Less than half of Republicans have confidence in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center that highlights the growing partisan divide over the war in Ukraine.
Only 44 percent of Republican respondents said they had confidence in Zelensky, while 71 percent of Democrats expressed support for the war-time leader — a 27 percent split between parties.
The divide held when respondents were asked if they held favorable views of Ukraine in general, with 52 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats saying they had a positive opinion of the country.
The survey joins a longlist of recentpolls showing that the Republican base is increasingly skeptical of U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Notably, the growing partisan divide appears to have had little effect on the policy preferences of GOP leaders in Congress.
While House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had signaled before the midterm elections that he would not support a “blank check” for Ukraine, he rolled back those remarks last week and pledged that the U.S. will continue its military assistance “as long as I am Speaker.”
But GOP presidential candidates have been more willing to express concerns about U.S. support for Kyiv. Former President Donald Trump said in January that the war was a “tragic waste of human life” and claimed that, if he was still in the White House, he would be able to rapidly negotiate an end to the conflict.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — Trump’s leading challenger — has also expressed cautious skepticism about the value of backing Ukraine to the hilt and appeared to call for a ceasefire in April.
The poll results are based on a survey of more than 3,500 American adults conducted between March 20 and 26. Notably, the data was collected before a series of leaked documents appeared to reveal that the Biden administration had publicly overstated its confidence in Ukraine’s military.
The survey also found a partisan split on whether the United States should focus its energy at home or abroad. Seventy percent of GOP respondents said the U.S. should “concentrate on problems here at home,” while 60 percent of Democrats said it’s “best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.”
Meanwhile, 49 percent of Republicans expressed a positive opinion of NATO, as opposed to 76 percent of Democrats.
Connor Echols is the managing editor of the Nonzero Newsletter and a former reporter for Responsible Statecraft. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.
President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 2, 2022. (President of Ukraine/Creative Commons)
Top image credit: U.S. Army Soldiers conclude a training exercise in support of Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve, in Western Iraq, Oct. 30, 2024. Large-scale, multi-capability exercises like these enhance Partner Forces' readiness to employ various tactics and capabilities to defeat ISIS at any time, in any place, across the region. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Tyler Becker)
The election is now behind us and the impacts on America’s foreign policy are emerging. One thing that shouldn’t change is our commitment to the deal reached between the Biden administration and the Iraqi government for a withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq in 2025.
As veterans who served in Iraq, we are urging the new administration to stick to the agreed timetable and see to it that American service members are no longer risking their lives in Iraq.
Ian Robinson, Air Force: Iraq—my first deployment in 2003 feels like a distant memory, yet when I close my eyes, I can vividly picture the sand swirling along the endless road that stretches to the horizon. Sometimes, I can almost feel the scorching heat on my skin; it’s like standing in front of a hairdryer on its highest setting on the hottest day of summer, dusty and dirty. This land has endured a lifetime of conflict and carries a heavy weight of animosity, and our troops still remain stationed there. Iraq is a place where we have never truly belonged, and the most promising path toward future stability may lie in our departure, especially after all the time and money and lives we have spent there.
Laura Hartman, US Army: As a 2004 Iraq War veteran, I’ve seen the toll war takes on warfighters, families, and innocent civilians. War leaves lives shattered, deep moral injuries and genetic conditions that affect generations. After reporting a military sexual assault, I left our FOB only to meet with military lawyers. As a former VA psychiatric nurse, I saw the truth of war unfold through my patients’ pain. Suicide prevention and mental health treatment are shared responsibilities. After decades of lies, bloodshed and betrayal, I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. Focus on nation-building here at home. It's time to demand political accountability for the consequences of war. Enough is enough.
Adam Jahnke, USMC: Iraq is a bitter memory for me. I was injured and lost two friends from my platoon. I served with 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines, an infantry Company, from 2005-2009, I made two deployments to Iraq in 2006, and 2008. This time was the “best” worst time of my life. The lack of sleep, operational tempo, and challenges of a combat deployment were drastic. Everyone to the right and left of me rose to the occasion and fought hard, for each other, the Marine Corps, and our country. However, many of us including myself now feel our sacrifice was for naught. The loss of life and of resources was wasteful. Many of us suffer lifelong issues with PTSD, TBI, and other health conditions related to our deployments, as we are left wondering: "what was our sacrifice in Iraq for."
