Pollsters Finally Starting To Ask The Right Questions On Iraq
By Rick Moran Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from blogs. - Moe Lane
For the last three years, poll after poll has shown an American public who overwhelming believed that the war was mismanaged, that Bush was doing a horrible job in prosecuting it, that it wasn't worth the effort, that we never should have invaded in the first place, and that we are losing the war.
Of course, the only poll that matters - on election day - saw the Democrats sweep into power promising to "change course" in Iraq. Not defund the troops. Not redeploy to Okinawa. Not carry out a domestic insurgency against the military by setting impossibly high benchmarks for the Pentagon to meet in order to send troops to the war zone. Not even set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, although a majority of Americans would support a timetable to withdraw some troops over the next one or two years.
In fact, I commented here after the election on the curious disconnect between what Democrats were actually telling the American people before the election and the anti-war "mandate" they were claiming after the vote. With precious few exceptions, the Democrats did not talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or a year. They didn't advocate timetables for withdrawal. They didn't run commercials about supporting the defunding of the war or redeploying troops elsewhere.
Their unmistakable message to the voters prior to election day was that they would "change course" in Iraq - an interesting theme that appealed to a broad section of the American electorate. Since even many conservatives and moderate hawks advocated "changing course" in Iraq, this big tent approach obviously worked. At least it "worked" in the sense that the Democrats got their majority.
Two recent polls however, indicate one of two things; either the American people, when faced with the reality of a Democratic majority, are having second thoughts about leaving Iraq before some semblance of order is achieved or, more likely, a couple of pollsters have finally asked the "right" questions about Iraq to reveal what the American people have believed all along.
In fact, this poll reveals what has been one of the best kept secrets of American opinion over the past three years. A fairly consistent majority of between 55% and 65% oppose pulling our troops out immediately (59%). And another consistent sign of support is that a majority (57%) support "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can handle security on its own. (HT: James Joyner)
The simple minded sloganeering from the left about polls on Iraq and how the American people support their anti-war agenda down the line fails to take into a account that citizens have a fairly sophisticated, nuanced outlook on the war. They think Bush is doing a poor job (60% "strongly" or "somewhat strongly" agree" ), that 52% believe Congress isn't doing much better, that only 17% want our troops to leave immediately, that a bare majority (50%) believe we should stay until the job is done, that a surprising 56% agree with the idea of supporting the President even if they disagree with him (another 17% "somewhat agree"), and in another surprise, 53% believe that victory is still possible.
Also, a whopping 66% believe that losing the war would cause America to lose its super power status. And 53% believe strongly that the Democrats have gone too far, too fast, in pressing the President to remove troops from Iraq.
The American people are also realists about the outcome. More than 80% believe Iraq will not become a stable democracy after the US leaves.
The other poll taken by IBD shows similar attitudes toward the war, the President, and the Democrats.
What gives? You can believe we are losing the war (as I do) and still support the President and the mission. You can think that the President is doing a piss poor job of prosecuting the war but also believe the Democrats are dead wrong in moving to defund it or throw a monkey wrench into troop rotations. You can be convinced that Iraq will not be a stable democracy after we leave but still think that the country is "a key part" in the War on Terror (57%).
In short, when pollsters start treating the American people as if they had a brain and ask a series of questions designed to elicit responses that, when taken together, give a much more nuanced snapshot of how the people actually look at Iraq, the "anti-war mandate" claimed by Democrats in the aftermath of the election dissolves into mush.
Not pro-war by any stretch and certainly indicating that they have zero patience with both an endless continuation of past strategies as well as political gamesmanship by the Democrats, the American people - practical, realistic, and desirous of getting on with the task of meeting our goals and getting the hell out - have proved once again that they actually understand the stakes in Iraq as well as realizing that things are going poorly and that changes are needed if success is to be ours.
