Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Little Public Support for Iraq Withdrawal, But Concerns Increasing

Updated July 3, 2003

Despite a series of deadly altercations between U.S. and British troops and Iraqis, surveys find Americans have little desire to end the U.S. presence in Iraq at this time. But the public may be coming down from the optimism of the initial U.S victory. Surveys find doubts growing in several areas. Concern over casualties is increasing and the number who say the war was "worth it" has fallen. There's also been a sharp drop in the number who tell surveys they're confident that the U.S. will find weapons of mass destruction or deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

So far, these are doubts, not dealbreakers, for the public. Polls find seven in 10 say U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, and three-quarters say casualty levels so far "are to be expected."

Although commitment to bringing a stable government to Iraq remains strong, for the moment the public voices little desire to take on any similar missions. At this point the public sees countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea as threats that can be contained. For example, majorities of the public say it's at least somewhat likely that Iran is supporting terrorism and developing weapons, but two-thirds say they don't want to go to war over it.

Still, despite these views, 77 percent of Americans say they expect the war on terrorism will lead the U.S. into combat in other countries, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Public Opinion: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
The al Qaeda terrorist organization is having a bad month. U.S. officials say they may be finally closing in on the elusive Osama bin Laden (believed to be somewhere in Pakistan). Key al Qaeda operatives have been captured, most recently Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. As U.S. intelligence agents interrogate him at a secret location, Mohammed's capture again raises the thorny question of how suspected terrorists are treated and how far the U.S. and its allies should go in fighting terrorism. Surveys show the public divided on many of the harshest tactics, including torture, that might be available.

Roughly 650 accused al Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan are being held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay and face either military tribunals or indefinite detention by the U.S. But in intelligence terms, most of them are of little use since their knowledge would be more than a year out of date. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a different matter. As a senior al Qaeda leader and a recent capture, he probably knows a lot -- including what terrorist attacks are likely to happen next. Getting him to talk could be vital.

The U.S. government says it will not torture suspects, but it reserves the right to use tactics like disorientation, discomfort and sleep deprivation as part of interrogation. The U.S. may also hand over suspects to allied countries that are known to use torture. In general, surveys have shown Americans express at least an initial willingness to trade some civil liberties for security, but officially sanctioned torture would be an unprecedented tradeoff. The very definition of torture can be up for dispute (some experts consider sleep deprivation to be torture, for example).

In October 2001, less than a month after the terror attacks, Gallup found 53 percent who said they were "not willing" to let the government "torture known terrorists if they know details about future…attacks." In March 2002, Fox News found the public split on whether physical torture is acceptable to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks, with 47 percent opposed. In both the Gallup and Fox polls, however, substantial minorities (about four in 10) were willing to make that bargain. When Fox asked those opposed to torture if they would feel the same way "if innocent lives could be saved," some 62 percent of the opponents still rejected the idea.

Gallup also found 55 percent were not willing to provide aid to governments who "deny their citizens basic freedoms" in return for help fighting terrorists. Far fewer wanted to make deals with organizations that sell drugs or that themselves are suspected of torture (71 percent said they were unwilling to give those groups aid).

The conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp drew criticism in 2002 from human rights groups and European allies. The Bush administration has decided to apply Geneva Convention protections to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan but not members of al Qaeda. Most Americans (72 percent in the Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-27, 2002) say the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is "acceptable." Gallup also asked questions describing the treatment of a detainee who was held "outdoors in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell, and when traveling … was blindfolded and his hands bound." Three-quarters told Gallup that it would be acceptable to hold a Taliban soldier under those conditions. Half of those surveyed (49 percent) said that would also be acceptable treatment for an American soldier captured in war; 46 percent said it would be unacceptable.

Even before an audiotape purporting to be from bin Laden surfaced in the fall of 2002, most Americans believed bin Laden was alive (70 percent in an October ABC News poll). About six in 10 Americans (61 percent) say in the CBS/Times poll that the U.S. will not have won the war on terrorism until it eliminates bin Laden.

But the focus on getting bin Laden has gone up and down since the Sept. 11 attacks, going as low as 50 percent in an April 2002 ABC News/Washington Post survey. A late-August Newsweek survey found that most people don't believe eliminating bin Laden and other leaders will also eliminate the threat from al Qaeda. Some 54 percent said removing al Qaeda's top leaders would not eliminate the threat of terrorism "because too many cells and potential leaders would remain."

In any case, only about half (53 percent) of Americans told the CBS/Times poll in November they're very or somewhat confident the U.S. will get bin Laden, compared to 78 percent a year before. Half the public (49 percent) told Fox News in late November 2002 that al Qaeda posed the same threat as it did a year earlier.

