THE TIMES POLL : Americans Less Willing to Rely on Sanctions

As hopes for peace in the Persian Gulf flicker, Americans remain evenly divided over whether to give more time to economic sanctions or to attack Iraq after Tuesday’s United Nations deadline for withdrawal from Kuwait expires, a Los Angeles Times Poll found.

But as diplomatic maneuvers founder, the public seems increasingly discouraged that anything short of war will drive Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. In a dramatic reversal of previous surveys, 55% of those polled disagreed with the statement that the United States should rely on economic sanctions indefinitely without resorting to war.

“We’ve talked enough,” said Bonnie Schroer, a housewife in Ohio City, Ohio, who responded to the poll. “They’re not going to pull out. . . . I believe we need to go to war.”

Overall, 47% of those polled agreed that the United States “should go to war” after Tuesday’s midnight deadline for Iraq to leave Kuwait while 46% said economic sanctions should be given “more time to work.”

But with Hussein showing no signs of flexibility, only 39% said the United States can rely solely on sanctions to liberate Kuwait. That represents a substantial drop from surveys in November and December, when nearly three-fifths of those polled agreed that the United States should depend on sanctions alone “no matter how long it takes.”

“I sure would like to see us get out of it without a war, but both Saddam and Bush have backed themselves into a corner,” said John Stooksberry, a poll respondent who lives in a Dallas suburb and works for a plastics manufacturing company. “Saddam hasn’t given any indication that he’s going to back down.”

The Times poll, supervised by Assistant Poll Director Susan Pinkus, surveyed 2,434 adults from Tuesday through Saturday, the day the House and Senate approved resolutions authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq; the survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 points.

Fifty-four percent of those polled in the survey said the United States would be justified to undertake “a major war” either to “restore the previous Kuwaiti government” or “to destroy Iraq’s nuclear and chemical weapons.” And by 2 to 1, those polled said they are willing to support an American military presence “to maintain stability in the region.”

These findings signal that Bush would command support from a majority of the public at the outset of a war. In previous wars, public support for the President’s position surged from 10 to 15 points once shooting started, notes John Mueller, a political scientist at the University of Rochester in Rochester, N.Y., and an expert on public opinion during wartime. Even before that point, the congressional authorization of force is likely to reinforce public support for the President’s position, experts say.

But the new Times poll indicates that Bush would also face formidable domestic resistance if war comes. A war would begin with solid opposition from at least one-fifth of the public, the amount that opposes war either to liberate Kuwait or eliminate Iraq’s nuclear capacity--and perhaps as much as two-fifths, the amount that would prefer to rely on sanctions indefinitely. That constitutes a larger block of dissidents than at the outset of the Vietnam War, Mueller says.

“It may be that a majority of Americans would acquiesce to military action, but clearly the much, much greater intensity of opinion would be frightened of it, even opposed to it,” said Republican pollster David B. Hill.

As the prospect of war sharpens the debate, the public--like Congress--has increasingly sorted along predictable partisan lines. Just over 50% of Democrats and 55% of liberals now say sanctions should be given more time to work. By contrast, 62% of Republicans and 58% of conservatives believe the United States must go to war.

As in earlier surveys, the latest poll found war dividing Americans along sharp fissures of class, race and sex. Men and women take opposite sides on the central question of what to do next. Fifty-six percent of women said sanctions should be allowed more time, while 59% of men said the United States must fight. Opposition to conflict was particularly intense among single women; only 32% supported war, compared to 41% of married women.

Almost two-thirds of blacks and Latinos said the United States should wait longer, while 51% of whites said the United States must attack. Support for war is thinnest among the least affluent, and rises steadily with income.

Surprisingly, families with relatives on duty in the gulf are more willing to accept war than the general public, with 54% backing an attack after Tuesday and only 40% preferring to give sanctions more time. For example, Schroer, the Ohio housewife who believes that sanctions will not dislodge Hussein from Kuwait, has both a stepson and son-in-law in the Army in Saudi Arabia.

Despite these sharp divisions, the poll shows that the President has generally won the public’s confidence as he begins what may be the final phase of his confrontation with Hussein. Though only half of those polled thought Bush has done a good job explaining why he sent troops to the gulf, 64% approve of his overall handling of the crisis, and 67% said they trust him to make the right decision about whether to go to war. Strikingly, strong majorities of both Democrats and liberals now trust Bush to choose wisely between war and peace.

Even 44% of those who prefer to rely further on sanctions after the Jan. 15 deadline said they trust Bush. “I don’t think he would jump into anything that would lose lives,” said Mary Dempsey, a retired laboratory technician in Grand Marais, Mich., who believes sanctions should be given more time. “I think he is going to weigh everything before he decides.”

Though analysts say that kind of confidence gives Bush substantial room to maneuver, other observers caution that the public opinion during a war would be volatile and driven by events. For example, the poll found that public attitudes toward war stiffened somewhat after Wednesday, when the meeting between Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz failed to reach a peaceful settlement.