GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- By a margin of 54% to 41%, Americans prefer that at least for now the United States continue with diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Iraq. However, if the United States should actually take military action, 76% say they would support it, and only 19% would not.
These are results from the latest Gallup poll, taken over this past weekend, which also shows that support for any military action is quite conditional: If Americans believed there would be substantial U.S. military casualties, they would oppose the effort by 56% to 38%. And they would be about evenly divided over war with Iraq if there were projected to be substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, or if some Arab countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia indicated they would turn against the United States as a result.
Whatever the reservations, public support for Clinton's policy on Iraq has jumped from 48% to 65% over the past two weeks. And even before the President's speech on Tuesday, in which he outlined the reasons for possible military action, a majority of Americans believed he had already explained why such efforts might be necessary.
Getting Rid of Saddam Hussein
Americans seem willing to live with Saddam Hussein in power if he
complies with United Nations' resolutions. By a two-to-one margin,
they feel that U.N. sanctions should continue against Iraq only
until the Iraqi leader complies with all U.N. resolutions, and not
necessarily until he leaves office. However, if he refuses to
comply, thus bringing the United States into war, Americans then
say -- by a two-to-one majority -- that the U.S. should try to
remove him from power immediately, rather than just reduce his
war-making potential.
Despite their desire for the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from power in case of war, Americans are about evenly divided over whether such an effort would succeed -- with 47% saying it would, and 50% saying it would not. On the other hand, most Americans believe that military action would be successful in getting Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors to do their job of investigating that country's weapons capacity.
Few Partisan Differences
President Clinton receives higher marks from Democrats than
Republicans on his handling of the Iraq situation, but even
Republicans him give majority approval -- 55%, compared with 64%
among independents, and 78% among Democrats.
On the issue of going to war, however, there are only slight differences by party. Republicans would support military action by a margin of 76% to 21%, compared with a margin of 80% to 14% among Democrats. And members of both parties support continued diplomatic efforts for now, by 53% to 46% among Republicans and 56% to 38% among Democrats. Opposition to military action in the event of substantial U.S. military casualties is also about the same among the partisan groups. The lack of partisanship on this issue may reflect the fact that the first effort against Saddam Hussein in 1991 was led by George Bush, a Republican president.
Persistent Gender Gap
As shown in previous Gallup polls, men are more supportive of
military action against Iraq than are women. However, a strong
majority of women -- as well as men -- would approve if the United
States actually took military action. And a majority of men -- as
well as women -- would oppose such efforts if there were
substantial U.S. casualties. In both cases, women express less
support for war by about 10 percentage points.
The gender gap is most significant on what actions the U.S. should take now. Men are about evenly divided over continuing with diplomatic efforts or launching air strikes (49% to 48% respectively), while women are clearly in favor of continued diplomacy, by 59% to 34%.
METHODOLOGY
The current U.S. results are based on telephone interviews with a
randomly selected national sample of 1,014 adults, conducted
February 13-15, 1998. For results based on a sample of this size,
one can say with 95 percent confidence that the error attributable
to sampling and other random effects could be plus or minus 3
percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording
and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce
error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
United Kingdom results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1005 adults in England, Scotland and Wales, conducted February 11-16, 1998. For results based on a sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the error attributable to sampling and other random effects could be plus or minus 3 percentage points.
(Asked of full sample) (Asked about own country) If [the United States/British] government decided to take military action against Iraq, would you personally approve or disapprove if [U.S./British] military forces were involved in air attacks on Iraq?
|
United States |
United Kingdom |
|
| Approve |
76% |
62% |
| Disapprove |
19 |
32 |
| No opinion |
5 |
7 |
|
___ |
___ |
|
|
100% |
100% |
(U.S. only) Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling the situation in Iraq?
|
Clinton & Iraq - Trend |
|||
|
Approve |
Disapprove |
No opinion |
|
| 1998 Feb 13-15 |
65% |
27 |
8 |
| 1998 Jan 24-25 |
48% |
40 |
12 |
| 1998 Jan 23-24 |
46% |
42 |
12 |
| 1997 Nov 21-23 |
59% |
30 |
11 |
| 1996 Sep 17-19 |
55% |
25 |
20 |
| 1996 Sep 16-18 |
55% |
25 |
20 |
| 1996 Sep 15-17 |
56% |
25 |
19 |
| 1996 Sep 14-16 |
53% |
26 |
21 |
| 1996 Sep 13-15 |
56% |
24 |
20 |
| 1996 Sep 9-11 |
57% |
22 |
21 |
| 1994 Oct 18-19 |
59% |
33 |
8 |
(Asked of half-sample B, 517 respondents, ±5%) Which would you prefer the United States do right now to resolve the current situation --Continue to use diplomacy and sanctions to pressure Iraq into compliance with the United Nation's inspections, or, take military action, along with other countries, to force Iraq into complying? (ROTATED)
|
Diplomacy |
Military |
Neither/ other (vol.) |
No opinion |
|
| Feb 13-15** |
54% |
41 |
3 |
2 |
| Jan 30-Feb 1 |
46% |
50 |
2 |
2 |
| Jan 16-18 |
47% |
46 |
4 |
3 |
| ** Half sample | ||||
(Asked of half-sample B, 517 respondents, ±5%) Regardless of how you feel about military action against Iraq, what do you think the goal of the United States should be if it does attack -- to substantially reduce Iraq's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and threaten neighboring countries, or, to immediately remove Saddam Hussein from power? (ROTATED)
| Reduce weapons |
31% |
| Remove Saddam |
64 |
| Neither/other (vol.) |
3 |
| No opinion |
2 |
|
___ |
|
|
100% |
(Asked of half-sample B) Next, we have some questions about U.S. forces taking military action against Iraq in order to substantially reduce Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. First, would you favor or oppose taking military action to substantially reduce Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction if it would result in substantial U.S military casualties.. How about if it would result in substantial casualties among Iraqi civilians; if it would turn many countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, against the United States. (RANDOM ORDER)
|
Favor |
Oppose |
No opinion |
|
| Iraqi civilian casualties |
47% |
45 |
8 |
| Turn Arab nations |
44% |
47 |
9 |
| U.S. military casualties |
38% |
56 |
6 |
