Pew: 47% Want To Persevere In Iraq. Can We Get It To 55%?
By gideon1789 Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Pew Research Center - a liberal polling group - has just released a study which states that 47% of Americans want to keep the troops in Iraq, as opposed to 49% who prefer to begin withdrawing them. In other words, the numbers are nearly even. Also, 47% is up five points from Pew's November report. If this information is correct, it is a huge change, and represents the first time in about a year-and-a-half that close to 50% of the country supported the mission. (Thanks, Ben Domenech, for alerting us to this news in RedHot.)
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1258
I have to say that I'm skeptical of the results, despite the fact that Pew is liberal, because I haven't seen any other polls that confirm these numbers. The latest Gallup poll, for instance, taken February 8-10, reports that there has been a similar increase in support over the last few months - per Gallup it's about 4% - but this takes the total amount of support for persevering in Iraq from only 39% to 43%. 56% still favor some kind of withdrawal. (Fortunately, two-thirds of that 56% want a gradual withdrawal instead of an Obama-like withdrawal, which is some comfort.)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104398/Majority-Still-Favors-Timetable-Troop-...
Nonetheless, whichever poll is more accurate, the trend of popular support for the war is significant and upward.
This change in public opinion is partly due to the admirable efforts of reporters like Jeff Emanuel, Michael Totten, and Michael Yon; bloggers like BlackFive, Matt Sanchez, and NZ Bear (Victory Caucus); groups like Vets for Freedom, Families United for the Troops and Their Mission, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, AEI, and Vets 4 Victory; and numerous columnists like Jack Kelly, Ralph Peters, and Charles Krauthammer.
Above all it is due to the fact that we have been winning the war, both militarily and politically.
For the military evidence, just take a look at how far our casualties - and those of the Iraqis - have dropped. Our own fatalities have fallen from over 100 a month to under 40. Iraqi civilian fatalities have dropped from 2800 monthly to little over 500 monthly. Furthermore, we are receiving four times the tips that we used to receive, and we discovered 7000 weapons caches in 2007 after discovering fewer than 3000 in 2006. Finally, the Iraqis now have 10 combat-ready divisions (they are due to have 13 in 2009), and are leading the majority of missions.
Politically, there has been lots of evidence of local progress for a while. To take two examples: Al-Hakim, one of the most prominent Shi'ite leaders in the South, paid a visit to the Sunni leaders in Anbar as a gesture of reconciliation, and over 80,000 Iraqis (about 80% Sunni and 20% Shia) have formed over 300 Concerned Local Citizens groups to protect their neighborhoods. Meanwhile, in the last month, there has been substantial progress at the national level, too. Although Democratic leaders have been calling the new strategy a failure because of the supposed lack of national political progress, the Iraqi Parliament passed two bills that did much to bring the country together. Many Sunni prisoners who were being held wihtout trial were freed, a process was established to allow many former Ba'athist officials to re-enter the government, more powers were officially granted to local governments, and the first local elections were set for October. Oil revenues are also being distributed equitably to the provinces, pursuant to a budget agreement.
(For these and other statistics, go to: http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/...)
As anyone who has studied war knows well, winning changes everything.
Much remains to be done. Electricity production is at no more than half of demand. Oil production has not yet reached the pre-war level. Unemployment remains somewhere between 25 and 40%. Over 2 million Iraqis have become refugees. Shi'ite and Sunni cooperation is far too low, even after the recent improvements. Terrorist attacks and crime are still far too high, even if much diminished.
The struggle is especially urgent here at home. With an election only seven months away, we must do everything we can to alert the American public to the changes that have taken place in Iraq.
If we are able to regain strong majority support for the war - 55% or more - before the fall, victory in Iraq will be more likely than ever. Even Obama, if he is the nominee, will have to change his plan to withdraw immediately. (He may not suddenly show the steadfastness of McCain, but changing from immediate withdrawal to gradual withdrawal would be a major improvement.)
It will be hard work, and it must be done quickly.