The Bush administration has argued that one major reason for waging war in Iraq is the risk that Saddam Hussein will give chemical or biological weapons to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Many experts doubt there is a strong connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Gallup poll conducted March 14-15 found an overwhelming majority of the public (88 percent) believes Hussein has connections to terrorists, and almost all of those say the terrorist links are a reason they would support a war. Half also believe that Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Public Opinion: The Home Front
As the war in Iraq begins, Americans are bracing for potential terrorist attacks at home. Surveys find that terrorism for most Americans is both a concern about going to war and a reason to act.

Several of the overnight surveys taken after President Bush's ultimatum found the public worried that invading Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the U.S. itself (62 percent in the ABC News/ Washington Post poll, 52 percent in the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey). That is consistent with concerns in surveys conducted just before the more recent pre-ultimatum surveys. The March 13-14 Newsweek poll found strong majorities who believed an attack would inspire terrorist attacks against Americans (82 percent) or that Iraq would retaliate with biological or chemical weapons against the U.S. (78 percent).

But the public believes there are also risks in not acting. Another 80 percent told Newsweek that if the U.S. did not take military action Saddam Hussein would help al Qaeda carry out terrorist attacks against the U.S. The Gallup poll taken March 14-15 asked what they thought about various arguments for or against military action. Nearly six in 10 (58 percent) said the fear of new terrorist attacks in the U.S. would be a bad reason to oppose war.

The ABC/Post overnight survey also found a distinction in the public's thinking: 62 percent said going to war would increase the threat of terrorism in the short run, but nearly half (48 percent) said the risk of terrorism would decrease in the long run.

It's important to note that many experts are sharply critical of overnight surveys, because they are more prone to error than surveys taken over a period of days or weeks. In such surveys, researchers only reach people who happen to be at home on a particular evening. In addition, since people haven't had time to think about an issue, overnight surveys only capture surface reactions.

Since Sept. 11, surveys have found that while the public's fear of terrorism rises and falls, views are consistently tinged with fatalism, a calculation of an individual's own risk and a belief that some terrorist, sometime, will be able to strike the U.S. again.

For example, when the government raised the terrorist "threat level" in early February, Gallup found 66 percent who thought there would be terrorist attacks in the next few weeks. But fewer worried they or their families would be a victim: only 13 percent said they were very worried and 35 percent said they were somewhat worried. By contrast, 85 percent told Gallup another attack was likely during the anthrax scare of October 2001, with 40 percent believing it very likely. That was the high point in terms of public concern, with nearly a quarter believing they or their family might be a victim.

Yet only 41 percent of the public told the ABC News/Washington Post survey in early September 2002 that they were confident the government could prevent further attacks, a steady decline in confidence since November 2001 (63 percent).

In fact, the public has been somewhat surprised there haven't been more terrorist attacks already. Seventy percent in the September 2002 Gallup poll admitted they were expecting more attacks to occur over the past year and 88 percent said they believe there are terrorists currently in the U.S. capable of launching an attack. Six in 10 say terrorists will always find a way to launch attacks.

Half of Americans surveyed by the CBS/New York Times poll in September 2002 say the government hasn't done enough to make the country secure; 41 percent say it has. When surveys ask about specific types of security, however, the results are mixed.

A late-August 2002 poll by Newsweek, for example, found 52 percent of the public said "a lot" had been done to improve airport security since Sept. 11. No other security effort ranked nearly as high, but majorities said at least "some" steps had been taken to improve security at major government buildings (76 percent), national landmarks (69 percent), nuclear power plants (63 percent). The CBS/Times survey reported that 58 percent believe the FBI and CIA have significantly improved their ability to prevent another attack.

But 70 percent told the CBS/Times poll that the country is not prepared for a biological or chemical attack. Far fewer people told Newsweek that a lot had been done to protect reservoirs, theme parks or tunnels.

The new Department of Homeland Security is not viewed as a cure-all by the public. A Los Angeles Times poll conducted in December 2002 found 45 percent said the department would make the country safer, but another 43 percent said it would make no difference.

Public Opinion: Remembrance and Healing
There are few comparisons for the national outpouring of grief and anger seen last fall. Since then, most Americans say their pain has faded, but they're not so sure about the nation as a whole. Seven in 10 told Gallup before the anniversary that time had yet to heal the nation's wounds. Surveys show a widespread belief that the nation was changed by the Sept. 11 attacks, but also show widespread doubt that the changes will last - except, perhaps, for one.

The emotional impact of Sept. 11 on Americans was huge, by any measure. All anyone needed to do was to look around at the flags that seemed to be on every car to see that. (To look back at last fall's reaction in detail, see our public opinion analysis for Sept. 13 and Sept. 19. Much was written at the time about how life would never be the same.

