Libyan rebels recently broke through a Qaddafi government blockade on their approach to Tripoli, as opposition forces across the country mount an aggressive resurgence amid an intensified NATO air campaign. According to recent opinion polls, however, rebel success has not translated into an increase in American public support for the war. This is indicative of a growing isolationist sentiment espoused by the U.S. public.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, just 26 percent of likely United States voters feel that the U.S. should continue to engage in military action in Libya. Meanwhile, 42 percent are opposed and 32 percent remain undecided on the issue. As Congress ponders the merits of executive unilateralism in Libya, the survey found that 59 percent of voters believe that President Obama should seek the approval of Congress if he plans to continue U.S. military action in the country. The number marks a jump in support for congressional authorization from when President Obama initially committed U.S. military resources to the Libyan mission in mid-March. The increase is not just reflective of public opinion on the powers of the executive, but is evidence of a growing sentiment of isolationism in the U.S.
The June 10 Pew Research Center poll provides evidence that Americans are becoming more isolationist. Indeed, the center reports that the present assessment of isolationist sentiment is the highest recorded in over four decades. There are other indications of the public’s reservations on American engagement in the world. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed declare it is more important for President Obama to engage with U.S. domestic policy, a stark contrast to the 9 percent who state that the president should focus more on foreign policy.
Whether this trend can be partially attributed to skepticism about achieving success in the “war on terror” or to domestic economic turmoil, the repercussions of an isolationist streak are considerable. It would be damaging for the current public sentiment to push the U.S. to fully extricate itself from humanitarian intervention and bold policies amid the havoc of the Arab Spring. Engaging with Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. is necessary and fundamental, as it allows the United States to be an active participant in shaping a friendlier Middle East, in line with democratic values and stability.
In order to combat the trend of American isolationism and salvage public support for the mission in Libya, President Obama must stage an immediate reversal from his approach implemented at the outset, one characterized by ambiguity and inconsistency. Indeed, the president must now present clear and consistent objectives on the direction that the war is heading. In the manner of the congressional resolution sponsored by House Speaker John Boehner and his subsequent written warning released Tuesday, which directs the president to explain the United States’ purpose in Libya, President Obama must engage in a candid dialogue with Congress and the public.
If the administration had articulated a coherent approach and unambiguous justification from the outset, it is reasonable to assume that the poll numbers on Libya would look significantly more promising.
How does the suspicious eye with which the American people are watching the executive branch with equate with ‘isolationism’?
One would think that such actions – that is, of keeping a weary eye on the growth of power of one branch over the others – would be lauded as just the type of thing that citizens of a republic ought to be doing.
Also, ‘isolationism’ implies that a state be completely isolated from other states, does it not? What do opinion polls suggest the American people think about trading with these states? Or traveling? Or engaging with them in one-on-one, regionally, or internationally through diplomatic institutions?
Are the American people growing more ‘isolationist’, or are they simply sick and tired of their government spending $2 billion a week on bombing some petty tyrant that our government was friendly towards just the day before?
it’s extremely short-sighted of you to dismiss a growing skepticism of perpetual war as “isolationist.” isolationism means cutting off all lines of interaction between nations. today, people such as yourself use the term as propaganda to scare people into supporting unnecessary intervention. the people are starting to figure out that the wars have failed, and they want a more sensible foreign policy. one that does not involved dangerous alliances, but instead uses free trade and cooperation to show peace by example. this is FAR from “isolationist” but instead is a strategy of a rational nation waking up.
Since when did not being at war with everyone all the time make America isolationist…? Quick, we had better bomb Canada. No matter that we trade and talk with them! Unless we are bombing them we are being isolationist…..
You use “isolationist” incorrectly. An isolationist would not want trade with other nations, travel to other nations, etc.
Perhaps the people are becoming more non-interventionist, less blood-thirsty, and believe we should mind our own business and deal with the outrageous military spending issue we have.
Besides, the president doesn’t need to “lead more” unless he’s going to lead our troops home. He should have had authorization from Congress, as the Constitution demands. He needs to either get it, which is unlikely, or cease all action in Libya.
I feel so sad for whoever wrote this. It’s clear that they are living their life through the framework of a nanny-state. Several generations of entitlements and government-run indoctrination centers teaching anti-History and Keynsian economics produce this type of thinking.
How about instead we seek a government with elected REPRESENTATIVES, instead of the LEADERS we are supposed to cheer for? I don’t need to be LED. Oh, and I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but whether it’s Reagan or Obama, the strong “leadership” of a puppet authoritarian official has no bearing on a foreign country full of armed citizens seeking FREEDOM. The only thing that they affect is the $$$ they illegally strip through the populace through fiat inflation, and the amount of foreign citizens murdered through ka-booms we paid for. That being said, the outcome is happening regardless. YOU CANNOT STOP AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME.
It’s arrogant to think that we know what’s best for Libya, or anyone else.
In the late 1700′s, by the author’s definition, we were founded by “Isolationists.”
Bring the troops home.
The proper term is not “isolationist”, it is “Non-interventionist”. The Founding Fathers never intended for us to go around the world freeing countries from the oppression of dictators and tyrants. They never intended for us to export our version of freedom by force. They never intended for us to give money to other countries to coerce them into doing our bidding. They intended for us to vigorously defend our physical borders, stay out of alliances that would require us to attack countries that never attacked us, keep our collective noses out of other countries’ business (even business that’s offensive to us), to trade with any and all countries, and to serve as an example of freedom for other countries to emulate. If I was a people in an oppressed nation, I certainly wouldn’t come looking to the United States of today as a shining example of freedom and liberty to emulate.
What does it take to convince you that waging wars all over the world is a bad policy? Iraq was built on a lie and cost huge numbers of lives. Afghanistan was supposedly fought to get Bin Laden, who turned up living peacefully in Pakistan. The government is harassing us in our daily lives, conducting secret investigations under the Patriot Act, and shredding the Constitution — and all you can say is that we need a more aggressive leader?
Obama is breaking the law with his unauthorized war in Libya. Congress should impeach him, not further grovel to him.
“Engaging with Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc. is necessary and fundamental, as it allows the United States to be an active participant in shaping a friendlier Middle East, in line with democratic values and stability.”
Regrettably, the empirical evidence for the truth of this statement is lacking. More than 100 years of such ‘engagement’ has not led to a friendlier Middle East. Time to re-evaluate your position in light of the facts.