No, it's not another silly name-recognition 2008 horserace poll. It's not even another case of Bush falling to all-time lows, sweet as those are. This is more significant. It's not about American attitudes toward the war in Iraq, or even Iraqi attitudes toward the US occupation. It's even more significant than any of those, and it contradicts much or all of the conventional wisdom about American attitudes about the world.
It's an article of conventional wisdom that political candidates, and particularly Democrats, must show a ready willingness to use military force in order to be seen as "strong on national security." A survey of 1,326 Americans conducted 11/21-29 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland challenges this view of American attitudes, and suggests the bipartisan "Washington consensus" is becoming increasingly out of touch with American views on foreign policy, national security, and the use of military force. From worldpublicopinion.org:
A majority of Americans believe that the way the United States has been using the threat of military force has diminished U.S. security.
[snip]
Large majorities also reject the idea that the United States’ military strength means it need not be concerned about international goodwill and they do not think that the U.S. government should announce that it seeks regime change in problem countries.
By a nearly two-to-one margin, respondents indicated they reject the Macchivellian maxim that it advances our national security to be feared, and believe policies based on that approach have backfired:
Asked whether countries around the world have grown more afraid in recent years that the United States might use force against them, a majority of respondents (63%) say yes. The poll then asks respondents whether, if the leaders of some countries grow more afraid of the United States, this is good for U.S. security, because it makes foreign governments "more likely to refrain from doing things the U.S. does not want them to do," or bad because it makes them "seek out new means of protecting themselves."
By a two-to-one margin (63% to 33%), respondents say rising fear that the United States might use military force is bad because countries may do things that undermine U.S. security.
By particularly large margins, Americans believe that aggressive foreign military policies have encouraged, not inhibited, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction:
The poll also asks respondents whether, "if leaders of some countries grow more afraid" of an attack by the United States, this will tend to increase or decrease the likelihood that they will "try to acquire weapons of mass destruction." A very large majority (80%) say that countries will become more likely to seek WMD.
The poll editors note that respondents' perceptions of widespread fear in other nations of US military attack are well-founded:
Publics in nine countries, seven of them predominantly Muslim, were asked how worried they were that the United States "could become a military threat to [their] own country someday." In all cases except one, a majority said that they were very or somewhat worried, indicating that this was not simply a passing anxiety in response to the Iraq war.
In April-May 2005, these included the NATO ally Turkey (65%) as well as Morocco (96%), Indonesia (80%), Pakistan (71%), Jordan (67%) and Lebanon (59%). In May 2003, Russia (71%), and Nigeria (72%) also had majorities that were worried the United States could become a threat, as did Kuwait (53%), a country the United States defended after it was invaded by Iraq in 1990. In Morocco, only 46 percent had such fears in 2003, which jumped 50 points to 96 percent in 2005.
The poll indicated that the prevailing wisdom that Americans view diplomacy and negotiation as signs of weakness is sharply contradicted, as Americans prefer to seek peaceful solutions with even our must truculent adversaries, and believe developing greater goodwill toward America is the key to enhancing our national security:
Majorities instead agree with arguments in favor of talking to problem countries "because isolating them often provokes them to increase the behavior the US opposes" (82%) and "because communication increases the chance of finding a mutually agreeable solution" (84%).
In the WPO survey, respondents overwhelmingly reject the idea that "goodwill is not really critical" for the United States because it is "so much stronger than all other countries" and because "trying to be popular can tie" the United States’ hands. Eight in ten (80%) disagree with this and instead endorsed the view that goodwill toward the United States was "important in order to obtain cooperation in dealing with threats to U.S. security" and because hostility could "lead people to actively work" against U.S. interests.
Strong majorities also oppose isolating our adversaries and threatening them with "regime change":
A large majority does not think the United States should announce it is pursuing regime change in problem countries, such as Iran.
Only 21 percent endorse the argument that the U.S. government should announce this goal "because it creates moral clarity and strengthens opposition to the government both inside and outside that country." Seventy-two percent agree instead with the view that this is "a bad idea because it violates the principle of national sovereignty, and when countries feel threatened they are less cooperative and more likely to use dangerous means to protect themselves." This includes eight in ten Democrats (78%) and seven in ten Republicans (67%).
Eight in ten also reject the policy of isolating, rather than talking to, problem countries. Only 16 percent endorse the view that it is better to "isolate them so as to pressure them to change their behavior" and only 13 percent back the argument that "talking to them gives them recognition and effectively rewards their bad behavior."
This rejection of hardline national security policy even extends to the so-called "War on Terror":
A large majority disagrees that terrorist groups should be dealt with solely through military action. Only 35 percent accept the argument that "the only way to counter the threat of terrorism is to find and destroy terrorists. It is naïve and pointless to try to understand their intentions or imagine that we can address any of their concerns."
Sixty-one percent favor the alternative view that trying to destroy terrorists may not work because "if we are too heavy-handed, it just breeds more hostility and more terrorists. It is necessary to address the sources of the hostility in the larger societies that the terrorists come from."
It appears from this poll that the failure of the neo-con/liberal hawk program of "muscular intervention" in both Iraq and the "War on Terror" has led to the situation where the American people have a more sophisticated and nuanced attitude toward national security and world affairs than the bipartisan Washington foreign policy elite. Continuing to subscribe to the conventional wisdom will only serve to increase this growing gap between public attitudes and the Washington consensus. Candidates that bring forward a new and progressive program to enhance American goodwill and a commitment to vigorous international diplomacy will find a public willing to embrace a change away from our current militaristic face in the world.