fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Wages of Threat Inflation

If half of Americans think ISIS poses a critical threat to our vital interests, that shows they don't understand the meaning of these words.
A member loyal to the ISIL waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa
A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa June 29, 2014. The offshoot of al Qaeda which has captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria has declared itself an Islamic "Caliphate" and called on factions worldwide to pledge their allegiance, a statement posted on jihadist websites said on Sunday. The group, previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as ISIS, has renamed itself "Islamic State" and proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghadi as "Caliph" - the head of the state, the statement said. REUTERS/Stringer (SYRIA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY) (Newscom TagID: rtrlsix541650.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

A Gallup poll released today shows that 60% of Americans support the war against ISIS, which represents a dramatic reversal from early summer when just 39% supported direct U.S. intervention. The report attempts to explain why:

The increase in support is likely also tied to ISIS being perceived as a more direct threat to the U.S., which may not have been as clear in June. In recent weeks, ISIS has captured and beheaded two U.S. journalists. In fact, the current poll finds 50% of Americans describing ISIS as a “critical threat” to U.S. vital interests [bold mine-DL], with an additional 31% saying the group is an “important threat.”

There’s no question that the group is now perceived to be more of a direct threat, but that perception is unfounded. The truth is that ISIS doesn’t pose a direct threat to U.S. security, and if that becomes better understood there likely won’t be nearly as much support for the ongoing war as there is right now. If half of Americans think that ISIS poses a critical threat to our vital interests, that just shows that the respondents don’t understand the meaning of these words. Then again, it’s not surprising that these words would be poorly understood in the context of foreign policy debate nowadays. When manageable threats are grossly exaggerated into something that demands immediate military action, threats are going to be perceived as being much more dangerous than they are. When politicians and pundits routinely assert that American “vital interests” are at stake in virtually every crisis in the world, it shouldn’t surprise us that fewer people can distinguish accurately between truly vital interests and tangential ones.

The fact that only 39% favored military action a few months ago suggests that much of the current level of support for the war is ephemeral and won’t last as the war continues for months and years. That is especially true if the war is perceived as “not working,” and that perception is likely to grow thanks to the unrealistic stated goal of the war. As the Gallup report notes, the 60% figure is relatively lower than polling for most military interventions over the last thirty years, and once the initial “rally round the flag” effect wears off it is probably going to drop back down to significantly lower levels. The public’s underlying aversion to prolonged conflict is still there, and their opposition to sending ground forces into Iraq or Syria remains. Because there appears to be no effort to get Congress to vote on this anytime soon, and because the war is likely to last for several years, declining public support will become a serious political problem for the administration.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here