A week before the anniversary, the CBS/New York Times survey found 84 percent said the country had changed, yet only 42 percent said their own lives had changed. For the country as a whole, the largest number (26 percent) said the nation was more fearful than it was before -- but 17 percent also said the U.S. had stronger communities.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll found 59 percent who said the terrorist attacks had changed their personal life. Of those people, only 18 percent said it had changed the way they lived their day-to-day lives, while 40 percent said it changed the way they felt about things. And they were evenly split on whether their lives had changed for better or worse (29 percent better, 27 percent worse). Few people report still feeling nervous or having trouble sleeping because of the attacks (16 percent and 5 percent respectively in the latest CBS/New York Times poll).

Last fall, many Americans felt the need to take personal action in some way, by hanging a flag, attending a memorial or giving blood. For the anniversary, Gallup found 78 percent who said they intend to watch a memorial ceremony on television and 37 percent who said they intend to go to a ceremony in person.

Public Agenda, in our recent study on civility, found 74 percent who said in January 2002 that people became "more caring and thoughtful toward each other" after the attacks. But nearly half (46 percent) said that thoughtfulness would only last a few months. Only a third (34 percent) said it would last a long while, and 18 percent said it was already over.

The change that may linger, according to Public Agenda's survey, is a greater appreciation for America. Some 87 percent said Americans came to appreciate their country more after the attacks and more than half (54 percent) said the feeling would last a long time. Only 6 percent thought it was already over.

Public Opinion: Civil Liberties
From the very first surveys after Sept. 11, most Americans told pollsters that the country would have to give up some rights to fight terrorism. While solid majorities believe the Bush administration has struck the right balance on civil liberties, and few say they think the government has intruded on their rights, the public has begun to express more doubts in surveys. Two factors might be at work on this issue: time to think and an absence of new terror attacks.

For example, in September 2001, Newsweek found 63 percent of the public said the "average person" would have to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism (other surveys came in with even higher support). By late August 2002, Newsweek found the public evenly divided: 47 percent said yes, 47 percent said no. In January 2002, Gallup found 47 percent who said the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent terrorism, even if civil liberties were violated. By September, that was down to 33 percent.

Even so, relatively small numbers of Americans say the Bush administration has gone "too far" in restricting civil liberties (16 percent in the Newsweek poll). Eighty percent told an ABC News poll in October that they did not believe the government had intruded on their rights. When asked which was a greater worry - that the government would fail to enact strong anti-terrorism laws or that the government would excessively restrict civil liberties -- the CBS/New York Times survey in November 2002 found the public split. Forty-four percent worried that the government would go too far, but 40 percent were more worried the government wouldn't go far enough.

Several factors influence public thinking on this issue. On nearly every complex problem, Public Agenda has found the public needs time to think; time to weigh alternatives and consider choices. In addition, the sense of fear, rage and crisis in the fall of 2001 deeply affected the public's response. Finally, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians. [For more on how public attitudes develop in a crisis, read the Seven Stages of Public Opinion and our interview with Public Agenda co-founder Daniel Yankelovich].

Last fall, surveys found the public supporting a broad range of actions, including use of profiling, indefinite detention of suspects and military tribunals. The public's attitudes on profiling have become more complex; for additional details see our section on Racial Profiling and Islam at Home.

More recently, surveys by the ABC News/Washington Post poll and Fox News in June show about two-thirds of the public support expanded FBI powers to monitor events in public places, like rallies, libraries and mosques. But surveys also find that when asked what should be done to prevent terrorism, the public's strongest instincts are for measures such as metal detectors in public buildings and tighter airport security. Even immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found only a third wanted increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer supported random searches by police.

The latest Newsweek survey found similar results: 60 percent "strongly favor" additional restrictions on air travel, and another 31 percent are "willing to accept" them. Nearly as many favor or will accept ID checks at public buildings. But majorities say it goes "too far" to give authorities expanded powers to monitor phone and e-mail communication (62 percent), detain American citizens indefinitely (63 percent) or detain people at airports solely based on religion (80 percent).

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response -- usually a warning sign that public attitudes can change depending on events or as people learn more about an issue. When CBS/New York Times researchers simply asked whether it's a good or bad idea to allow the government to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers, 72 percent thought it was a good idea. But when researchers rephrased the question to add that attorney-client conversations have always been private, only 30 percent said it was a good idea.

Public Opinion: Immigration
Opposition to immigration has spiked since Sept. 11, with 59 percent of the public telling Gallup researchers in December 2001 that immigration should be decreased — a 20-point change from a year before. Many of the hundreds of people detained during the government's investigation of the terror attacks are being held on immigration charges. Much of the debate over homeland security has focused on gaining better control of the nation's borders.

