In the discussion following ”Tell the American people we need the U.S. Army here,” steve asked:
Aren’t there polls indicating that something like 70% of the Iraqis want us to leave? Links would be appreciated.
He then did a little research and came up with this comment:
Here are a couple of polling roundups.
It is clear that the American people are fed up with this war by clear and consistent majorities. It is also however clear that the American people do not endorse cutting funding. That means we stay. For the time being.
The second link is for Iraqi polls, but I don’t know how trustworthy they are, and second, we wouldn’t be leaving even if they wanted us to go.
He later added:
The poll roundup for Iraq did not quote the 70% figure, but I don’t consider it relevant anyway (because we’re not leaving.)
For the purposes of this post, I will set aside that steve just dismissed the supposed figure he offered in argument, as my focus here is the underlying data.
The 70% figure does in fact appear in the Sept. 2006 PIPA poll he referenced, i.e., 71% of Iraqis would like their government to ask the US to leave in 6 mos.-1 year. Of course, if you break down the data in a different way, it could also be said that 65% want the US to stay for at least another year.
But the real kicker is that PIPA got basically the same results in its January 2006 poll. Not much changed, aside from the timeframes PIPA offered as answers. As the “6 months” response rate was essentially static over the nine months between polls, it is fair to conclude that the lesson of the Iraqi polling is that Iraqis would like the US military to leave as quickly as it can (no surprise there—who wouldn’t?), but are realistic about needing the US there for at least the medium-term.
As for current US opinion, I am no stranger to PollingReport and use it myself. However, the site does not (yet) include the new polls from IBD/TIPP and Public Opinion Strategies, which both have roughly similar numbers showing that most Americans think that victory In Iraq is important and hope to achieve that victory. And that congressional Democrats are overstepping in their efforts to force a defeat there.
I imagine that some on the left side of the aisle will tend to dismiss those polls as GOP-leaning. Other numbers in those polls, however, suggest otherwise. Moreover, we would not be seeing stories about Democratic leaders being wary of allowing the nutroots to define the party’s image, or op-eds raising similar fears by people like Lawrence J. Haas (fmr. communications director for VP Al Gore) if internal polling for the Democrats did not show similar numbers. Indeed, I think it is further fair to infer that congressional Democrats would be acting more boldly to defund the war now if they had internal polling supporting such action.
I am not advocating that the war be run by public opinion polling, but have run through the numbers because the issue of public opinion—both here and in Iraq— seems to be a recurring one in the comments here.
I’m a lefty and I think victory is important. I can’t say I’m filled with hope, but I sure hope for the best. But what the hell does “important” mean? “Important” in this case can mean many different things: affecting our military morale, influential to the GOP’s or the Democratic chances in 2008, whether or not the rest of the world will like us, and so on. Taking it to mean “of such great importance that I’m willing to continue to trust the President’s goals and strategy” isn’t implicit in the poll language.
“Good” things will always poll as important: children going to school, victory in war, decency toward others, good driving habits, and healthy diets and exercise. But people aren’t always willing to act on their beliefs over the long haul. Beliefs, valid and good as they are, can change (or even be proven useless, inconvenient, or just plain wrong).
I think personal savings and reducing my debt is important, but I also place importance in getting some new stuff now and then. I have a suspicion that nationwide polling (or even international polling wherever there are credit cards) would yield similar results.
I thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, but now I don’t and want the troops to get out. Does that mean I think I was wrong? No, but the situation changed. It seemed worth it then, but not now. Victory is still important, but I don’t think its importance is worth the cost I estimate that it will take to achieve it.
First they have to keep the continuous drumbeat of ‘we can’t win… we can’t win…’ going until the polling numbers meet their goals, then they’ll defund.
Fortunately, the numbers in their own caucus don’t even meet their goals.
I wouldn’t even give foreign policy by pop acclaim the honor of a mention, Karl. Leftism is a reason vacuum. It’s better not to feed it.
jon, that’s a reasonable position; I think you’re wrong, but you’re being reasonable, so we could discuss it. For instance, I think you are going on an entirely mistaken estimate of what the cost of pulling out would be, compared to the cost of staying.
And you touch on an important point. I think if we stay and become more successful, Republicans are more likely to be elected; and I think electing more Republicans is desireable. But I do *not* think that the whole effort should be adjusted so as to get more Republicans elected, and I have a deep suspicion that, for at least some of the pseudoLeft, the only thing in their minds is getting Democrats elected, and they are willing to change any position, modify any policy, turn abruptly on any small coin you care to toss on the ground, to achieve that result.
As to the Iraqi polls themselves, I didn’t post on them last night because I didn’t have links and wasn’t sure I recalled correctly. Karl’s research confirms my overall recollections, which are that the range of opinions hasn’t changed much over the course of the war. Somewhat fewer than three-quarters of Iraqis were glad to see Saddam gone, would like to see their country put on a solid modern footing, and think the best way to accomplish that is for the Americans to stay until they get the job done. It’s utterly unremarkable that they don’t want us to stay forever. If a crew comes to fix my roof, I’m glad to see them and want them to stay awhile. That doesn’t mean I want them to move in, bag, baggage, and offspring.
