kat
06-07-2004, 10:04 PM
The 2004 U.S. presidential election may be the first in decades to center on the candidates’ foreign-policy views. So what do most Americans really think about Iraq, terrorism, North Korea, and free trade? Herewith an “interview” with the American people, with each answer reflecting majority positions in recent opinion polls. Americans’ surprising preferences offer insight into what voters want from their next president.
FOREIGN POLICY: How did you feel about going to war with Iraq?
John/Jane Q. Public: It's complicated. When President George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction and might give them to terrorists, I found that argument pretty convincing. So I was all for trying to get into Iraq to find out if Saddam had those weapons, and to take them away from him if he did.
FP: So did you think immediate action was necessary?
JP: Not really. I thought we could take time to build support at the United Nations. Besides, we had plenty else to worry about, like al Qaeda. And once the U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, it seemed like we should give them a chance—not that I was all that optimistic that they were going to find the weapons. But Saddam was contained, so I thought we should keep trying to find some consensus at the United Nations.
FP: Why was it so important to get U.N. support?
JP: I just didn't think we should suddenly go in there on our own. The United States already plays the role of the world's policeman more than it should. And I'm torn over whether we have the right to march in and overthrow a government, even if it is trying to build nuclear weapons.
FP: Does the United Nations have the right to intervene like that?
JP: Yes, definitely.
FP: What if a country poses an imminent threat to the United States? Is unilateral action then justified?
JP: Well yes, I mean, if it's in self-defense and they are about to attack. But it should be pretty clear cut.
FP: Did you think that Iraq posed such an imminent threat?
JP: Probably not.
FP: Do you think the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated the evidence to build support for the war?
JP: Yes, though I think the administration believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But maybe Bush was so determined to get Saddam that it didn't much matter to him if it was true. If the CIA had told him that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved with al Qaeda, I still think Bush would have wanted to go to war anyhow.
FP: What do you think about the argument that the war was justified because Saddam was a dictator violating the rights of Iraq's people?
JP: I don't really think the United States has the right to do that kind of thing. We still need U.N. approval, unless it is something really large-scale and extreme—like genocide.
FP: Do you think what Hussein was doing reached that level?
JP: Well, it was pretty bad, but no, not genocide. There are probably other regimes in the world right now that are as bad as Saddam's.
FP: So you think war was the wrong decision?
JP: No. I think Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction, and I do think he was probably working with al Qaeda. And though he is not the only threat to the United States, it is better for U.S. security to have him out of there. Overall, he was a really bad guy. So, no, it was not a wrong decision.
FP: So it was the right decision?
JP: Well, sort of—I just don't know if it was the best decision. Maybe if we had taken more time and gotten more countries involved through the United Nations, the brunt of this thing would not be falling on our shoulders. The war itself was simple, but this occupation is tough. I didn't like it when Bush said he wanted $87 billion dollars for Iraq. And all these casualties…
FP: So are you thinking you might want to pull out?
JP: Oh no, we can't do that. Whether or not it was a good idea to go in, we still need to stay the course.
FP: How did you feel about the capture of Hussein?
JP: That was great. It made me feel better about how Bush was handling the situation in Iraq. But personally, capturing Saddam didn't make me feel safer.
FP: What do you want to do at this point?
JP: I would like to see this whole thing put under the United Nations. Let's not have the United States out front and being shot at every day.
FP: But what if that means the United States must let other countries be involved in making key decisions?
JP: What's the problem with that?
FP: So you still feel good about the United Nations, even after the U.N. Security Council did not support the United States going to war in Iraq?
------------
There's plenty more where that came from. (http://www.foreignpolicy.co m/story/cms.php?story_id=253 9)
FOREIGN POLICY: How did you feel about going to war with Iraq?
John/Jane Q. Public: It's complicated. When President George W. Bush said that Saddam Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction and might give them to terrorists, I found that argument pretty convincing. So I was all for trying to get into Iraq to find out if Saddam had those weapons, and to take them away from him if he did.
FP: So did you think immediate action was necessary?
JP: Not really. I thought we could take time to build support at the United Nations. Besides, we had plenty else to worry about, like al Qaeda. And once the U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, it seemed like we should give them a chance—not that I was all that optimistic that they were going to find the weapons. But Saddam was contained, so I thought we should keep trying to find some consensus at the United Nations.
FP: Why was it so important to get U.N. support?
JP: I just didn't think we should suddenly go in there on our own. The United States already plays the role of the world's policeman more than it should. And I'm torn over whether we have the right to march in and overthrow a government, even if it is trying to build nuclear weapons.
FP: Does the United Nations have the right to intervene like that?
JP: Yes, definitely.
FP: What if a country poses an imminent threat to the United States? Is unilateral action then justified?
JP: Well yes, I mean, if it's in self-defense and they are about to attack. But it should be pretty clear cut.
FP: Did you think that Iraq posed such an imminent threat?
JP: Probably not.
FP: Do you think the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated the evidence to build support for the war?
JP: Yes, though I think the administration believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But maybe Bush was so determined to get Saddam that it didn't much matter to him if it was true. If the CIA had told him that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved with al Qaeda, I still think Bush would have wanted to go to war anyhow.
FP: What do you think about the argument that the war was justified because Saddam was a dictator violating the rights of Iraq's people?
JP: I don't really think the United States has the right to do that kind of thing. We still need U.N. approval, unless it is something really large-scale and extreme—like genocide.
FP: Do you think what Hussein was doing reached that level?
JP: Well, it was pretty bad, but no, not genocide. There are probably other regimes in the world right now that are as bad as Saddam's.
FP: So you think war was the wrong decision?
JP: No. I think Saddam probably did have weapons of mass destruction, and I do think he was probably working with al Qaeda. And though he is not the only threat to the United States, it is better for U.S. security to have him out of there. Overall, he was a really bad guy. So, no, it was not a wrong decision.
FP: So it was the right decision?
JP: Well, sort of—I just don't know if it was the best decision. Maybe if we had taken more time and gotten more countries involved through the United Nations, the brunt of this thing would not be falling on our shoulders. The war itself was simple, but this occupation is tough. I didn't like it when Bush said he wanted $87 billion dollars for Iraq. And all these casualties…
FP: So are you thinking you might want to pull out?
JP: Oh no, we can't do that. Whether or not it was a good idea to go in, we still need to stay the course.
FP: How did you feel about the capture of Hussein?
JP: That was great. It made me feel better about how Bush was handling the situation in Iraq. But personally, capturing Saddam didn't make me feel safer.
FP: What do you want to do at this point?
JP: I would like to see this whole thing put under the United Nations. Let's not have the United States out front and being shot at every day.
FP: But what if that means the United States must let other countries be involved in making key decisions?
JP: What's the problem with that?
FP: So you still feel good about the United Nations, even after the U.N. Security Council did not support the United States going to war in Iraq?
------------
There's plenty more where that came from. (http://www.foreignpolicy.co m/story/cms.php?story_id=253 9)