But it isn't clear whether the public is resisting immigration in general, has become convinced that tougher immigration rules should be part of the war on terrorism, or is simply fed up with the government's longstanding failure to stem illegal immigration.

The number of foreign-born Americans is at its highest share of the population since the 1930s, but public attitudes on immigration remain complex. The romantic idea of immigrants as the real believers in America still resonates. In Public Agenda's recent survey on the Constitution, 57 percent of the public said that immigrants have a greater appreciation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than others.

The alleged immigration violations by the detainees may provide important context to public attitudes on this issue. Historically, the public has mixed views on immigration, but usually makes a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants — and has little patience with immigrants who break the rules to get here. For example, six in 10 in Public Agenda's recent survey, Knowing It by Heart, said illegal immigrants should be deported immediately after being caught. Only about a third (35 percent) believed illegal immigrants should be allowed to appeal their case in a court hearing.

Similarly, when Public Agenda asked whether illegal immigrants detained during the Sept. 11 terrorist investigation should have the right to see a lawyer and face charges quickly, 58 percent said "they don't deserve such protections because they are here illegally to start with."

And surveys also find that a majority of Americans incorrectly believe that most immigrants are here illegally. (Statistics are available in our Fact File on Immigration).

Certainly the public has taken a harder line on immigration overall since Sept. 11. A May 14-15 2002 Fox News poll found 61 percent who want to make it more difficult for all foreigners to enter the country. Nearly half (48 percent) told Fox they would support stopping all immigration for two years or blocking all immigration of young Arab men (53 percent). A year after the terror attacks, the Gallup survey on Sept. 2-4 found 54 percent calling for immigration to be decreased.

Yet when an early-September 2002 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gave people a choice between curtailing immigration overall and doing "a better job screening immigrants let into the country but not reduce the overall number," 62 percent chose better screening, compared to 36 percent for cutting overall immigration.

A more detailed examination of this topic is available in Public Agenda's issue guide on Immigration.

Public Opinion: Surveys Indicate Public Doubts, Concerns on Iraq
With a slow but steady rate of U.S. casualties and the intelligence used to justify the war under fire, surveys on Iraq are beginning to show signs of reevaluation among the public. In the past several weeks, surveys have found greater doubt and concern on key questions involving the war. Half now say casualty levels are "unacceptable" and the number saying the war was "worth it" has declined. Half told the ABC/Washington Post survey they believed the Bush administration "intentionally exaggerated" evidence before the war, while 45 percent told CBS that the administration withheld "important elements."

But while some of the public may be having second thoughts, it would be premature to say they've reached firm conclusions on Iraq. If setbacks breed doubts, then success in the rebuilding could promote confidence. And the public is clearly unwilling to pack up and leave. Polls find seven in 10 say U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, and three-quarters say troops should stay to restore order even if it means additional casualties.

To Build a Nation. While the Bush administration has declared "major combat" over in Iraq, U.S. forces continue to face ambushes and take casualties. Over the past few weeks, concern over casualties has increased. In the ABC/Washington Post poll, the percentage who say the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq are "acceptable" has fallen steadily from 66 percent on April 9 to 51 percent on June 22 to 44 percent on July 10. The number who say casualty levels are unacceptable has risen from 28 percent in April to 52 percent in July.

This public concern seems to be just that: a concern. It may raise doubts in the public's mind, but they do not recoil from the task at hand. On June 27-29, Gallup found 74 percent who said casualty levels "were to be expected since we knew Iraq would be a dangerous place." Nor does the public seem to support a withdrawal. Nearly seven in 10 also told Gallup that it was worth having U.S. troops remain in Iraq. Three-quarters told the ABC/Post poll on July 10 they supported the U.S. presence, while 72 percent say U.S. troops should remain until civil order is restored, even if it means additional casualties.

And while the ABC/Post poll found 80 percent who said they were concerned the U.S. would get bogged down in Iraq, this has always been a concern in surveys - even immediately after the U.S. victory in April it was at 73 percent. What has changed is the number who say they are "very concerned," which has risen from 32 percent on June 22 to 43 percent on July 10.

So far, majorities of the public still say the intervention is going well and the war was worth fighting, but the numbers have fallen on both questions, perhaps as the confidence of victory wears off. Gallup found 56 percent who said the war was going at least "moderately well" in the June 27-29 survey, down from 70 percent on May 30-June 1. There have also been drops in public confidence that the U.S. can complete some of the critical tasks of the occupation: the number who told Gallup they're confident the U.S. will catch Saddam Hussein has fallen from 70 percent in March to 48 percent in late June. The number who are confident the U.S. will create a stable democratic government in Iraq has fallen 20 points since March, to 45 percent.

