Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds

By: Lucy Madison
Topics: Foreign Policy ,; Polling

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

Nearly seven in ten Americans support the use of military air strikes in Libya in order to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, a new CBS News poll finds.

In a survey taken on Sunday and Monday, following Saturday's first round of U.N.-sanctioned missile and air strikes aimed at Libya, 68 percent of Americans said they approved of the military action. Just 26 percent said they disapproved.

Eight in 10 Americans want budget compromise
Support for new nuclear plants drops

Fifty percent of Americans said they approved of how President Obama was handling the situation in Libya, and the president earned more support from Republicans on the issue than he did on domestic issues like the economy and the deficit. Forty-three percent of Republicans said they approved of Mr. Obama's handling of the Libya situation, according to the poll, and 41 percent disapproved. Sixty-six percent of Democrats approved, as did 43 percent of Independents.

Nearly three in four Americans also said they expected the air strikes to be effective on some level, although respondents' confidence levels dipped in regard to the extent of the strikes' predicted success: Just 20 percent of respondents said they thought the strikes would be "very effective" in protecting Libyan citizens, while 54 percent said they thought the actions would be "somewhat effective." Eighteen percent said they thought the recent military actions in Libya would be not very - or not at all - effective.

More than four in five Americans say that what happens in Libya is important to the U.S., according to the survey, including 38 percent who said they considered it "very important." Last month, 46 percent felt what was happening in Egypt was "very important" to the U.S.

Americans have supported this type of military action before. According to a CBS News Poll conducted in September 1995, 59 percent of Americans approved of air strikes in Bosnia during the war there. In March 1999, 51 percent favored US and NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.

Obama's disaster management gets solid marks
Few Americans more fearful of nuclear power
Read the full CBS News poll

Lucy Madison
Lucy Madison is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

114 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 114 Comments


by crazyname April 14, 2011 1:53 PM EDT: Another CBS poll. Have to come up with something to support Obama's lie about pulling out 2-3 weeks ago. We are getting into it slowly, and polls like these and others are designed to feed the ill informed garbage, that covers the lies Obama said. like one add says, Obama has used more rockets to kill than any other Nobel Pease price winner in history?; Reply to this comment


by jd2408 April 13, 2011 11:42 AM EDT: I just can't understand these poll results. We are now in 3 wars people. None of them have anything to do with a threat to our homeland. We have spent enough money on these 3 wars that could have been spent on real national security. We could have had alternative energy by now. Haven't you read they can't afford up-to-date equipment in airports, can't afford border security and on and on. We have spent 608 Million dollars as of 4/7/11 on Libya alone. Have we lost our minds ? Why are we in another countries civil war when we are making cuts to programs for poor children health care and are 14 trillion dollars in debt ?; Reply to this comment


by DidHeSayThat March 29, 2011 1:24 PM EDT: I whole-heartedly disapprove.

I blame all of you republicans for the fiasco that our government is in.

Oh sure, the democrats are social do-gooders with naive thoughts and know no better. But the republicans have made sure that only the neo-cons and industrialists are able to break our backs and bankrupt this country.

For example, all of you republicans made sure to snicker behind Ross Perot's back when he explained with charts how our country was going to go broke if we didn't change it. All of you republicans shunned Patrick Buchanan when he explained the folly of war and how intervening weakens our own borders. In fact, you called him an anti-semite.

In fact, anytime any republican with the good common sense of man comes on board, if he doesn't meet your abortion litmus test from the religious right or the war mongering of the military generals who need more stars before retirement and billions to the war machines, you immediately ostracize them and isolate them and shun them and remove them from any ability to make a difference.