Support the groups mentioned above, such as Vets for Freedom, and respond to their calls for action. Write an op-ed for your local newspaper. Call in to your local talk radio shows. Send a personal letter to all your friends and family. Throw a party with your friends in honor of the troops and their accomplishments.
Feeling more ambitious? Organize a group of local citizens to meet with your U.S. congressman or senator next time he's in town (and invite the local media to join you). Put together a pro-victory rally in your town, with speakers, veterans and food (perhaps the local GOP will help). Go on a local radio show yourself to discuss the importance of winning the war and the latest news from Iraq (local radio shows bring on ordinary citizens - you need to prepare, but you needn't be an expert).
If you have other ideas, please share them below.
Lend whatever weight you have to the great push for victory. Our troops and civilians serving abroad in Iraq are doing the most difficult work. We can ensure that their work isn't abandoned at the very moment of success.
a very, very big fight in the media, much bigger than the one we are facing now. They will do everything they can to beat back the increasing support - and they may succeed.
That's why it's all the more important that we take action to alert our local newspapers with letters and op-eds, to inform our friends and families, and to help national groups spread the word, too.
a sensational product. The fact that Angelina Jolie says the surge is working lends credence (and watch for her to be mentioned or appear on a Sunday show this week).
However, there will be some(and already is)parsing of why it is successful. They will say that the Shia majority forced out the Al Queda fighters, and that there is underlying trouble between the Shia and SDunni over continued power sharing and jobs.
Someone has to point out that there is no suchthing as the Shia majority when comes to the practical applicatin of politics. That is like saying there is a Protestant majority in the US, and that they all share the same political ideology (New York Episcopalians and Southern Baptists voting as a block!).
They need tobe called on this.
"I disagree. The media is interested in selling a sensational product."
Yes and no. Sensationalism is important to the MSM, but advancing leftist goals is more important to too many journalists.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I agree and disagree with them, but good points.
I especially agree with your paragraph on pointing out that there is no such thing as a monolithic Shia majority. That would be an excellent theme for a letter to the editor, by the way. That's the kind of education of the electorate we need to engage in. The black-and-white view of religious differences in Iraq is very useful for those who want to retreat, of course. It encourages voters to think that Sunnis and Shia cannot be reconciled and that Shia will always seek together to dominate the Sunnis. On the contrary - there is great diversity in Iraq, and this is largely beneficial to establishing moderate governments and avoiding domination by any one group.
I disagree that the media is as much interested in sensationalism as it is in presenting a certain political view. If that were the case, they would be delivering many, many more stories about the heroism of our soldiers and of the Iraqi soldiers and civilians. For instance, there was an Iraqi citizen who threw himself upon a suicide bomber in order to save several American soldiers. The bomber detonated his vest and they both died, but no one else was harmed. This story hardly made it out of the official DOD newsletter.
Thanks for the ideas, though. I hope you will write an op-ed or a letter to the editor to get your viewpoint out to other folks in your area.
We simply need to spread the information that the surge is working & we are WINNING! The American people, by in large, want the US to win. The MSM is grotesquely lax in reporting the positive effects of the surge, & the positive movement in Iraq. They won't do it; we must.
because the media isn't doing it.
The media's coverage has dropped sharply, and the large majority of its coverage remains negative.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/02/28/fewer-u-s-dead-less-t...
I think that over the next few months the numbers will rise, and it will be interesting to see what Barack Obama's position evolves to.
according to the Gallup poll.
Of the 56% of Americans who favor withdrawal, two-thirds favor gradual withdrawal while only one-third favors near-immediate withdrawal.
As usual, Obama is on the liberal extreme.
Ms. Jolie pushing it as a humanitarian effort...thanks Angelina...a liberal with good intentions ;-)
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
at the very minimum, even if they want to "end the war."
Many liberals claim they care about addressing humanitarian crises, but when faced with a large one in the heart of the Middle East, they just want to retreat, wash their hands, and blame Bush.
Fortunately, not all liberals feel this way, and hopefully, Jolie will inspire more.
Even if Sean Penn becomes the next president, we won't be leaving Iraq. No more likely than our leaving NAFTA.