Perhaps if we all stopped treating the public as little children who need to be told what to think, what to believe about Iraq, we could get beyond the one dimensional critiques of the war on both sides and work together on a plan consistent with their wishes to get out of Iraq with the goal of leaving an Iraqi government in place that can handle its own security and not be a threat to us or her neighbors. If those goals are achieved, I think it's pretty clear that the majority of Americans would see our efforts in Iraq as a success. Perhaps not a "victory" in any realistic sense - but far from a defeat and definitely something to build on in the years ahead as Iraq will continue to struggle with instituting democracy.
Support for our war aims in Iraq will endure only as long as the people believe we have a chance of succeeding. The next 6 months will be critical to that perception as the surge currently underway will seek to create conditions for the Iraqi government to work toward political goals that should broaden its base of support and negotiate with the factions to end the cycle of violence that has Baghdad and its environs in its grip. The patience of the American people has worn thin. It's time for the Iraqi government to do what is necessary so that our troops can start coming home.
The sooner - the better.
UPDATE
In addition to linking to the raw data, James Joyner also has an interesting summary of the poll results:
“The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. “The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”
“How Americans view the war does not line up with the partisan messages or actions coming out of Washington,” said Davis Lundy, president of The Moriah Group [the Chattanooga PR firm which commissioned the survey]. “There are still a majority of Americans out there who want to support the President and a focused effort to define and achieve victory.”
“The key group driving public opinion here are what we call the “nose-holders”, said Newhouse. “They don’t believe we should have gone to war or should still be there, but they believe we should stay and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security for their own country.”
Both pro and anti war advocates have ignored "nose holders" for far too long. These are the practical and nuanced Americans I wrote about above. They are smarter than most of us and probably have a lot less patience than pro-war supporters believe. They probably voted Democratic in the elections last November. But they will almost certainly punish the Democrats if they go through with their slow bleed the troops strategy - especially if Republicans get off their duff and make the case that this cynical strategy is nothing short of "cut and run" on the sly.
And I will say to my fellow conservatives that we shouldn't be doing too much crowing about these numbers. While some of these responses give the lie to any "anti-war mandate" claimed by the left in the aftermath of the election, neither do they represent much good news. Clearly, the American people want out of Iraq quickly. As long as progress is made toward that goal, the President will be able to maintain this support. But if things go south with the surge or Maliki proves himself to be even more of an empty suit than he already has, that support will disappear in a heartbeat.
by the other message that the president and Republicans plan to be critical of the progress made by the Iraqi gov't.
It is reasonable, ofcourse, and what Americans want to hear: WE WILL DO OUR BEST BUT THEN IT IS UP TO IRAQIS TO STAND UP. THIS IS IT, MALIKI, IT REALLY IS! SECURE YOUR COUNTRY in the next 6 months or, or what? We Will Leave?
Politically expedient it isn't but I think we'd be better served by telling the Iraqis, the Iranians and the American people that 'WE AREN'T LEAVING ANYTIME SOON'.
Even if temporary chaos or peace is the reaction to our surge we need a longterm vigil in Iraq. We didn't invest billions and American lives for the purpose of expanding Iran's borders.
WE'RE NOT LEAVING. PERIOD.
So far budget calculations have been way off the mark because we had not planned on having so many troops there for so long. If our new calculations assume a long-term occupation, we will have some nasty deficits to deal with. How are we going to close that gap? Slash domestic programs? Cut taxes and hope for big economic returns? Raise taxes?
I worry than any of those choices, especially expressed as a way of funding the war, would deliver a Democrat in the White House in '08 and an even bigger majority in Congress.
There's nothing surprising or new in the results of this poll. The Democrats position in the Iraq debate has been purposefully mischaracterized by some as a polarized choice between supporting the surge and withdrawing funding to immediately force troops out of Iraq. That's not the truth, it's an illogical argument that allows someone to demonize all those who do not support Bush's plan. No Democrat won their election by saying "I will work to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, with no contingency plans or forethought." As is obvious from the poll, most voters don't want that. Now if only there were some way to debate the best options for the future.
If its so damn important, you institute a draft and find some way to pay for it -- even if that means higher taxes on rich folks.