Shame on you all for removing the real hopes, dreams, and change from average Americans.; Reply to this comment


by pro-palin March 29, 2011 12:45 PM EDT: Of course 68% of the grossly uninformed American public support air strikes in Libya. Who wouldn't support air strikes against an evil dictator who is slaughtering defenseless civilians? Or was it brave freedom fighters that he's slaughtering? Or was it anti-American Islamists rcently set free from Qaddafi's prison's? Or was it al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists recently returned from blowing up Americans in Iraq? And does anyone care? Does anyone care that our all-of-a-sudden friend, the leader of the rebel government in Benghazi, threatened to wage war against any American troops who set foot on Libyan soil? These are all unimportant questions, I realize. There are other unimportant questions, too. Like, how come France and Qatar are the only two nations in the world that have granted official recognition to the rebel government? How come the United States hasn't done so? Since we're all for regime change in Libya? And, speaking of regime change: How? How is there going to be regime change if the removal of Qaddafi from power is not part of our stated military goals in Libya? A no-fly zone didn't remove Saddam Hussein from power, and it won't remove Qaddafi from power. Stupid questions, excuse me for asking.; Reply to this comment


by carolo43 March 26, 2011 4:49 PM EDT: The rebels were not looking for someone to do the job for them. They only wanted this battle somewhat fair and their pea-shooters against tanks and planes wasn't working for them.; Reply to this comment


by Gurualaking March 24, 2011 2:27 AM EDT: Didn't the rebels proudly proclaim "give us a no-fly zone, and we will take care of the rest"?! It doesn't look like 1adiffi's air power was the issue...it was the rebellions lack of strength and numbers. So, how does this debacle end? I fear not well for the allies or rebellion at all.; Reply to this comment


by erasmus111 March 23, 2011 4:48 PM EDT: by AJMarine12 March 23, 2011 5:13 AM EDT
by erasmus111 March 23, 2011 3:12 AM EDT

Shut up nina.

I thought you only said that to me My Canadian Irish Wench.

Kiss
-------------------

There's a big difference between the "shut ups". There's the "Shut up, lover. Kiss Kiss : ) And then there is the "SHUT (the freakin' hell) UP, SHAZAMIE!" See the difference?

"CodeNameNina", "SingswithRapture", and something with the name "Victoria" ? in it, are all Shazam. (I know that you are gagging now.)

Kiss : ); Reply to this comment


by wfw3536 March 23, 2011 11:04 AM EDT: I do not believe this poll as I am sure folks supporting Obama's war would not support it if they knew about the many innocent people being killed by all the bombing. Where are the people who support the peace movement? It is so sad they are giving Obama a pass.; Reply to this comment

by Empire--George--- March 23, 2011 10:44 AM EDT

by BaghdadsHere14 March 23, 2011 9:43 AM EDT

Yeah, this Sky Klown doesn't even realize that groups such as Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood could very easily sieze control of the Libyian government......he's so drunk on Obama Koolaid, that even terrorists taking over a government seems like a "new democracy" to him.

Reply to this comment


by forsanity1 March 23, 2011 11:32 AM EDT: With that reasoning, hell anyone could seize control --- oh the fear, oh the dread, the predictions of the worst thing, no hope, ahhhhh

And, I could seize control of your 'nads Georgie... and I might be a little less accommodating in that region than you would like.


by Empire--George--- March 24, 2011 10:03 AM EDT: forsanity1, yeah, you think it's some joke, allowing Al Qaeda to sieze control over governments like Egypt and Libya.....you libs are so very short-sighted and never see the big picture of what you are supporting.....the muslim brotherhood.

by abbe91 March 23, 2011 10:35 AM EDT

by KeithDrippingSprings March 23, 2011 9:43 AM EDT
"The answer to the 64,000 dollar question is; there was no oil in the Republic of Georgia"

Sorry, you lost the 64,000 dollars ... Caspian oil and gas resources, indeed.

Reply to this comment


by gbfromsea March 24, 2011 1:48 AM EDT: There's no oil in Afghanistan, only opium poppies. So you shouldn't accuse the our government of only being interested in trying to control Oil reserves. The agenda our military carries out has at least a little bit of diversity. Opium production from Afghanistan has reached new highs in recent years now that those pesky Talibon aren't messing with the local warlords and their crops. What I want to know is who is really calling the shots. I guess if we follow the money we may get a clue to who is using our military to forward their "plan." I'm pretty sure we'll find fantastically rich globalists who have no regard for human life and view these military actions as a form of Social, Political and Economic engineering. Oil and Opium trade and influencing public opinion by controlling the press are all a means to an end.