US Global Military Presence

Americans show strong support for the US maintaining a global military presence. When asked about the Ў°long term military bases the US has overseas,Ў± in the 2006 Chicago Council poll about two-thirds said the US should either maintain the number it has now (53%) or increase the number (15%). Twenty-seven percent wanted fewer bases abroad. This shows a very slight increase over the findings from June 2004, when support for having fewer bases was stronger (31%) and weaker for having more bases (11%). In the period immediately after the September 11th attacks, support for military bases overseas was understandably more robust. In the June 2002 CCFR poll only 14% called for the US to have fewer long-term military bases overseas, while 57% said the US should have about as many as now, and 25% said the US should have more bases.[14]

In 2002, 2004, and 2006, the Chicago Council also presented a long list of locations for the US to have such bases. While support was higher in 2002, in 2004 and 2006 substantial majorities favored having US bases on the soil of major allies. These included Germany (57% in 2006 and 2004, 69% in 2002), Japan (57% in 2006, 52% in 2004, and 63% in 2002), and South Korea (62% in 2006 and 2004, and 67% in 2002). Asked specifically in June 2002 about the US having 100,000 troops in Western Europe, just 33% said this was too many, while 53% said it was about right, and 8% said it was too few. This showed increased support relative to an October 1996 poll that asked the same question (43% too many, 47% about right, 3% too few). In the 2002 Chicago Council poll, support for keeping 44,000 troops in Japan was more mixed, with 43% saying this was too many, 45% about right and 5% too few.

Only a slight majority of 54% also supported US bases in Guantanamo Bay. This was down from 58% in 2004 and 70% in 2002: presumably a negative reaction to reports of treatment of prisoners there.[14a]

AmericansЎЇ attitudes about bases in the Middle East are complex and seem to be going through some kind of change particularly when thinking about the future. A majority thinks that at present the US should have bases: asked in December 2006 (WPO/KN) whether they favored or opposed Ў°the US having bases in the Middle East,Ў± 60% said they were in favor (37% opposed). The same poll found a slight majority (53%) saying that long-term US military bases in the Middle East that have been in place Ў°for decadesЎ± have had a positive effect on stability in the region, while 41% see it as having a negative effect.[14b]

Asked about specific bases a slight majority or plurality tends to favor them—but this support is soft and has declined significantly since 2002. The Chicago Council in July 2006 found the highest level of support for bases in Saudi Arabia with 53% in favor—down from 65% in 2002. Similarly 52% favored bases in Afghanistan (up from 47% in 2004, but down from 57% in 2002). Pluralities were supportive in Turkey (46%: down from 58% in 2002), and Pakistan (43%: up from 39% in 2004, but down from 52% in 2002).

When asked about bases in Iraq in the context of this series support is mixed—though it is difficult to interpret since bases are of course necessary for the US to conduct its current operations. In July 2006 49% favored having bases in Iraq, while 43% were opposed, showing a slight shift in preference from 2004 when 42% favored having bases there and 50% were opposed.[14c]

At present Americans have serious doubts about the value of US military presence in the region. Asked in a BBC/GlobeScan/PIPA December 2006 poll whether the US military presence in the Middle East is a Ў°stabilizing forceЎ± or Ў°provokes more conflict than it prevents,Ў± a majority (53%) said that it provokes more conflict. Only 33% saw it as a stabilizing force.[14d]

Looking to the future Americans are opposed to the US maintaining bases in Iraq on an indefinite basis. In a November 2006 WPO/KN poll, 68% were opposed to having Ў°permanent military bases in Iraq.Ў± [14e]

Americans also show responsiveness to the preferences of the people in the region. Asked in a December 2004 Opinion Research Corporation poll if they would support a Ў°major military presence in the Arabian peninsulaЎ­even if such a presence near Islamic holy sites may been seen as provocative to Muslims;Ў± support was quite soft-- 44% against 39% who would be opposed. When asked in the 2004 Chicago Council poll if Ў°a majority of people in the Middle East want the US to remove its military presence there, do you think the US should or should not remove its military presence?Ў± a strong majority of 59% said the US should (should not: 37%). And asked by WPO/KN in November 2006 how the US should respond if the Iraqi government were to be opposed to the US having permanent bases there 85% said the US should comply with this preference.[15]

This responsiveness to local opinion appears in regard to US presence in East Asia as well. When asked Ў°if most people in East Asia want the US to reduce its military presence there,Ў± a majority of 55% said that the US should comply (38% should not)

 

Rejection of Hegemonic Role

A large majority is opposed to the way it perceives the US playing the role of hegemon or dominant world leader. Americans express surprisingly modest concern for preserving the US role as the sole superpower.