Brian Fay, Army: I enlisted in the Army in 2007 during the second surge into Iraq, but I didn’t deploy until late 2009. I remember earlier that year watching the news as President Obama signed an agreement to draw down troops and leave only a presence of “non-combat” troops to train and advise. I went to Iraq shortly after, wondering just what our mission would be. We had just spent the last year and half training for urban warfare.
Aside from a few missions we ran with the Iraq Police, there was little advising and assisting being done. For a year we went out every night on missions to prevent IEDs on critical supply routes and reacting to rocket and mortar attacks on our FOB. Every day, during my supposedly “non-combat" tour in Iraq, my life and the lives of the soldiers I was with were put in danger. And for what? The only thing the agreement that President Obama signed with Iraq accomplished was restricting our rules of engagement with the enemy and putting us in further danger. There is no such thing as troops being able to stay in a combat zone and not be in some sort of life-threatening danger every single day.
Maurice Winstead, Navy: My first Mid-East deployment was in 2008, sailing to deliver a battalion of U.S. Marines to their mission location. Prior to reaching our destination we encountered pirates. Several situations were very close calls. Loss is never an easy topic to discuss, but far too many times I’ve seen our troops and sailors put in unnecessary danger. I’ve seen mental health issues like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder afflict former shipmates. This new administration needs to honor the promise that our troops will be out of Iraq in 2025. It’s time.
Jessica Vargas, USMC:I was a 19-year-old food service Marine deployed to Iraq as part of the 2003 invasion. My service quickly shifted, and I was attached to combat engineers, building living quarters for our troops, securing the perimeter, and assisting medics with the injured—a heavy burden for someone so young. Treating the wounded, I confronted the realities of war, witnessing tragic consequences of combat.
At night I heard the prayers of fellow Marines. Not all prayers are answered. My fellow Marine and high school friend, Jesse Jaime, who enlisted alongside me, died when an improvised explosive device struck his unit. His twin brother, also a Marine, accompanied Jesse’s body home.
War echoes still ripple through my life, leaving scars and a profound understanding of the costs of warfare, including post-traumatic stress. Friends have been diagnosed with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, and cancers from burn pit exposure. Not just injuries of the flesh, but wounds to mind and spirit, lingering long after the guns have gone silent.
I pray we can bring our troops home from combat zones and give them the quality health care they deserve. The sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families must not have been in vain. It’s time we leave Iraq.
***
After September 11, 2001, I was not surprised to find myself headed to Iran in 2003. I was initially supportive of our role there. I joined the National Guard in 2000 and served as a U.S. Army Infantryman in Iraq in 2004, patrolling in the Sunni Triangle, dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices and seeing friends wounded and killed.
As time passed after the deployment, each year’s Memorial Day and anniversaries of comrades’ passing added up, compounded by post deployment suicides, and I realized the war was a catastrophic failure. Those lives which had so much promise were squandered over a set of lies, lies which so many of us believed. It’s past time to end America’s adventures in Iraq. Arriving from different services and different walks of life, we are united by our common bonds as veterans. These experiences, unique to each of us, create a shared sense of frustration and grief over lost lives, wasted resources and missed opportunities.
Today, 2,500 U.S. service members serve in Iraq, facing constant threats from drones, mortars and rockets. No one has convincingly explained why they’re there.
Another American killed in Iraq will be another wasted life and another round of grief and pain for comrades and families. The Trump administration should complete the 2025 withdrawal of U.S. forces as agreed to by the Iraqi and U.S. governments earlier this year.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Hezbollah supporters carry the coffin of a victim who was killed in electronic pagers explosion, during a funeral procession in Beirut southern suburb. Marwan Naamani/dpa via Reuters Connect
As the Israeli assault on Gaza passes the 13-month mark, and as Hezbollah reels under the massive Israeli bombing campaign on its leaders and operational centers in Lebanon, it has become clear that militant political Islam has run out of steam. Concurrently, Iran’s defense strategic doctrine has been deprived of a major component; namely, its “proxy” militia groups.