More people also doubt whether the war was worth fighting, although the results depend on how the question is phrased. That in itself is a change from several months ago. The July 10 ABC/Post poll found 57 percent who said the war was worth it, down from 70 percent April 30. The CBS News poll conducted July 7-8 found the public split on whether the war was worth the loss of American life (45 percent said yes, 45 percent said no). When CBS asked whether removing Saddam Hussein was worth the loss of life, however, 54 percent said yes.

When CBS asked in May how Americans thought the Iraqis were feeling about the U.S. presence, the poll also showed a divided view: 37 percent thought the Iraqis were "resentful" while 34 percent said "grateful," and another 20 percent said they were feeling both at the same time.

And when the July 10 ABC/Post poll asked what the Iraq war accomplished, the highest number (72 percent) said it "helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people." Some 62 percent said the war contributed to the long-term security of the U.S. and half said it contributed to the long-term stability of the Mideast. But the public has doubts on other fronts: 63 percent said it damaged the image of the U.S., while half said it caused long-term damage to relations with France and Germany.

Where are the Weapons? The U.S. and its allies have yet to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, although the Bush administration says it remains convinced that the weapons exist and will be found. But the intelligence used to justify the war has been called into question. With the White House's admission that information it presented about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium was incorrect, the public is divided on whether the Bush administration honestly presented the facts before the war. Half told the July 10 ABC/Post survey the administration "intentionally exaggerated" its evidence. The July 7-8 CBS poll found only 11 percent who said the administration was "mostly lying" about weapons of mass destruction - but 45 percent said the administration hid "important elements" from the public.

Strong majorities of the public have always said they're pretty sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and quite positive that Saddam Hussein would hide them if he did. Seven in 10 (72 percent) told Newsweek on May 29-30 that they believed Iraq had chemical and biological weapons at the time the war began. But the number who believe the U.S. will find any weapons is falling: 84 percent told Gallup they were confident the U.S. would discover such weapons on March 29-30; by June 27-29, that had dropped to 45 percent.

Until recently, several polls found majorities who said the war was justified even if the U.S. doesn't find conclusive evidence of banned weapons. The June 22 ABC/Post poll, for example, found 63 percent who said the U.S. could justify the war without proof of illegal weapons. Those numbers have fallen, however. On June 3-4, Fox News found 69 percent of voters who said the war was justified even without finding weapons. By July 15-16 that fell to 50 percent.

What's Next? The Bush administration is putting additional pressure on other nations that it says are either offering sanctuary to the al Qaeda terrorist network or developing weapons of mass destruction. At this point the public sees countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea as possible threats, but also as threats that can be contained.

For example, only 9 percent of Americans told CBS News that Iran is a threat to the U.S. that requires military action now. Two-thirds said Iran is a threat but can be contained. Two-thirds also told Gallup on June 27-29 that the U.S. should not go to war with Iran. On the other hand, the June 22 ABC/Post poll found 56 percent who said they would support military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It's worth pointing out, however, that surveys prior to the Iraq war found the public more likely to favor striking against any country that might threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

An April CBS survey found similar results for North Korea: 71 percent said it was a threat that can be contained. Generally, however, the public views North Korea as a more serious threat, perhaps because it is known to have missiles and admits to building nuclear weapons. Fox News found 54 percent who said North Korea poses the "greatest immediate danger" to the U.S. in an April 22-23 survey, far more than any other nation. And Fox also found three-quarters who did not believe North Korea would stop building nuclear weapons even if the U.S. promised not to attack and offered them foreign aid.

Seven in 10 do not think a war against Syria is justified, according to the Gallup poll on April 22-23. But a Fox News survey conducted the same weekend found 47 percent who would support military action if it was proven Syria was harboring Saddam Hussein, and 61 percent who would support action if there was proof Syria was supporting terrorist groups.

This may be significant for future U.S. attempts at "pre-emption" of potential terrorist threats. Only one-third say the U.S. should be able to attack "any country it thinks might attack the U.S.," according to the July 7-8 CBS poll. But in the specific case of Iraq, the public saw a connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism, even if critics of the war did not. Only 30 percent of those surveyed in the April 11-13 CBS/New York Times poll say the war in Iraq was separate from the war on terrorism. The Gallup poll conducted March 14-15 found an overwhelming majority of the public (88 percent) believe Hussein had connections to terrorists, and almost all of those say the terrorist links are a reason they would support a war. Half also believed that Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks, a claim most counterterrorism experts reject.

Trust in President Bush - President Bush continues to have strong approval ratings, although the "rally effect" during the war seems to have faded somewhat. Some 59 percent approved of Bush's performance in the July 15-16 Fox News poll, down from 71 percent in early April. Other surveys have comparable figures.

