western public opinion and support

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jun 14, 2012 at 06:48

it seems to me that the media coverage of the Syrian civil war alone creates the significance of the conflict to the West. It is not the violence that disgusts people here. It is rather seeing it on TV which throws a daily dose of blood from the screen onto our dinner tables.

Western intervention would change the media image more than the actual conflict. Instead of scattered dead bodies we would see high altitude bombings, we would see western officers in clean uniforms making press statements. We would see committees of western politicians debating in airconditioned rooms about long term outcomes and finally exit-strategies.

My estimate about public opinion is this: Given the choice to either intervene in Syria or have some whitewashed media coverage the public would opt for clean tv.

Public support is a resource so scarce and fragile in the West I would not waste it on Syria. Stopping the Iranian nuclear program needs all the public support there is.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".