As a U.S. government senior analyst, I followed political Islam and Islamic activism since the early 1990s. Now nearly 30 years later, it’s safe to judge with confidence that if this phenomenon is to survive, leaders of Islamic parties must jettison violence and militancy and return to participatory politics.
Israel’s recent military successes against Hamas and Hezbollah might give the government of Benjamin Netanyahu cause for celebration. But because of his refusal or unwillingness to address the root causes that helped create Islamic political parties and movements in Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere, Israeli successes in war could prove no more than a Pyrrhic victory.
Furthermore, the killing of well over 43,000 Palestinians in Gaza and several thousands more in the West Bank and Lebanon cannot and must not be justified by Israel’s spurious claims that the carnage has been inadvertently caused by the targeting of “terrorists.” The massive destruction of Gaza and parts of Lebanon gives the impression that the Israeli military views Palestinian and Lebanese civilians as legitimate targets because of Hamas' and Hezbollah's attacks on Israel.
Yet, despite the assassinations and the destruction in Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs since October 7, 2023, Hamas and Hezbollah continue to exist, clearly not as strong military forces as they were before the last year’s conflicts, but as an idea representing their peoples’ political aspirations. If that’s the case, where does political Islam go from here? A brief history might help answer this question.
The phenomenon of political Islam and Islamization has manifested itself in the past three decades through at least three different interpretations of the Muslim faith with varying degrees of operational durability and reach: a radical interpretation; mainstream political mobilization by Islamic movements; and country-specific, single-issue political movements.
Radical political Islam
Since the early 1990s, Islamic radicalism has been more closely identified with the Saudi-based Salafi Wahhabi doctrine, which was developed in the 18th century by the famedArabian Peninsula theologian Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Salafi Wahhabi Islam, which until recent years has been the hallmark of the Saudi state, advocates jihad in all its forms against the perceived enemies of their brand of Islam.
Unlike the other four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the Hanbali-based Salafi Wahhabism considers jihad a central tenet of Islam. It has also pursued proselytization or da’wa to propagate the Salafi Wahhabi doctrine across the world. Whereas the concept of jihad in the other schools is mostly a personal, peaceful effort to make one a better Muslim, in Salafi Wahhabism, it can be a religiously justifiable violent act against perceived infidels, states and individuals alike.
The Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS, ISIS-K, and their affiliated groups have been the most violent expression of Salafi Wahhabism. They have committed countless acts of terrorism against their perceived enemies across the globe. Saudi and other Salafi Wahhabi radicals in the 1990s viewed the United States as part of “Dar al-Harb” or the abode of war, which made it a justifiable target. Osama bin Ladin underscored this claim a month after 9/11. More than two decades later, the victims of the 9/11 attacks have yet to reach a closure in their quest for justice and accountability.
The threat of this radical paradigm, although still present in some corners of the Muslim world, has all but dissipated, and the scourge of global Islamic jihad has faded.
Mainstream Sunni political Islam
The establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt in 1928 was the forerunner of political Islam globally. While ostensibly, the MB was created to combat the pro-British monarchy in Egypt, its primary mission was to transform the Egyptian society into a more ethical Muslim polity.
The group’s slogan, now nearly a century later, has always been “Islam is a faith, a society, and a state” or as it’s known in Arabic, “Al-Islam Din, Dunya, Dawla.” The so-called three Ds in the MB identity became an organizing principle for other Islamic parties throughout the Muslim world. As a result, Islamic parties embedded in MB ideology were formed in Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Kenya, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere. Although these parties are connected to the MB ideologically, they were not connected to it organizationally and operationally.
In terms of political mobilization, the MB and its affiliated parties supported gradual political change where free elections were permitted. With a few exceptions, mainstream Islamic political parties participated in national elections and accepted the election results peacefully. Where some of these parties were banned from participating in national elections, they ran “independent” candidates with no overt party affiliations. Most of these parties shunned violence and strove to change their societies from below through civic mobilization.