The American public can see that Bush isn't putting his money where his mouth is.
AT ALL LEVELS is opposed to it. The draft is a whipping tool for idiots like Rangel and you who are looking for some way to destroy the military and the ability to ever deploy for combat again.
As far as taxes, "rich folks" already pay most of the taxes collected. Roughly 50% of Americans pay nothing.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
I felt the only person here who needed to be told that, might not get it. I don't think this is a regular RS member we're responding to.
He is very consistent though, his comments are always rooted in left wing idiocy.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
Do you never see the need for a draft?
And yeah, the rich folks are paying most of the taxes because they're grabbing up most the money (including more than a few pension funds).
And your second comment reestablished the fact that you are a complete idiot.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
In any case, you should show some gratitude for the graciousness of RS editors. You're clearly not here for ideological reasons or to constructively contribute.
(Non-conservative commenter + snark - substantive contribution) = short lifespan at RedState.
Even if you do have a cool username.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Its your chorus, you can ban me, I understand that. But I resent the non-substantive. Agree or not, I came in here with a point.
PS: How do you know I'm not a conservative? Maybe I'm just not the right kind of conservative.
and that is the one topic most taboo on RS.
Amazing! For my Republican grandfather and father, military service was considered essential. It was a value I inherited and passed along to my son.
But today, Republicans are so afraid of frightening the parents and children who don't value national service. Instead we offer up role models like Barb and Jenna Bush who haven't even found time to visit Walter Reed...or in anyway show an interest in their country.
We've got to do better at inspiring patriotism....as we once did.
...after four years we're no more enamoured of the chickenhawk slur* than we would be any other psychosis. Calls for the draft typically revolve around that, or around the rather odd belief that the rich and powerful can be thwarted by placing a service burden on minorities and the working poor. Oh, I forgot: then there are the people who just want an endless supply of warm bodies to power their social policy programs.
I am not saying that there are no pro-draft people out there who have other motivations; I merely say that the bar has been by now set rather high for the rest of us to believe it. I would apologize for this, except that it isn't actually my fault.
Moe
*Which, by the way, you are not permitted to indulge in, either. Bluntly, if you didn't have a posting history here you'd be banned by now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
If you want to argue for the draft, argue that the draft is militarily necessary. Most of us are just fine with the draft in time of genuine need, but are not so fond of impressing people into military service without a demonstrated need for such an imposition on individual liberty. Do you think the Army needs Jenna Bush? One of the virtues of the volunteer military is that we get soldiers who are, you know, good at soldiering.
Also, before you make the argument for military necessity based on the perceived difficulty of recruiting, I would recommend that you consult the size of the volunteer army during the 1980s. Because it is demonstrably untrue that a larger military cannot be raised voluntarily.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
with or without a draft.
But our leaders have to show the way. I strongly believe that if Bush had rallied this country properly we would now be seeing a very different perception of the Iraqi mission at home.
Small gestures, like asking the Twins to get involved: Visiting Soldiers, Working with the Red Cross, Anything!....would have inspired thousands of young Americans their age to Support the Troops-Support the Mission.
As it is, I talk with 20-somethings everyday who don't care to know much about Iraq. The only thing they know for sure is that They're Not Going.
Do we need a draft today? Maybe not. But both parties had better not let their fear of it outweigh their concern for what our country may need in the future.
Do we not need more troops? In case you haven't noticed, the war isn't going so great. We're losing control with 140,000 troops, can only muster about 20,000 more, and this by cutting training time, lengthening stays, and sending solidiers on multiple tours. Clearly, we need more soldiers.
We're told this is a battle for the future of Western Civilization, yet it doesn't rise to the level of widespread mobilization?
The high rhetoric about winning the "central front in the war on terror" needs to be backed by ACTION.
I want the Bush Administration to show me they ACTUALLY believe this war is that important. If they can't sacrifice they'r political careers for "victory", why should I sacrifice my son or daughter.
