Facing repeated terror attacks have made a large number of Americans believe that sending “US ground troops to fight the Islamic State” is the right things given the call of the hour, revealed a “new Associated Press-GfK Poll”. Nevertheless, another majority is looking for a “clearer explanation” of the “President Barack Obama” regarding his stance and strategies in respect to bring down this terrorism.
Almost forty two percent of Americans now are in favour of “US troops” fighting the Islamic State’s militant, whereas only a year ago the count was down to thirty one percent. In an attempt to coordinate with Syrian military, President Barack Obama was “dispatched about 50 special operations forces”. Although still a large number of Americans, including the president himself, still oppose the idea of increasing the “US-led coalition air campaign”.
However, Hillary Clinton pledges otherwise, as she wants to “keep American troops out of Syria” even though the U.S. may be in the imminent danger of yet another “terrorist attack”.
As per the poll, 56% of Americans prefer a military response to terrorists activities of the Islamic state saying the U.S response so far has not gone far enough. In October 2014, 46% of Americans preferred a military response to Daesh’s nefarious activities.
As per the poll out of every 10 Republican 6 prefer a military response. On the other hand out of every 10 Democrats only 3 prefer a military response with boots on the ground.
As per analysts, there is a growing anxiety in the mind of the public after what happened in Paris. The shooting incident in San Bernardino, California, by the brain washed couple are also weighing on them. Obama’s strategy of pounding Daesh from air, in a slow long campaign, aided by diplomacy, financial sanctions and training along with other measures are causing unease.
On its part the White House recognises the need for President Obama to sell his campaign strategy to the voting public. He is expected to visit a counterterrorism facility later this week.
On his part, President Obama has made the case for a ground invasion. Although U.S. ground troops could clean Raqqa of Islamic troops, however unless local ground forces can maintain their strategic positions, IS troops could take back their capital.
"Let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? " asked Obama said.
As per Daniel Byman, a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, President Obama’s step by step approach is seen as unsatisfying to the public. Their current unease could grow to the levels of displeasure if American ground troops were to suffer casualties in Syria.
"Sure, right now, Americans are baying for blood, but if three years down the road, the US has 50,000 troops in Iraq and Syria and we're taking casualties, then American are going to be saying, 'Why did people do stupid things and put American troops at risk" said Byman.
"Iraq syndrome is still hanging there and the public doesn't really think that war is going to solve the ISIS problem," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland.
As per Carl Ripperton, an AP poll respondent, if American generals could spell out what was exactly needed to defeat the Islamic State, it is likely that the American may respond better.
"It's gotta be done. The bombing doesn't seem to have done anything. I would think if we just went in there and wiped them out that would take care of it. I mean they might pop up again, but at least we'd take care of this group," said Ripperton, 76, a National Guard veteran and self-professed political independent.
Almost forty two percent of Americans now are in favour of “US troops” fighting the Islamic State’s militant, whereas only a year ago the count was down to thirty one percent. In an attempt to coordinate with Syrian military, President Barack Obama was “dispatched about 50 special operations forces”. Although still a large number of Americans, including the president himself, still oppose the idea of increasing the “US-led coalition air campaign”.
However, Hillary Clinton pledges otherwise, as she wants to “keep American troops out of Syria” even though the U.S. may be in the imminent danger of yet another “terrorist attack”.
As per the poll, 56% of Americans prefer a military response to terrorists activities of the Islamic state saying the U.S response so far has not gone far enough. In October 2014, 46% of Americans preferred a military response to Daesh’s nefarious activities.
As per the poll out of every 10 Republican 6 prefer a military response. On the other hand out of every 10 Democrats only 3 prefer a military response with boots on the ground.
As per analysts, there is a growing anxiety in the mind of the public after what happened in Paris. The shooting incident in San Bernardino, California, by the brain washed couple are also weighing on them. Obama’s strategy of pounding Daesh from air, in a slow long campaign, aided by diplomacy, financial sanctions and training along with other measures are causing unease.
On its part the White House recognises the need for President Obama to sell his campaign strategy to the voting public. He is expected to visit a counterterrorism facility later this week.
On his part, President Obama has made the case for a ground invasion. Although U.S. ground troops could clean Raqqa of Islamic troops, however unless local ground forces can maintain their strategic positions, IS troops could take back their capital.
"Let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? " asked Obama said.
As per Daniel Byman, a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, President Obama’s step by step approach is seen as unsatisfying to the public. Their current unease could grow to the levels of displeasure if American ground troops were to suffer casualties in Syria.
"Sure, right now, Americans are baying for blood, but if three years down the road, the US has 50,000 troops in Iraq and Syria and we're taking casualties, then American are going to be saying, 'Why did people do stupid things and put American troops at risk" said Byman.
"Iraq syndrome is still hanging there and the public doesn't really think that war is going to solve the ISIS problem," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland.
As per Carl Ripperton, an AP poll respondent, if American generals could spell out what was exactly needed to defeat the Islamic State, it is likely that the American may respond better.
"It's gotta be done. The bombing doesn't seem to have done anything. I would think if we just went in there and wiped them out that would take care of it. I mean they might pop up again, but at least we'd take care of this group," said Ripperton, 76, a National Guard veteran and self-professed political independent.
