Survey Reveals Scant Backing for Syria Strike
By MARK LANDLER and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN, NYT
WASHINGTON — A broad majority of Americans, exhausted by nearly a dozen years of war and fearful of tripping into another one, are opposed to a military strike on Syria, even though most say they think Syrian forces used chemical weapons against civilians, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Those findings illustrate the depth of the challenge facing President Obama as he tries to win support for a limited strike from a deeply reluctant Congress and an American public that has become steadily more skeptical of foreign engagement.
Mr. Obama’s task was further complicated on Monday by a Russian proposal that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria give up his chemical weapons — a plan that muddies the president’s case for military action.
The poll underscores a steady shift in public opinion about the proper American role in the world, as fatigue from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has made people less open to intervening in the world’s trouble spots and more preoccupied with economic travails at home.
(More here.)
WASHINGTON — A broad majority of Americans, exhausted by nearly a dozen years of war and fearful of tripping into another one, are opposed to a military strike on Syria, even though most say they think Syrian forces used chemical weapons against civilians, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Those findings illustrate the depth of the challenge facing President Obama as he tries to win support for a limited strike from a deeply reluctant Congress and an American public that has become steadily more skeptical of foreign engagement.
Mr. Obama’s task was further complicated on Monday by a Russian proposal that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria give up his chemical weapons — a plan that muddies the president’s case for military action.
The poll underscores a steady shift in public opinion about the proper American role in the world, as fatigue from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has made people less open to intervening in the world’s trouble spots and more preoccupied with economic travails at home.
(More here.)
1 Comments:
Now I know what "Leading from behind" means.
Post a Comment
<< Home