The American People Want To Stay Out Of Syria

A new poll shows that 62% of Americans oppose American military intervention in Syria's civil war.


A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that a majority of Americans oppose the idea of the United States becoming more deeply involved in the Syrian civil war:

Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to say the United States does not have a responsibility to intervene in the fighting in Syria, while 24 percent of Americans think the United States does have a responsibility to do something about the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups there – a four point increase since last month.

Most Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to get involved in the conflict in Syria.

Even as news of the possible use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was announced by the Obama Administration, fewer Americans are paying attention to news about Syria than were doing so last month. In March, slightly more than half of all Americans were following news about Syria at least somewhat closely. Now, four in 10 say they are doing so, including just 10 percent who are following it very closely.

Still, those following the news about Syria very closely are far more likely to think the U.S. has a responsibility to get involved there. Nearly half (47 percent) of that group thinks the U.S. has a responsibility to get involved there — though about as many do not (48 percent).

The New York Times write up of the poll also notes that the number of people who say that they are closely following events in Syria has fallen 15% since the last time the question was asked in March, which indicates that interest in the war even among people inclined to support U.S. intervention is falling. This poll continues a pattern that we’ve seen in the years since the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars wherein the American people have become far more wary of military action in foreign countries. We saw some of that some doubt raised during the President’s decision to join a multi-national coalition that intervened in the Libyan civil war in 2011. At the same  time, though, I find myself agreeing with Walter Russell Mead, who faulted the Times for calling this poll evidence of an “isolationist streak” among the public:

Not wanting to send troops into a mess like Syria can hardly be considered a “isolationist streak.” The same goes for thinking that now is not the time for a war with North Korea. Nobody atVia Meadia is pushing to send troops to Syria or invade the DPRK. For that matter, we would rather strike a deal with Iran than send it airstrikes. But none of those positions in any way represents a “streak.”

Growing disinterest in Syria is less a reflection of isolationism than it is a perception that the conflict has turned into a stalemate. Certainly recent news reports have been highlighting the reality that this isn’t really a struggle between dictator-loving goons and noble freedom fighters. A conflict between two groups of thugs in a far-off land isn’t nearly as engaging. One suspects that interest in Egypt has also died down since the illusory hopes of the “Arab Spring” began to fade.

Mead is largely correct here, I think, but I doubt it’s the case that the state of the war is the reason the American people are reluctant to intervene in Syria. To put it bluntly, the last decade we’ve intervened in three Muslim countries. Two of them, Iraq and Afghanistan, turned out to largely be utter disaster while the third, Libya, has left behind a country that is barely stable and contains wide swaths of territory controlled by militants. We’re also in the middle of a confrontation with the Iranians over their nuclear program. It’s quite understandable that the public would be reluctant to back intervention in yet another Middle Eastern nation with the prospect that we’ll once again responsible for the political future of a nation that we don’t understand which is rife with sectarian and ethnic strife that is likely to boil over as  soon as the authoritarian government in Damascus collapses. This doesn’t make the American people isolationist, it makes them wise. Perhaps our political leadership could use a little bit of that wisdom.

FILED UNDER: Middle East, Military Affairs, National Security, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. Scott says:

    I see no upside in getting involved. And a lot of downside. We need to view these issues selfishly in terms of what is in it for our country.

  2. Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    Appears the American people have learned, painfully, some valuable lessons in the last 10 years.

    Their lawmakers, not so much.

  3. stonetools says:

    Oh well, the Mataconis Doctrine tells us that even where 90 per cent of the public believes something, its not reflective of the public will, so this 62 per cent finding means nothing.What matters is how the issue polls among a group intensely committed to further US military action.
    How do the defense contractors feel about this? That’s the true measure of public opinion on this issue.

  4. Robert says:
  5. Sandman says:

    Only 62%. Crazy

  6. anjin-san says:

    I think we need to remember that the desires of America’s defense contractors are paramount.

  7. Jamieog says:

    One only hopes that these numbers remain the same if/when we intervene. The rally round the flag/leader/troops is strong with this nation, Lord Vader.

  8. Kolohe says:

    “I think we need to remember that the desires of America’s defense contractors are paramount.”

    This is where I disagree. the contractors want the *threat* of war. That way, you can keep on delivering shining new toys that are never used, and thus never tested. And can be called obsolete at any time.

    With a real war, you actually have to deliver on your promises (eventually)