As discussed above, while the majority clearly rejects the idea that the US should withdraw from the world, and supports the US playing a leadership role, there is nonetheless criticism of the current perceived US role. This may well be related to widespread feelings that the US is playing the role of the hegemonic or dominant world leader more than it should be.

Only a small minority supports the idea that the US should take the preeminent leadership role in the world. Gallup has frequently asked about "the role the US should play in trying to solve international problems." In February 2007, only 15% said the US should take "the leading role," while 58% said the US should "take a major role but not the leading role." Another 25% said the US should take a "minor role" (21%) or "no role" (4%). There was a slight bump up in support for the US playing the leading role after September 11, rising to 26% in February 2002, compared to just 16% in February 2001. However, a majority (52%) continued to endorse only a major role in 2002, similar to the 57% who held this view in early 2001.[1]

A majority feels that the US is playing the role of 'world policeman' too much. In the July 2006 Chicago Council poll, 76% agreed that "the US is playing the role of world policeman more than it should be." This is nearly the same as the 80% who held this view in the 2004 Chicago Council poll, and significantly up from 65% in the 2002 Chicago Council poll and 68% in a June 2000 PIPA poll. [2]

Majorities reject the idea that the US has an obligation to play such a role. Asked, "Do you think that the United States has the responsibility to play the role of 'world policeman,' that is, to fight violations of international law and aggression wherever they occur?" only 22% said yes while 75% said no in the July 2006 Chicago Council poll. This is consistent with findings from 2004 and even more emphatic than in 2002 when the Chicago Council found 34% saying yes and 62% saying no. [3] Polls also find the public rejecting the idea that the US has the "ability" to be world policeman: in a February 2003 Time/CNN poll, 56% said it does not.[4]

This rejection of a world policeman role for the US has been in place for some time. Even at the height of the Gulf War in March 1991, when respondents were asked whether "the US should be playing the role of world policeman," 75% said "no," with just 21% saying "yes" (Time/CNN). While the "world policeman" idea fared a little better on later repeats of this question, it was always rejected by healthy majorities (60% no, February 1992; 57% no, January 1993; Los Angeles Times). In a June 1995 ATIF poll, when asked who should be "the policeman of the world," only 19% said United States, while 76% said the United Nations.[5] Rejection of the world policeman role is sustained by a belief that other countries have grown overly dependent on the US for their defense. When asked by PIPA in November 1995, "Do you feel that countries that receive protection from US military capabilities are doing enough to protect themselves, or do you feel that they rely too much on the US?" an overwhelming 89% said that these countries "rely too much on the US." [6]

Furthermore, in PIPA's June 1996 poll, 80% rejected the view that "as the sole remaining superpower...the US [should] spend a larger percentage of its...GNP on defense than its allies," in favor of the notion that "all of the industrialized countries should spend about the same percentage." [7]

However if poll questions only offer the two options of the US taking the leading role or refraining from doing so, Americans' support for international engagement is strong enough to prompt many to endorse the leading role-and this number appears to be rising. From May 1999 through April 2003 Gallup and CBS News asked, "Do you think the United States should or should not take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international conflicts?" The percentage endorsing the US playing a leading role has risen from 38% in May 1999, to 41% in May 2000, to 45% in September 2002, and for the first time to a plurality of 48% in April 2003, the month after US forces invaded Iraq. In October 2004 Gallup, for CNN/USA Today asked whether the US should "take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international problems" and a slight majority-53% said that it should, with 45% saying it should not. Similarly when asked to choose between the US taking a leading role in world affairs or staying out of the affairs of other countries, Americans give a divided response. Forty-seven percent said the US should take a leading role, while 45% said it should "stay out of the affairs of other countries" in the September 2006 Public Agenda poll. In all these cases the questions do not really offer the options that elicit a clear majority response.[8]

This desire for the US to not play a domineering role was also reflected in a Beldon and Russonello poll in January 2000. It posed an interesting pair of questions, in which the first one asked: "Which of these best describes the role you think the US currently has in the world?...Bully, teacher, good neighbor, banker, relief worker, policeman." The most popular response was "policeman" at 30%, followed by good neighbor (21%), banker (17%), teacher (13%), bully (9%), and relief worker (8%). When asked what role they would like to see the US play, the big favorite was "good neighbor" at 53%, with "teacher" at 36% and all other options in the single digits-- including policeman at 5%.[9]

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: