The Public Gets It on Iraq
For all the White House spin about turning the corner in Iraq – really, this time we are, we got Zarqawi and the President did his Top Gun thing again --- polls show the American public unconvinced. Poll numbers did go up, but by strikingly little both in absolute terms and compared to previous good news bumps. Consider some of the numbers.
The week after Zarqawi was killed and a few days after the Baghdad drop-in, Bush was up from 34% to 39% in approval of his “handling the situation in Iraq”. Another poll on “more confident or less confident that the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion” also was up 5%, 33% to 38%. But that was as good as it got. A question of maintaining current troop levels got a 4% bump, 31% to 35%; another approval-disapproval of Bush’s handling Iraq showed only 2% increase; also 2% up on Iraq as not a mistake, from 40% to 42%; and still only 38% favoring the war.
Four observations on these numbers. First, even with their bumps up they are consistently well below a majority view: 39-54, 36-60 and 33-61 on Bush approval/disapproval, 35-57 on maintain current troop levels/reduce numbers, 38-52 on likelihood of success, 42-54 on not mistake/mistake.
Second, the increase was less than such prior ones as in late 2005 when the Iraqi elections pushed support for the Bush policy up 8%.
Third, as events quickly belied the corner-turning rhetoric, past increases proved unsustainable. By late January 2006 the post-Iraqi elections polls had fallen back 7%. New polls should be out soon; they’re likely to also show non-sustainability of the latest good news bump.
Fourth is that public disaffection is happening even without much in the way of credible alternative policies. House Democrats played right into the House Republican’s cut-and-run smear by focusing more on a calendar than an alternative strategy. The Levin-Reed bill in the Senate is substantively sounder and, as Matthew Iglesias posted, more the direction Democrats and hopefully some Republicans should go. To the extent that credible alternatives for changing course can get more into the public debate, the polls are likely to move even more away from staying Bush’s course.
The public gets it. Will our leaders?
Thank you Dr. Bruce!
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
Mainstream Democrat
San Francisco. CA
June 20, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
George W. Bush, Stunt Pilot
Tomgram: Robert Dreyfuss, The Iraqi Insurgency and Us
June 20, 2006 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Oh by the way, you weren't one of the strategy for success crowd of last year were you? That too was sold as promoting a vigorous public debate. What it produced were the National Strategy for Success in Iraq and a calendar in the Defense Authorization requiring troop draw-downs this year.
I think, just from the figures you cite, that we can handle "cut and run smear" buzz saw. In any case, the closed-enders will bet it anyway for you see, Dr. Jentleson, if you oppose open-ended commitment of stay the course, you must be for a closed-ended commitment of cut and run.
What the American people get is that they are getting loads of BS slogans and temporzing with very little policy change. Perhaps that's why when asked 54%(57%??) said that they wree more llikely to support a candidate with a calendar
June 20, 2006 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
William S. Lind6/20/06June 20, 2006 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
June 20, 2006 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do the Democrats back down when the Republicans yell "cut and run"? Isn't the right response simply to accuse the Republicans of voting to stay in Iraq for decades, no matter how much the cost in blood and tax dollars? With the war so unpopular, accusing the Republicans of wanting to stay in Iraq for decades seems as effective an attack as as any "cut and run" smear tossed by the Republicans. Why don't the Democrats try to attack back rather than acting all "guilty as charged"? It's not from Iraq that Democrats want to "cut and run," it's from any kind of aggressive political engagement. They really are cowards when it comes to fighting for their issues.
June 20, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question why do they back down? It basically boils down to not having their act together. Since there are two sides of the Dem party - one that supports the war (Clinton et.al.) and one that favors an orderly withdrawl (Murtha). The real problem is with those who don't have the guts to get behind either side and are wavering...waiting to be able to choose a winner.
The other problem is that the party does not have its media act together. There are not enough media savvy people ready to go out and spread the message. I used to see James Carville everywhere and I never saw him unable to properly frame an issue. Is that all we've got as far as media savvy spokesmen or women.
Personally I favor a reply that starts with: No not cut and run, we are simply proposing a gradual withdrawal that the current Iraqi government can set with us and adjust to as needed. We prefer to be smart and honest about the situation not just stay the course, keep putting our troups in harms way, with no plan in place like Bush & Rumsfeld. Then add all Bush and Rumsfeld want to do is push the mess they created unto the next president. Include quote from Bush.
June 20, 2006 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whats to get?? Eight wounded US troops and one dead in the task to recover the unidentifiable booby trapped bodies of two other US troops in the killing fields of Iraq, Iran continuing to expand it's nuke programs with 135,000 US hostages next door, North Korea fueling an ICBM which may or may not have a nuke destined for Chicago under it's nosecone, Bush has activated the NMD system which has been proven to have no chance of hitting anything, and the former Bush appointee to battle fraud waste and abuse as IG at GSA was convicted on 4 felony counts for lying and taking bribes-!
Another day in Bush's America! Feeling safer?
June 20, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce
Your post is well grounded but I don't think you need to worry about anyone at this site suddenly changing their opinions on the Iraq War. It's Bush's job to make every possible effort to sway people into his corner. This is the fundamental staple of any and all politics.
June 20, 2006 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched FRONTLINE's, The Dark Side on the tube. It is an outstanding, in depth documentary on Chaney and the lead up to the Iraq war. Rarely is there such compelling TV, much less a 90 minute segment that both inspires and revolts me as did this narrative.
Now, I'm no shill for FRONTLINE, but the program is worthy of a thread of its own.
______________________________________________________________
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
June 20, 2006 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I read that one - Lind did a good job tearing the Afghanistan strategy to bits.
We're going to lose there, too, in the next couple of years. Karzai will be hanging from helicopter skids as some warlord or other takes over, assuming the Taliban don't quite make it back big time.
Who even cares any more? They're NEVER going to get bin Laden - since they won't pay me my billion in advance...Even if they did, it would be a poll bounce and then everything would continue to go to hell everywhere anyway. (But if they paid me my billion, I'd make a nine hundred million profit...so I wouldn't care.)
June 20, 2006 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
In a way it is funny. I have an odd sense of humor but check it:
Well - didn't do any good. The rank-in-file, the sheep are just too pissed off.
They couldn't even prevail on their plan to have the Kerry Amendment debated at night.
C for effort though
June 21, 2006 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
hehehehehe
June 21, 2006 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Everything he said about Afghanistan applies in equal measure to Iraq.
June 21, 2006 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Everything he said about Afghanistan applies in equal measure to Iraq.
June 21, 2006 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Everything he said about Afghanistan applies in equal measure to Iraq.
June 21, 2006 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Will they EVER learn? You don't play nicey with Bush. He won't go away. He'll take what you offer and screw you just the same. When Kennedy and George Miller played kissy face with him back in 01 over NCLB - I groaned. When Bush stole the bogus DHS legistlation right out from Lieberman's nose, I moaned. When Dashcle changed his mind about putting over the WPR debate until after 2002 elections - I groaned. When Kerry announced "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, but I'd do it again" - oy veh!
Did Carl Levin REALLY think he'd not be tarred and feathered as cutting runner?
When will they get it?
June 21, 2006 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Now the Democrats have to take the bull by the tail and look the problem in the face. They are cutting and running, Bush is lying and dying, but What in the Hell is Wrong With Cutting and Running anyway?
June 21, 2006 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
These Busheviks are shucking and jiving while packing US troops off for cannon fodder and pissing away $500 billion of money borrowed from China all for a cause that is doomed to fail; that has been an obvious failure for three years; that operates according to no plan other than Bush's political power; that has been jury-rigged from a pack of lies; that is a bonanza for Iran; a recruiting/training center for jihad , and the Democrats are squirming because Bush will call them names.
C'mon folks. Either lead or leave
June 21, 2006 3:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Look on the bright side. Things could be worse. You could be living in Iraq:
June 21, 2006 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Democrats are confronted with the cliche "cut and run" they need only demand "show me the plan!"
June 21, 2006 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Robert Dreyfuss article on Tomgram is very much worth reading. He argues, basically, that if you look at the US war aims realistically -- put aside the democratization, WMD, and "war on terror" crap -- and admit that what the Bushies were after was US hegemony in the Persian Gulf region, then . . . the policy might yet succeed. It will just take truly unlimited ruthlessness and brutality.
June 21, 2006 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine", Osama's support went to Bush in 2004. Do you ever ask yourself why he preferred Bush?
My guess is that as early as 2003 he pegged Bush as a face-man, a vacuous, mentally lazy son of privilege who unlike himself feigns spirituality for political purposes. Remember, Bush was a known quantity to the Arab oil sheiks (Harken Energy days). Osama and company need a target; Bush is only too ready to provide it. This is what the American public already knows. My concern is that the Democrats will fail to take the House this fall because they are afraid to tie Osama to Bush's coat tails.
June 21, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with that concept is that the "so-called" hegemony is going to run smack dab up against Iran and the Vietnam strategy - bleed the US for ten years or more with a guerrilla war.
The US has the brutality to crush Iraq and Iran. No doubt about that.
But unless the US intends to kill EVERYBODY in those two countries - which is impossible without resorting to actual nuclear attacks on all major cities - INEVITABLY the US WILL lose.
It may take ten, twenty or thirty years - but the US WILL lose. The Vietnam strategy IS unbeatable.
And long before then, the US public WILL get fed up with spending half a trillion dollars and thousands of US troops a year fighting for cheap oil. It happened in Vietnam - it will happen in the Middle East.
And the effects will be two to four times worse than the effects of Vietnam, which was a smaller conflict with less international and economic influence. The US military will be navel-gazing for the next twenty years. US foreign influence will cease to exist for the same period, leaving the field wide open to China and others. At home, the US public will become highly isolationist (which is good.) The US public will demand that the military budget be cut and monies diverted to domestic programs (which is good.) The only question is: will the US have ANY civil liberties left after this debacle?
June 21, 2006 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
57% Cut and Run - Dr. Bruce Knows His Onions
June 27, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink