Charting the ISIL course as it were…

Both my real world and my internet life has found me in discussions over how it appears the USA is facing the reality that the burden of fighting ISIL is on us alone. I came across some polls that chart some of this:


This one looks at some European countries including five NATO players. I think two big standouts for the chart are 1] We’re speaking specifically of IRAQ not Syria. 2] All but Germany seem to overwhelmingly approve of US actions.


This one shows how badly the balloon deflates when the party people are asked to chip in. This one doesn’t specify a country where strikes are to occur. It predates the notion that Syria would be a target but for the UK & Germany it was valid for being the writing on the wall regards Syria.


This one seems to skew the curve of the previous one. It is also before the UK’s David Haines lost his head so quite possibly the numbers change yet again.


This one looks at the USA with a take on political party affiliation. The GOP seems consistent while the Dems have at least one glaring anomaly. I found it weird that the party of the POTUS would be so detached from him.

Now whether these data sets are very credible or to be taken with more than a grain of salt is up to the beholder in my book. I do think any number of projections could be made and expanded upon by folks on either side of the issue(s) at hand.

What is pretty clear is that these polls reflect the headlines of the places showing up in headlines and blog posts everywhere.

In general nobody wants to go into Syria and there are 10-20 nations that will support to varying degrees operations in Iraq.



  1. jonolan says:

    One thing to note about the Eurozone figures – Disapproval levels for both US and their own involvement in any war against the Caliphate seems to correlate well with the concomitant factor of the nations’ respective per capita levels of Muslim residents and Muslim violence. For them, this wouldn’t really be a foreign war since they could expect the Muslims inside their countries to, once again, break out in violence.

  2. Rutherford says:

    Jonolan makes an interesting point. Would also be interesting to see stats on Turkey which reportedly has more than a few hostages being held by ISIL, making them reluctant to jump in2thefray.

  3. jonolan says:

    Turkey’s a special case. They HATE the Kurds and are not going to get involved in anything that strengthens their position or that might have them crossing into Turkey in numbers or force.

  4. Alfie says:

    Thanks for stopping in guys. J you make a great point although France especially via Hollande seems to be willing to roll the dice. Perhaps it’s because any domestic fallout would serve as further distraction to some of the woes Paris has.
    R the Turks are a real disappointment for me. Yeah they have 45 or 49 nationals held by ISIL. Jonolan makes a great point about the Kurds but I think Erdogan is doing a fence walk all the same. In the same week presses in Ankara talk about holding off on ISIL Erdogan is barking about pursuing EU membership. At the same time the Turkish press is under official blackout re the hostages and pressing the government for answers. It’s a lot like Putin and his Cargo 200 / training exercise dead Russian soldier deal.

  5. amirepublicanorcontrarian says:

    Air strikes will inevitably hit the wrong people. Is it about time we stopped meddling in the middle east? Haven’t we learned enough?

  6. Alfie says:

    In the realm of foreign policy there are a number of roles for players. I see nothing to indicate the USA has learned any lessons other than doing something even if it has negatives is better than doing nothing.
    Whether that is the best lesson to take to heart is up for debate to say the least.

Comments are closed.