President Bush has consistently had higher ratings for his handling of foreign policy and terrorism than on domestic policy. In the latest Fox survey, 57 percent approved of the president's handling of Iraq, compared to 47 percent on the economy. The Iraq approval rating, while still a majority, is down from a high point of 75 percent in April.

Public Opinion: Israel and the Palestinians
A complicating factor in the war on terrorism has been the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has proved violent and intractable. U.S. efforts to broker a settlement have proved fruitless so far, while Middle Eastern governments insist a settlement must precede any expansion of the war on terror.

Historically, surveys show the public sympathizes more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, but would rather not take a side. Most Americans say the U.S. vital interests are at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (61 percent in the April 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll). When asked to choose, half of the public (52 percent) told the Gallup poll in June that peace between Palestinians and Israelis should be a higher priority than overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (42 percent). However, a CBS News poll in July found the public evenly split: 46 percent said the U.S. has a responsibility to broker a settlement, and 46 percent said it's none of our business.

In a Harris Poll conducted July 18-22, 9 percent blame the Israelis for the West Bank violence, 42 percent blame the Palestinians and 30 percent blame both. But 19 percent said they didn't know, and such a high level of undecided responses can mean public opinion is volatile on this topic.

Two-thirds (66 percent) told the ABC/Post poll that Israel's military action in response to a series of suicide bombings is justified, and three-quarters believe Yasser Arafat is responsible for the terrorist attacks. Nine in 10 say Arafat can do more to end those attacks. But there is some public unease with Israel's actions, with 61 percent who say Israel "should have done more" to avoid civilian casualties in its offensive. Four in 10 (43 percent) say the U.S. should apply more pressure on Israel to negotiate.

The public is divided on what more the U.S. can do. The ABC/Washington Post survey in April found the public split on whether to cut military aid to Israel if it fails to withdraw from Palestinian areas (47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed). The public is just as split on whether to provide the Palestinians with economic aid in exchange for a peace deal (47 percent both for and against). Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) told Fox News they would oppose sending U.S. troops to bring about a ceasefire, but 48 percent would support sending U.S. peacekeepers after a treaty has been signed. [Additional detail is available in the section on "The View of Islam Abroad."]

Public Opinion: The View of Islam Abroad
One issue that does concern Americans is the possibility that the "war on terrorism" will become what Osama bin Laden claimed it was: a war pitting Islamic and Arab nations against the U.S. and its allies. And a majority of Americans say the U.S. is not getting very far in improving its image.

Just a week before the Sept. 11 anniversary, six in 10 Americans told Gallup that they think the Muslim world considers itself "at war" with the U.S. The same week, a slim majority told the CBS/New York Times survey that the Bush administration has made either "no progress" (21 percent) or "not much" (34 percent) in improving the U.S. image in the Arab world. Last fall, the public was more optimistic. In October 2001, 69 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll that the U.S. was doing enough to win the support of Muslims, and only 18 percent disagreed.

Both domestic and international critics argue that U.S. policies, such as support for Israel and a possible conflict with Iraq, helped spur extremism in the Middle East. Substantial numbers of Americans are at least considering those arguments. On April 2-3, Fox News found more than half of Americans (54 percent) say "the U.S. needs to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of winning the war on terrorism." Some 54 percent also told the ABC/Washington Post poll on April 18-21 that U.S. support for Israel is hurting the war on terrorism. More Americans continue to sympathize with the Israelis than the Palestinians, however. [Survey data on the West Bank situation is also available in the section on Israel and the Palestinians.]

Last fall, 55 percent of Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll they believed most Arabs and Muslims had a negative view of the U.S., and cited support for Israel (68 percent), the spread of Western culture (64 percent), and the presence of U.S. forces in the Mideast (63 percent) as the reasons. Nearly half (48 percent) told Newsweek in early December that U.S. support for "friendly but dictatorial" regimes played a role in increasing support for Islamic militants. But more than one-fifth (22 percent) said they didn't know.

Yet Americans don't necessarily want to change those policies: six in 10 told ABC/Washington Post researchers the U.S. should keep its current level of support for Israel, and they're divided on whether the U.S. should apply more pressure on the Israelis for a peace settlement (46 percent say the U.S. has applied enough pressure; 43 percent say the U.S. should apply more).

Public Agenda's focus is on public opinion in the United States, but Gallup's survey of opinion in nine Islamic countries earlier this year is noteworthy. Majorities in eight of nine countries surveyed condemned the Sept. 11 attacks. But most also considered the U.S. military response "morally unjustifiable," including 80 percent of Pakistanis, 89 percent of Indonesians and 69 percent of Kuwaitis, according to Gallup. Majorities in five nations told Gallup researchers they don't believe Arab groups were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The full report is available through Gallup.

