove question about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, support for that action was also high, based on other question wordings.
Though approval of the current actions against Libya is lower than that for other U.S. military efforts, the level of disapproval is lower than Gallup measured for the Haiti and Kosovo/Balkan situations, and similar to that for Grenada.
The mixed reaction among Americans to U.S. military intervention in Libya is matched by questions in Congress about President Obama’s decision to go to war, a term that the White House won’t even acknowledge.
Democratic Rep. George Miller of California said he believes that the president had an obligation to “come to Congress and ask for permission” before authorizing the use of roce, and that he doesn’t “agree” that Obama’s use of force was constitutional.
“I’m one of those who believe that when you’re not defending the shores of the United States, you have an obligation under the Constitution to come to the Congress and ask for permission,” he told MSNBC.
Miller, who had been asked whether he agreed that the president’s actions fell inside the bounds of his proper legal authority, declared: “No, I don’t agree with that.”
And “I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence that they (the White House) sufficiently consulted the Congress,” said Miller, who warned Obama to “keep his pledge” that US forces will soon take a supporting role in the operations.
“It’s easy to get into one of these. It’s very difficult, as events unfold, to get the hell out of there,” said Miller.
Miller’s concerns have been matched by a bipartisan array of lawmakers angered that Congress was not considered and debate was not had over the decision to launch a military operation that has already cost the Pentagon hundreds of millions of dollars.
Rep. Dennis Kucnich calls the president’s actions on Libya a “grave matter”; Rep. Walter Jones said that it’s as if Congress “doesn’t exist”; Rep. Charlie Rangel believes the Libya war “could be the beginning of another Korea or Iraq.” These voices and more are emanating from Congress and could result in a showdown as U.S. intervention in Libya drags on.
The countries involved do not care about taxpayer money or the lives of the pilots and soldiers. It’s all about their personal wealth and power. It’s sickening.
Personally, I am happy to see a President who thinks through a problem before acting. We have put ourself out there for to long with nothing but deaths of our soldiers and debt for our country to to show for it. I appreciate that the Libyan people need help asap.previous Presidents rushed us in and we all know where that took us.
All I can think is this is a “Shock Doctrine” exercise. With the talk of possibly making cuts to the defense budget, this is supposed to scare us into thinking that we don’t dare cut the military.
A “Humanitarian Intervention” is bringing food, water, clothing, and shelter to the tsunami victims in Japan or, a few years back, Indonesia. When you start shooting at people and blowing things up for more than a day or so, it’s a war!