Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy Releases Research That Shows Americans Are Ready For Decreased U.S. Military Intervention And Increased Congressional Oversight
Jan 03, 2018, 03:22 ET
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy – a bipartisan initiative designed to advocate for more oversight of U.S. military intervention abroad – commissioned research on U.S. citizens' positions on war intervention. The coalition announced today that the results prove a majority of Americans are mostly skeptical of the benefits of military intervention overseas and military aid in the form of funds or equipment.
The examination, conducted by J. Wallin Opinion Research in partnership with Gunster Strategies, was designed to measure attitudinal responses to U.S. military intervention in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The research shows that more than 57% of surveyed U.S. citizens believe that the billions spent on weapons and military aid to foreign countries was counterproductive to the goal of protecting American interests and ensuring safety of the nation.
"We started this initiative to give a voice to the people and the people have spoken – Congress needs to enact more oversight before intervening in conflict abroad," said Bill Dolbow, the coalition's spokesperson. "The research is very telling – voters feel that American military intervention should only be used as a last resort, and there are three clear policies that must be prioritized when considering overseas military engagement."
Surveyed individuals were asked to rank policies that would help promote stringent Congressional oversight and reduce unnecessary military intervention. Those three policies require the following: clearly defined goals to authorize military engagement overseas, including a timeline and what will constitute victory; oversight and accountability from Congress in regards to where troops are stationed and what is being accomplished abroad; and finally, any donation of military funds or equipment to a foreign country must be matched by a pledge from that country to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention, which are designed to protect civilians from harm during combat.
"The research showed that 67.4% of American voters disapprove of Congressional leadership allowing our involvement in conflict overseas without formally approving military action – or even allowing a debate," Dolbow added. "So, it's unsurprising that the data revealed that over a supermajority – 70.8% – would support Congress passing legislation that would restrain military action overseas by enforcing three clear policies."
Moreover, the research exhibited decreased support for Congressional Representatives based on military intervention stances. In fact, 51.3% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for their Congressional Representatives if they did not act to withdraw from conflict in regions abroad, such as Yemen. Citizens displayed a desire for stricter procedures and policies that would prevent counterproductive involvement in war-torn countries.
Those three policies are what inspired the initiative's name, Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy. Congressional members from both sides of the aisle, celebrities, and advocates support the effort. The Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy is building momentum. The initiative plans to conduct additional research in the following weeks to help fortify military intervention policies on the Hill and establish a path forward.
"We are very encouraged by the research," Dolbow stated. "It only strengthens our resolve – we look forward to holding Congress accountable and keeping our veterans safe."
You can read the full research and learn more about the Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy by visiting the website, www.ResponsibleForeignPolicy.org.
SOURCE Committee for Responsible Foreign Policy