Big and dramatic changes sell well during a campaign but when the responsibility for Iraq is actually passed, I expect to be hearing something quite different.
Yeah, something like the Jolie approach: We have to stay to heal the wounds of war.
GWB will be blamed for the mess and his name will be used to rally the antiwar crowd toward staying and saving Iraq. I'll call it another irony of history.
the withdrawal of, say, 100,000 troops with 50,000 remaining would leave a security vacuum into which the radicals - Al Qaeda, Iran, and various Iraqi extremists - could step very quickly.
I don't think we'll maintain the progress in Iraq if more than one brigade is removed. On this point, see Kimberly Kagan's January 26th article in the Wall Street Journal, "Don't Short-Circuit The Surge."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120130782203818269.html?mod=opinion_main...
If you look at the numbers, you see a couple things.
First, while the indication is that "the surge is working" (by that, I mean people perceive it to be working), and that increasing number of people are coming around to thinking that we can and should finish the job there, the numbers on the initial decision to go to Iraq aren't moving. In fact, they've slipped 2% in the last year.
So, it would seem that the general public mood now could be described as "We shouldn't have gone in, it didn't go well for a long period of time, it's going better now, we can win this and we should win this."
I think Republicans, in general, have been breathing a sigh of relief from the assumption that Iraq won't be as big an issue in 2008 as it was in 2006 (or 2004, for that matter). And that's because they see it as nothing but a political liability. Only about 38% think it was the right decision in 2003 -- McCain was for it, Obama wasn't there but was against it.
But McCain was a vociferous critic of the war's execution -- and, more than anybody else (including GWB, IMO, but that's debatable) he "owns" this surge.
I'm sure his political advisers are still telling him he needs to not accentuate "Iraq". But the numbers here are changing. He needs to make a clear separation between "the war" (ie, the decision in 2003) and "the surge". "The war" isn't and never is going to be popular. But "the surge" is a bit more complicated.
I can't say how much motivation voters can get from bullets dodged. It seems a bit of a weak line to say "If we had done ______, then right now we'd be in hell." People seem more motivated by what they are feeling and what good feelings they think they can get rather than by what bad feelings they may have avoided.
But McCain has to convince people that if policy had followed Barack Obama's desired path, we'd have lost in Iraq by now and figuring out how to pick up the pieces from AQ and/or Iran gaining a new oil-rich stronghold in the region.
Instead, we seem now on a path to victory now -- and people are perceiving that to be the case.
Obama's very vulnerable on this if McCain plays his cards right. He's in a unique position to say that the success we're having now was largely because of him and his prodding for more troops and new leadership at the Pentagon.
Well said. The Iraq War gravely damaged the Republican Party's foreign policy credentials. But with McCain as our candidate, and Obama as theirs, we can turn this around.
I like this paragraph particularly:
"But McCain has to convince people that if policy had followed Barack Obama's desired path, we'd have lost in Iraq by now and figuring out how to pick up the pieces from AQ and/or Iran gaining a new oil-rich stronghold in the region."
we need a chief executive who doesn't think his number one job is making sure Democrats like him. The media is the media, and always will be. The biggest trouble here is that President Bush refuses to do his job and communicate assertively and frequently with the American people. The only time in his second term I've seen an assertive PR campaign from him was on his immigration bill, when the elites were with him. When the elites are against him, he gets extremely mild mannered.
Communicator at a time when he has insisted that winning the war is more important than anything else we are currently doing.
It may actually be that he doesn't explain his policy much because he himself understands the reasons instinctively and doesn't understand that most Americans need to be reminded regularly of why we must fight.
I agree, however, that the failure to defend the war - both well and very frequently - is one of Bush's very biggest mistakes. He could still do a some good if he started defending it - but I am not holding my breath.
I think these numbers will continue to trend in a positive direction simply because many Americans have only heard a little, or haven't heard anything at all, about the success we have had over the last year in Iraq. Many others have heard that we have had success, but are skeptical based on the first 3 years. So as the situation continues to improve, I think these percentages now around 45% will rise towards 60%.