The Polls: U.S. Military Intervention

Abstract

IN LIGHT of recent events in Lebanon, El Salvador, and the Falklands, not to mention Poland, Afghanistan, and Iran, it seems appropriate to take a look at American attitudes toward military intervention. Senator John Tower, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, remarked at the commencement exercises at the U.S. Military Academy last May that the American people are traditionally antimilitaristic (New York Times, May 27, 1981), yet the United States has been involved in a number of wars and other types of military interventions since World War II. A look at some long-term trends in attitudes toward the use of American troops should shed some light on this seeming ambiguity of American foreign reiations. It is clear that since World War II the American public has not been isolationist. When asked if it would be best for the country to take an active part in world affairs or to stay out, Americans have consistently favored taking an active part (Table 1). But in the minds of many Americans, taking an active part in world affairs does not necessarily mean using American troops abroad. In February 1979, CBS News/New York Times asked the question in general terms: Aside from an attack on the United States, is there any other situation when you might approve sending American troops to fight overseas? Of the respondents offering an opinion, 69 percent said there was no other such situation. When asked about more specific hypothetical situations that might justify the use of American troops, the American public tends to reject such an option. The Roper Organization has asked a number of such hypothetical questions (Table 2) and in most instances respondents oppose the use of troops, the most prominent exceptions being if Soviet troops invaded Western Europe and if the Soviet Union attacked West Berlin.' Furthermore, even in