I interacted with many of these parties during my government career and frequently briefed policymakers on their contributions to their societies, especially in the fields of education, health care, civil society activities, family hygiene, water resources, job creation, start-ups, and other areas. As examples of these activities in the 1980s and 1990s, the MB built and operated affordable networks of hospitals across Egypt, which primarily benefited the middle class. The Refah Party created an Islamic chamber of commerce, which supported small businesses across Turkey. PAS in Malaysia established a high-quality but affordable school system and vocational training programs for their youth.
In response to the root causes of poverty, hunger, disease, unemployment, inadequate education and health services, and youth hopelessness, Islamic parties presented a political alternative to the strongman rule prevalent in most Muslim countries. Where they were allowed to participate in national elections in the 1980s and 1990s, they received relatively large numbers of votes, from Turkey to Egypt and Malaysia. Strongmen prevailed against these parties and ultimately curtailed their political activities severely and denied them the right to participate in future national elections. Consequently, the root causes continued to fester without tangible solutions.
Country-specific Islamic parties and movements
Hamas and Hezbollah, as prime examples of these parties, were established in response to specific situations in their countries — Israeli occupation of parts of Palestine and of south Lebanon. While the two parties are similar in their objectives, they differ in their religious orientation. Hamas is grounded in Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Islamic ideology, while Hezbollah adheres to the mainstream Twelver Shia doctrine of Islam.
Despite the thousands of deaths among Hamas and Hezbollah in the current war with Israel, their leaders continue to insist that their “struggle” against Israel will continue until their nationalist goals are attained.
The way forward
Bread-and-butter concerns and job creation programs became the basis of the so-called Muslim engagement efforts of the U.S. government in the 1980s and 1990s, which were initiated in several Muslim countries, from Egypt to Uzbekistan and from Morocco to Bangladesh. Sadly, many of these programs were curtailed after 9/11 as the Bush administration shifted its resources to fund the global war on terror.
Successive American administrations have dealt with political Islam with varying degrees of success. They have rejected the radical paradigm and its violent jihad. However, Washington has engaged some of the mainstream Islamic parties through diplomacy by funding tangible social and economic programs and encouraging their democratic orientations, until October 7, that is.
As the region moves beyond October 7, the incoming Trump administration should realize that unless the root causes are addressed and Muslim youth can envision a hopeful future, Muslim countries, including America’s strongest allies, will continue to suffer from instability and chaos for years to come. And the U.S. itself could find itself under attack by radical groups and terrorist organizations.
keep readingShow less
REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
photo : U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023.
A group of 60 national, state, and local organizations sent a letter to President Biden on Monday urging him to “hold Israel accountable to U.S. law [by] ending arms sales to Israel to protect U.S. interests, achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians, increase aid access in Gaza, and work towards a stable future for the region.”
The policy, humanitarian, and faith-based organizations — which include Amnesty International, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Quincy Institute, publisher of Responsible Statecraft — expressed disappointment with Biden’s policy of “unconditional support of Israel paired with empty threats,” saying the policy has not yielded any meaningful results and serves to harm America’s global reputation.
Rather than curbing Israel’s actions, the signatories say the Biden administration has enabled it to bomb hospitals, schools, and residential areas, block humanitarian aid, and kill tens of thousands of civilians, journalists, and aid workers, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
The organizations say a letter sent by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to Israeli Defense Secretary Yoav Gallant asking Israel to allow humanitarian aid in Gaza “provides an opportunity to course correct U.S. policy” and enforce U.S. law which would require the United States to withhold aid until humanitarian assistance is delivered.
“The longer the U.S. allows its power and global standing to be undermined by this conflict, the more cost the United States will bear in reputation, taxpayer dollars, and possibly servicemember and citizens’ lives,” they write. “In your final months in office, we urge you to do everything in your power to end U.S. military aid to Israel to stop Israel’s assaults on civilians and maintain regional stability.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.