Public Opinion: Racial Profiling and Islam at Home
Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, there have been concerns among civil rights and civil liberties groups that Arab- and Muslim-Americans would be targeted for "racial profiling" by federal agents hunting suspected terrorists. When presented with stark examples, polls show the public disapproves of targeting anyone solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity. But surveys also show that the public does not reject the profiling of Arab-Americans as strongly as they would for African Americans.

Polls over many years indicate that most Americans believe in religious tolerance. But just as clearly, Americans are still wrestling with fears surrounding a religion most admit they don't understand. The impression of an "Arab street" overseas hostile to the U.S. may also play a role in public attitudes (see our section on The View of Islam Abroad.)

Surveys conducted in September 2001 found tolerance bending under the emotional strain of the attacks. Several questions show the public's fear and frustration right after the trade center attack, with 58 percent saying Arabs should undergo special security checks before boarding planes and 49 percent saying they should carry special identification. In a Zogby International poll of Arab-Americans in early October, 20 percent said they personally had experienced discrimination since Sept. 11, and 45 percent said they knew someone else who had faced discrimination.

A year later, a Sept. 2002 survey by the CBS/New York Times poll found a third of those surveyed believed Arab Americans were more sympathetic to terrorists, but 57 percent disagreed. That is consistent with other surveys, which have found somewhere between a quarter and a third of the public expressing skepticism about Arab-Americans since the week of Sept. 11. In the same CBS/Times survey, however, nearly nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) say it's at least somewhat likely that Arabs and Muslims will be "singled out unfairly." Eighty percent of those surveyed by Newsweek in August 2002 say detaining people at airports solely because of their religion "goes too far" and 59 percent say using race, religion or ethnicity to identify suspected terrorists also goes too far.

Yet there's also evidence that most Americans view some degree of racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims as regrettable but not intolerable. In January 2002, Public Agenda researchers found two-thirds of Americans agreed that racial profiling of Middle Easterners by law enforcement is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen." Only 11 percent found "nothing particularly wrong" with profiling, but also only 21 percent said "there's no excuse for this."

By contrast, Public Agenda found half of Americans (52 percent) say there's no excuse for racial profiling of African-Americans. Black Americans are twice as likely to say there's no excuse for racial profiling of Middle Easterners (35 percent among blacks, compared to 18 percent among whites). Yet a solid majority (59 percent) of African-Americans also say that profiling of Middle Easterners is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen."

A somewhat larger number of Americans reject "jokes or negative remarks about Arabs and Muslims" in Public Agenda's survey. Half say there's no excuse for it, but 44 percent consider it understandable.

In two Public Agenda surveys conducted prior to Sept. 11, one on religion and public life and another on the values parents want to teach their children, we found Americans voiced a firm belief in religious and social tolerance. Most parents, for example, consider intolerance the mark of a bad citizen. Yet we also found in January 2001 that only 7 percent of Americans said they understand Islam well -- perhaps not surprising since Muslims only make up 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Many Americans don't know what to make of Islam. In an ABC News/Beliefnet survey in January 2002, more than one-third (35 percent) chose "no opinion" when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Islam. Only 14 percent said they believed "mainstream Islam" encourages violence, and 57 percent said they considered it a "peaceful religion," but 29 percent were undecided. And when ABC News asked about violent extremists, 38 percent said Islam had more extremists than other religions, while 41 percent said Islam had no more than other religions. All these questions found an extremely high level of undecideds -- usually anything over 10 percent is considered a sign of public volatility.

Public Opinion: Trust in Government
One of the most intriguing public opinion trends after Sept. 11 was the surge in people reporting they trusted the government to do the right thing (as distinct from trusting President Bush personally). But the surge seems to have been short-lived and at least one survey organization has concluded trust levels have receded back to normal levels.

Americans consistently join ranks behind their leaders in the initial stages of a crisis, and approval ratings for President Bush were remarkably high for a remarkably long period. Even in March 2003, President Bush retained a very healthy 57 percent approval rating, according to Gallup results. But approval ratings for a particular president are different from the public's overall trust in the government, which fell during the years of Vietnam and Watergate and never recovered, regardless of how popular the president happened to be. In late September 2001, the ABC News/Washington Post survey found 64 percent said they trust the government to do the right thing "most of the time" or "just about always," the highest rating since the 1960s. The January 2002 CBS/New York Times poll found 46 percent who said the government did the right thing "just about always" or "most of the time" (compared with 26 percent in 1998). Even during the Gulf War, when approval ratings for both the war and for President Bush's father were at high levels, the trust in government rating never exceeded 45 percent.

