A clear majority of Americans support escalating their country's fight against ISIS - but simultaneously oppose the notion of sending ground troops to the Middle East to take on the jihadists....It's been known for a while that Americans oppose another ground war -- but only "a slim majority" wants an increase in airstrikes? Even though 60% want more invested in a military response? What the hell would such a response consist of, for Americans who don't want ground troops and are squeamish about airstrikes?
60% of Americans supported investing more in the military campaign against ISIS, with a slim majority favoring increased airstrikes. However, a clear majority opposed sending special forces or other ground troops to Iraq and Syria.
Maybe more special forces, in lieu of regular ground troops? Um, no:
Asked whether the United States should dispatch special forces - something President Obama has already done, albeit on a very small scale - opposition stood at 65%. But that number increased further when asked whether the US should deploy regular ground troops, with a full 76% opposed.So to sum up: When it comes to ISIS, Americans don't want ground troops, don't want special forces, and are skittish about increasing the number of airstrikes -- but they're solidly in favor of a more aggressive military response.
Right. Got it.
I guess that would explain why, when Reuters/Ipsos asks Americans which party has the better plan for fighting terrorism, Republicans beat Democrats, 30%-18%. ("Don't know" beats both Republicans and Democrats, with 33%.) Republicans prevail over Democrats because the Republicans' plan for dealing with ISIS is to say "Obama sucks" and leave it at that. This level of specificity seems to be just fine with a plurality of Americans.