Public Is Unyielding In War Against Terror
9 in 10 Back Robust Military Response

By Dana Milbank and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 29, 2001; Page A01

The two weeks since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington have done nothing to dim the public's demand for a full-scale response, which large majorities of Americans believe should include killing or capturing Osama bin Laden and overthrowing Afghanistan's Taliban, a new Washington Post poll found.

The survey determined that Americans have continued to rally around President Bush since the attacks. A record nine in 10 respondents backed Bush's handling of his job -- seven in 10 endorsed him strongly -- and an equal proportion favored a military response to the attacks. The public also showed a broad willingness to forgo many civil liberties to give the authorities more police power to fight terrorists.

And, for the first time in three decades, a majority of Americans said they trust the federal government to do the right thing -- a sharp but perhaps temporary reversal in the way citizens view their political institutions. Nearly two in three respondents interviewed Sept. 25 through Sept. 27 said they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing either "just about always" or "most of the time," the poll found. That is more than double the percentage who expressed such confidence in a Post-ABC News survey in April 2000, and more than three times the proportion who said they trusted the federal government at the low point in 1994.

Before a shot has been fired, Americans held expectations of victory that far exceeded the Bush administration's stated war aims. Fully 87 percent of respondents said they believe the United States "absolutely must" capture or kill bin Laden and break up his al Qaeda network, and eight in 10 said they were confident that would happen. Ninety-one percent said the country must significantly reduce the number of terrorist attacks on U.S. targets, and the same proportion was confident that this would be done.

Smaller but still significant majorities favored overthrowing the Taliban government in Afghanistan and reducing terrorist attacks against other countries. Even the most ambitious option, overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, was called a "must" by 39 percent of of the respondents and a good idea by another 33 percent. In all cases, only the tiniest of minorities opposed the stated actions.

The survey found that even if the United States were to defeat bin Laden, topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, overthrow Hussein and significantly reduce terrorist attacks at home and abroad, two-thirds of Americans still would not consider the war on terrorism won if another attack like the Sept. 11 assaults on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center occurred.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military specialist at the Brookings Institution, said the survey indicates that Americans may be "a little bit unrealistic," particularly in their confidence in defeating bin Laden. But he said the expansive hopes "show the goal is not just vengeance, it's prevention."

The high hopes for the war effort and for the government pose a potential danger for Bush and his war planners because the responses suggest that Americans have strategically unrealistic hopes and will be disappointed with anything less than full success. But the outpouring of support for the effort, Bush advisers said, may give them a chance to channel the enthusiasm into practical measures to boost the military campaign, in the way war bonds served in past conflicts.

The support could easily change. Bush advisers said they were heartened by the historic support for the president, equaling the highest mark in the postwar era, but they noted that the public's passion is likely to prove ephemeral. "Those expectations will shift over time and as the conduct of the war goes forward," said one Bush adviser. "Everybody's agreeable because there hasn't been a negative thing or setback since September 11. When people are killed, soldiers are harmed, that will adjust expectations."

A top Bush aide said the television images of the burning and collapsing World Trade Center towers are too fresh "to get an accurate reading" of public sentiment. But the aide said the White House is looking for outlets through which to convert the public's raw emotion into a useful activity in the mold of the war bonds. One possibility is a heightened vigilance campaign, extending the "national neighborhood watch" that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft cited when he released the photographs of the 19 alleged hijackers (the government has received 214,000 tips since the attacks). Other possibilities the White House is "looking at" include legislation to spur charitable giving and to assist community efforts, the aide said.

One problem the government faces in mobilizing the public is the absence of a need for sacrifice, such as the rationing and enlistments of World War II. Bush's message, a senior aide said, is: "You are participating in this war by going back to work, by overcoming fear of flying or by using public transport."

Some see hope for a lasting change in public attitudes. "I think there is the potential that September 11 will turn out to be a turning point for civic America," said Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, whose book "Bowling Alone" last year documented the decline in civic engagement and trust. "It's a horrible tragedy, but there could be some good coming from it if it causes us to become . . . more aware of the obligations we have to other people and more open-minded about the role of government."

Some of those polled said they have changed. "I have a renewed respect for the federal government, absolutely," said Robyn Webb, 26, a high school math teacher who lives in Mount Laurel, N.J. Now, she said, "people see that the government is one of the only avenues we have to get some things done. It puts renewed hope about the government and their capabilities to do things."

One sacrifice Americans said they are willing to make is in their civil liberties. Large majorities supported additional police power to combat terrorists with wiretapping, voice mail and e-mail surveillance, the admission of foreign intelligence evidence that normally would not be allowed in court, the sharing of grand jury information with intelligence services and allowing the government to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorist ties. Support ranged from 69 percent to 95 percent.

"It's a concern that the numbers are high for the whole range," said David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute. "We've always known that if you put the Bill of Rights up for a popular vote, it would probably lose."

Eighty-two percent of the public favored a federal takeover of airport security screening, and 68 percent favored arming pilots -- measures beyond those backed by Bush. But while supporting drastic new actions, the public said it still wants progress on old priorities. Even among members of the president's party, a majority said they want work on education and prescription drug coverage to go forward.

Support for war remained unswerving. More than eight in 10 respondents -- 83 percent -- continued to back military action against those responsible even if it leads to war, a level of support that has been unchanged in the past two weeks. Two in three said they would favor military action even if the result was a long war in which large numbers of U.S. troops were killed or injured. Even when confronted with the prospect of such a major war, 45 percent said they "strongly supported" taking military action.

Within this broad support are pockets of hesitancy that may turn into more hardened opposition as a military action proceeds. Women -- particularly Democratic women -- blacks and younger Americans were significantly less likely to support a long and costly war. Regional support was strongest in the South.

Men were also much more likely than women to support broadening the military action to encompass more targets. Forty-four percent of women said they want a broad effort; 48 percent said they want a limited strike or no military action at all. "I'm against the bombing that is going to hurt innocent children and people," said one respondent, 36-year-old Janice Cavolaski of Bel Air, Md. "I think that makes us as bad as them."

Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report.