A May 2002 survey commissioned by the Brookings Institution, however, contends the air of trust quickly faded. The survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that the number saying they trusted the government to do what is right at least most of the time rose from 29 percent in July 2001 to 57 percent in October 2001, but dropped down to 40 percent in May 2002. The number who said the government could be trusted only "some of the time" rose from 39 percent in October to 53 percent in May. By September 2002, the CBS/New York Times survey found that only 37 percent said they trusted the government to do the right thing "always" or "most of the time."

Even before the Brookings survey, there were signs the public was skeptical about long-term change in Washington's political climate. More than half (55 percent) of those surveyed in Public Agenda's study on civility during January 2002 said elected officials had "put politics aside and [paid] more attention to what was good for the country" after the attacks. When asked how long politicians would keep that new attitude, however, the public showed more doubt. Only 30 percent said elected officials would keep that attitude for a long time, while 45 percent said it would last a few months and 23 percent said it was already over.

When asked about specific issues such as the economy, however, President Bush's approval ratings have always been weaker. In the March CBS News survey, 58 percent approved of President Bush overall, but only 41 percent approved of his handling of the economy and 54 percent approve of his handling of Iraq. But this divide was true even when President Bush's ratings were higher.

In the Newsweek poll conducted in August 2002, 68 percent said they approved of President Bush's handling of terrorism overseas and 72 percent approved of his efforts to prevent terrorism at home, but only 48 percent said he was doing a good job on the economy. Back in January 2002, when more than eight in 10 Americans approved of his policies, Newsweek found 54 percent said President Bush's opponents should "go along" with his policies on terrorism, compared to 38 percent who said opponents should "push for a full debate." But on the economy and other domestic issues, the percentages were almost exactly reversed: 54 percent wanted a full debate, compared to 39 percent who wanted the opposition to go along on domestic policy.

There is also a divide between ratings for President Bush personally and others in the government. Nearly half the public (48 percent) told Newsweek in May 2002 that Bush did everything he should have with the warnings received before Sept. 11, while 39 percent said he didn't do enough. But the public is much more critical of "top FBI and CIA officials" (53 percent say they didn't do enough) and "the President's national security advisers" (46 percent). The Newsweek survey also found that 59 percent say the Clinton administration didn't do everything it could have to prepare for a terrorist attack, either.

Public Opinion: Protest and Patriotism
Anti-war groups are conducting protests around the country against the invasion of Iraq. Surveys show the public initially rallying to support the president, and expressing a strong desire to support U.S. troops who are in harm's way. Yet the public both accepts the right to protest and does not consider dissent unpatriotic, at least up to a point. A substantial majority of Americans (72 percent) told CBS News in February that people who oppose war should be permitted to rally. The outbreak of war hasn't changed that view: 60 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll on March 23 that protests are a "sign of a healthy democracy." Only 16 percent said protests should not be permitted.

And before the war began, most Americans gave the protesters credit for sincerity: a Gallup poll in January found 55 percent who believed demonstrations at that time were motivated by "strong moral opposition," as opposed to 36 percent who believed protesters were "the kind of people who tend to blame America first." Seventy percent told the Los Angeles Times in December that they believed demonstrators were loyal Americans. In fact, many expected the protest movement to grow, with 62 percent telling Newsweek that war would create a "protest movement like the one during the time of the Vietnam War."

Yet few say they are persuaded by the demonstrations. Seven in 10 told the ABC/Post poll that last weekend's protests didn't change their opinion and 20 percent said it made them more likely to support the war. Only 7 percent said it made them more likely to oppose the war.

In essence, people do not automatically want to ban protests they disagree with. Even in October 2001, while still gripped by shock and outrage after the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found 70 percent who rejected the idea of the government banning demonstrations against the war in Afghanistan -- even as 53 percent said the protests should stop "now that U.S. military forces are engaged in combat." When Newsweek asked "Do you think someone can be patriotic and NOT support large-scale military action against terrorists," 64 percent agreed.

That basic tolerance does not mean, however, that the public views all forms of protest equally. Some forms of protest, such as burning the flag, provoke overwhelming hostile reactions in surveys. Other protests may only be perceived as unhelpful or unseemly. In Public Agenda's study of attitudes about the Constitution, Knowing It By Heart, we found people admitted to a limited understanding of constitutional liberties. But we also found Americans display a meaningful ability to think carefully about scenarios and situations that bring an individual's rights and freedoms to the forefront. For example, people who hold pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion actually had similar views on what would be acceptable conduct at an abortion protest.

Read previous editions of our running analysis of public reaction to the attacks to see how public opinion has changed since the September 11 attacks.