Skepticism Grows in US Over Syria Military Strike

With Americans weary over more than a
decade of war, and strong memories of
the faulty intelligence that led to the
invasion of Iraq, skepticism appears to
be growing about the proposed military
attack on Syria. Polls show a majority of
Americans are firmly opposed to such a
move.
It was called “shock and awe,” the
application of massive military force
designed to overwhelm the Iraqi military
in 2003. Necessary, U.S. officials said,
because of concern about weapons of
mass destruction and a desire to end
the conflict quickly.
It took until the final days of 2011,
though, before the last American troops
left Iraq, where an insurgency continues
to rage.
The war in Afghanistan has lasted even
longer, and American troops continue to
fight the Taliban.
And now in Syria… with hundreds dead
from apparent chemical weapons,
America is considering another attack in
the Middle East.
But surveys show many Americans
oppose such a move.
David Schenker of the Washington
Institute said, “We are war weary. We
have gone through Iraq, we have gone
through Afghanistan, we have spent
blood and treasure. Most people in the
United States want to focus on
rebuilding the economy here and not get
entangled in a foreign embroilment.”
Recent polls show about 60 percent of
Americans oppose a U.S. military strike
on Syria, while just nine percent support
it.
Quinnipiac University pollster Peter
Brown said, “They are very much set
against the notion of U.S. troops there,
or any U.S. aid except for weapons that
would not endanger any American lives,
such as a cruise missile or a drone
strike.”
There is stiff opposition from close allies
like Britain.
“There seems to be a certain rush to
war, a rush to use military hardware
against the Assad regime," said James
Boys of London’s King’s College. "There
doesn’t appear to be any obvious
justification as to why this may be.”
Just before the start of the Iraq war
then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
made a detailed presentation to the U.N.
Security Council. But the intelligence
about Iraq’s weapons programs turned
out to be wrong.
"In the wake of the Iraq war, where
weapons of mass destruction, chemical,
biological, possibly nuclear weapons,
were the rationale for the war, and it
turned out that [former Iraqi leader]
Saddam Hussein did not have them, I
think that there's going to be a lot of
skepticism in the United States, but also
abroad," said Bryan Bender of the
Boston Globe.
So years of war and skepticism about
intelligence are casting a long shadow
over decisions by the White House
regarding the civil war in Syria.