Behind the Numbers

A Threat We Can Live With

Most Americans really don’t like North Korea, but few say it’s worth going to war to make them get rid of their nuclear weapons.

The poll-watcher analysis series on American public opinion on foreign policy is cross-posted at the Behind the Numbers blog.

Some Americans may rest easier on news that North Korea and U.S. negotiators struck a deal to provide food aid in exchange for halting its uranium enrichment program, a key facet of its nuclear weapons operation. But many Americans may be skeptical: North Korea is deeply unpopular, widely seen as a threat to national security and not very trustworthy.

More than eight in ten Americans expressed unfavorable views of North Korea in a February Gallup poll, including 54 percent who held strongly unfavorable views. A similar 49 percent called the nation an outright "enemy" in a 2011 CNN/ORC poll -- tying Iran. That's about double or more the number who called any other country in the survey an enemy (including Syria, Pakistan, and China).

Americans' worries over North Korea even outpace concern among foreign policy experts. Nearly seven in 10 Americans said that the Kim Jong Il regime posed a "major threat" to national security in a 2009 Pew Research Center poll, much higher than the proportion of Council of Foreign Relations members who said this in a parallel survey. 

And more than seven in 10 Americans in a 2009 CNN poll believed North Korea was capable of launching a missile that could hit the United States. If they attempted such a feat, the poll found the public almost unanimously supporting military retaliation. Pyongyang still had a ways to go before being able to launch a nuclear warhead across the Pacific, and has said that it will stop long-range missile launches under the new agreement.

Aside from hypothetical situations, Americans have signaled little appetite for a military invasion. Even after Pyongyang announced it had built nuclear weapons for self defense, 78 percent of Americans in a 2005 Washington Post-ABC News poll opposed a military invasion. A similar percentage opposed bombing military targets to force the nation to part with their weapons. The public split on whether to offer financial incentives, such as aid money or trade, to encourage North Korea to halt its nuclear program.

This attitude seems to persist today. Late last year, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents said that the North Korean threat could be contained without using force, according to a CBS News poll. Only 16 percent said that the threat requires immediate military action.

But Americans may be dubious of the success of the latest agreement with Pyongyang. Two-thirds of voters said the United States shouldn't trust any agreements with North Korea in a 2006 Fox News poll. That number may be a bit higher than the reality, as the survey reminded respondents about North Korea's recent missile tests.

Even so, the public has reason to be doubtful. The two nations struck an agreement when Kim Jong Il took control of the country in 1994, promising to stop the nuclear program in exchange for $5 billion in nuclear fuel and reactors (for conventional uses) last time North Korea had a change in leadership. Suffice to say, they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Is there any confidence in diplomacy? Many are optimistic. Six in 10 people said that diplomatic and economic efforts alone could successfully resolve the situation in a 2006 CNN poll, and even more thought diplomacy and negotiation had at least "some chance" of solving the North Korea problem in a 2003 Washington Post-ABC survey. If Americans fail to see a fast-growing danger, the public may continue to be patient with diplomacy.

Americans seem be taking the long-view approach to North Korea's nuclear threat: Step up diplomatic efforts to halt the nuclear program, but don't declare war unless attacked first.

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

Behind the Numbers

Asking the Right Question

Why are polls so all over the map when it comes to bombing Iran?

Scott Clement is the polling analyst for the Washington Post. The poll-watcher analysis series on American public opinion on foreign policy is cross-posted at the Behind the Numbers blog.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is a jab sometimes aimed at political polls, and in the complicated business of foreign policy polling there's plenty for people to argue over.

Seventy-five percent of Americans see Israel as a friend or an ally. Thirty-seven percent think the United States was right to get involved in Libya last year. Fifty-nine percent believe China poses a major economic threat to the nation.

All these numbers come from polls in the past year, but can they be trusted? And since most Americans aren't foreign policy wonks, are these results even meaningful? And what about when polls show contradictory findings -- like on what to do about Iran's nuclear threat?

Let's start with the good news. By and large, polls boast a strong record of accuracy and there's evidence that poll respondents are doing their part as well. "The public has meaningful opinions on foreign policy issues like domestic issues," says Robert Y. Shapiro, a political science professor at Columbia University, at least where respondents possess a "minimum amount of information on which to base their opinions." Even on issues where there is very little public debate (like, say, on U.S. democracy promotion in Central Asia), poll results in the aggregate can represent a meaningful reaction to a policy.

This is often the case with foreign policy issues, about which few have ruminated laboriously and even fewer know all the facts. The wording of a given question plays a big role in framing the way poll respondents think about the issue and, thus, their answers. Even balanced questions sometimes get varying results, making it difficult to sort out what the public actually wants.

Take the latest controversy over Iran's nuclear buildup. Americans said by nearly 2 to 1 in a Pew survey this month that it is more important to "prevent Iran from developing weapons, even if it means taking military action" than to "avoid military conflict, even if Iran may develop nuclear weapons." One could read this result as an implicit call to arms.

But a contemporaneous CNN/ORC poll found just 17 percent supporting "military action right now." Some 60 percent of those polled favored "economic and diplomatic efforts" and an additional 22 percent supported "no action at all. This poll, then, gives the sense that an invasion is remarkably unpopular.

The poll discrepancy may be driven by two underlying attitudes. The American public is quite averse to joining in another military conflict -- nearly six in 10 respondents in a 2011 Pew poll said that "good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace." But Americans also see Iran as a serious security threat - 88 percent of voters said as much in a November Quinnipiac University poll.

What gives? "It's a question of how the issue is framed," says Shapiro. The public picks diplomacy when the question is framed as a choice between going to war with Iran and a solution by other means. But most prefer action when the choice is between "avoiding conflict" and allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

This calculus is colored by the nation's doubts that diplomacy is working. A majority of voters saw economic sanctions against Iran as an ineffective deterrent in a November Quinnipiac poll. Nevertheless, over half the public at that time still believed that Iran threat could be contained with diplomacy, according to a CBS News poll.

How the public responds is affected by information coming from political leaders, says Shapiro, and people use this as a shortcut to forming their own beliefs. He notes that conservatives have made arguments for using military force with Iran. And, of course, nearly all the GOP presidential candidates talk tough when it comes to Iran. It's no surprise, then, that Republicans (who are largely conservative) are most supportive of military action in both the Pew and CNN polls.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, has been more inclined to speak softly and carry a big stick while it puts diplomatic and sanctions pressure on Tehran. Thus, Democrats are more positive toward sanctions and less keen on taking on Iran militarily.

There also may be a machismo factor to issues of war and peace, at least for presidential contenders. Just over half the public called Obama a strong leader in a January Washington Post-ABC News poll, and Republican presidential contenders have hammered Obama for not being tougher with Iran, clearly sensing weakness. The next nine months will tell whether that line of attack is potent of not.

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images