Its one of those statements thats correct, but does not mean anything on its own. To understand it, you have to ask what would be the purpose of raising taxes on the rich.
If your purpose is to raise revenue for a purpose it won't work. Higher tax rates on the rich merely makes more rewarding for them to avoid taxes. Seeing as they are by definition wealthy they will have the means to do so.
If your purpose is to achieve greater opportunity and equality in society it won't work either. Higher tax rates usually results in the people that create wealth spending more of their time trying to figure out how to keep it. Thats just my theory to fit the empirical data that when you lower tax rates you get economic growth.
Now if your purpose is to take it out on the rich because you don't like them its a different story.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You also get it from raising spending, printing money or dropping it from airplanes. The problem is sustainability. Republicans have never, repeat, never cut taxes and balanced the budget.
Why?
First, its difficult.
Second, the bond-traders wouldn't have any way to suck us dry.
Third, without deficit spending, the economy would soon falter. Consumers create demand (ie. jobs).
Hopefully some intelligent person will intervene so it doesn't happen
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Clintons running a surplus killed the boom ?b
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The economy can also peform well on its own. When its not, you can cut taxes, increase spending, print money, etc...
Bonds cost us about 4.5 % give or take Every so often we have periods of inflation where those bonds get seriously devalued.
Its just a question of keeping money in places where it does the most good.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
While at first glance the poll seems fair because
the % of R,I, and D appear about right, the poll
breaks down after that:
It underreports age < 44 by at least 8 pts,
It overreports age 45-64 by 23 pts
It overreports age > 64 by 8 pts
It overreports advanced degrees by 9pts
It overreports college grads by 8 pts
It overreports income > 100k by 5 pts
It overreports income 80-100k by 5 pts
It underreports income 20-40k by 8 pts
It underreports income <20k by 11 pts
Would a correctly balanced poll show the same
results? Perhaps but this poll was very clearly
aimed at those who are older, higher income
(probably correlated with age) and higher
education. Right questions, bad data.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
"I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the US leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
You've got to be kidding me. I want the troops home AND I care about what happens in Iraq. How should I answer that.
Let me try one:
"I don't really care about families, I just think the inheritance tax should be re-instated."
Perhaps you could expound on your belief we are losing the war. By what measures and conditions do you come to this conclusion?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Perhaps the pollsters were asking the wrong questions, but it was very heartening to hear the Bush administration pilloried on the floor of the House of Representatives last week. It was all on CSpan, the very neutral national television, and brilliant, if long. It is really something to hear that many representatives of the people talk and then vote overwhelmingly to condemn the surge.
Perhaps the polls should also ask the American people if they know anything about the middle east and how it was carved up into various new states by the English and French after World War I. That is really the problem. Very few political leaders of either party really understand the folly of that "nation building."
Nice first post. Very few people around here create this degree of sophism on the initial try.
Let's see, C-Span provides open coverage of the House; partisan Representatives speak out against the war. Using the word neutral here is somewhat specious slight of hand.
Now I am presuming you read the very short resolution which provided an overwhelming number of Democrats and small number of Republican's an opportunity to voice opinion; opining which went well beyond the realm of debate and was often fact challenged.
"Heartening to hear the Bush Adminstration pilloried"
Sure, along with atttacks on our military, Constitution and unprecedented condemnation of those creating the surge plan. You do remember the plan was not a Bushie-Warmonger creation and involved amongst others our top military planners?
A small hint; show some command of facts and less opinion. Otherwise I suspect others more powerful then I will make your stay relatively short.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
David Johnson, CEO of Strategic Vision, had this to say about the Poll in question:
"This wording is completely unprofessional," Johnson says. "It's designed to confuse the respondent."
Now a simple question. Will President Bush and/or Tony Snow refer to this poll when some reporter claims the American people want out immediately or makes some similar falsehood? If neither Bush nor Snow refers to these findings, you can bet they will not otherwise appear very widely in print or broadacast. I hope they flog these results every time they are asked a question about the surge or anything war-related.