Nor is the “six months to a year” figure particularly significant. People in general, not just Iraqis, have a remarkable capacity for underestimating the time complex jobs will take. “Six months to a year” just means “a fairly long time, but not forever”. You probably would have gotten similar figures if you’d polled Americans in 1964 about how long it would take for the Civil Rights Act to show definite results.
There are other details we could discuss, but that’s become almost impossible because very few of the pseudoLefties who visit here are anything like reasonable. There aren’t many on the Right who think everything is going smoothly and winning is a slam-dunk; the situation is, in fact, nuanced. The corporate view of the psuedoLeft seems to be that there are absolutely no favorable indications and losing is a slam-dunk. This puts us at a disadvantage in “debate” of the form that occurs here, because when we do agree that some particular detail is a bad thing, we also know that the pseudoLefty trolls will seize upon any slightest “handle” and immediately extend it to a reductio ad absurdum complying with SteveXX’s masturbation fantasies. It doesn’t help to resolve the questions.
Regards,
Ric
The problem with public opinion driving public policy can be summed up in one sentence:
“Matt Damon’s opinion on world affairs is highly respected and sought after, while Lost My Cookies’ own wife wants him to shut the hell up.”
Obviously good looks don’t amount to shit in this world.
You point is legitimate, and one that many people have, no thanks to our media.
However it is worth pointing out that your change of heart goes directly to why the founding fathers favored a representative republic and not a direct democracy. They realized that public opinion is fickle, and trying to govern on the whims of the majority is not a sound policy in most cases.
I’ve seen the original polls that post links, and it’s incredible how “iraqanalysis.org” seems only interested in the poll responses that reflect badly on the US efforts. It’s almost as if they have some kind of agenda.
Why no mention of the “77% of Iraqis think that all the trouble has been ‘worth it’ to oust Saddam” question? Where are the questions that show that a clear majority hope for Iraqi Democracy?
Remember, when these studies came out, the media was shocked—shocked!—at how they didn’t reflect the Hellhole Quagmire Disaster scenario that they had been attempting to create—errrrrrrrr, I mean, reflect — for over three years, a realization which produced one of my favorite quotes:
More in line with Bush? That will leave a mark on the media’s collective forehead. And leave it to the BBC: “At variance with the usual depiction” is a pretty smooth way to say “Big Media propaganda is bullshit.”
Not to mention our resident trolls whose only line of argument seems to be “the polls! the polls!”
Hmmm…if we could only retrain him to say something slightly different, we could get him a miniseries.
Ricardo Montalban is still alive, after all.
Speaking of polls, this one will get the lads in quite a lather:
POLL: AMERICANS ‘WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ’
Jon-
restricting our discussion primary to polling, public opinion, and the war (and not the underlying imoprtance of the war), I think you are mostly right. This poll, as many polls that have shown negative slants on Iraq and the GWoT, tends towards ambiguity or “push polling”- each of which causes problems. Wars suck- they have sucked in the past and will continue to suck. Most people would rather not be in them, so polling people with questions that can be reduced to “would you rather be in a war or not?” tend to show people don’t want to be involved in a given war. However, wars tend to be fought for good reasons and have significant consequences, so questions that can be reduced to “would you like to win a war that will benifit you or make the world a possibly better place?” tend to get yes answers. In short- the new Iraq polls tend to tell us nothing new about how people in general feel about the war. At best, Iraq war polls in comparison to polls of other wars while they were being fought, I suspect, mainly just show us how exposed a given populace is to the reality of war.
I think this is why despite some very non-trivial support for the Democrats after the elections to stand up to President Bush (I won’t guess how much support, but significant)- when it actually got down to the sausage grinder, the public got queasy.
I don’t know that things will have to be going better in September/October of ‘08 for a “pro-war” candidate to win, but any pro-war candidate will have to be far more articulate than the Bush administration has been on where we are in the Iraq process to get elected.
Thanks, Karl. Well done.
I hope Major John shows up here, so he can know that I caught his PDF ref and appreciate it.
I will take the opportunity to try to re-state my position, vis a vis what I take to be the majority view hereabouts.
The key elements in my position are:
#1 I think invading Iraq was a mistake,
#2 If it was justified, it would have required a much larger force commitment than we gave it.
I consider #1 moot at this point because we’re there. I also consider #2 moot at this point, because the invasion and occupation is old news now, and we can’t re-write what we’ve done. However, just because they are moot that doesn’t mean I am not still pissed off about it.
#3 I think the armed forces of the US, and in particular, the ground forces, are too small. I think they are too small for the mission in Iraq, and they are certainly too small for any further force commitments. I appreciate the current talk about increasing these armed forces, my only objection is that I think the increases are too small, and will take too long to implement.
#4 From my own political POV, my vote goes for accountability for the conduct of the postwar in Iraq. It also goes for realism. A presidential candidate who says that we can win Iraq with our current and/or Surge footprint is not getting my vote because I don’t think that’s true.
#5 However, my vote is just one vote, and I am more interested in the trajectory of votes for the country at large. I consider the 2006 elections as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the war. The polls indicate the follwing, as I read them:
a. the people are tired of this war
b. the people do not want to lose, or de-fund this war
c. the people are skeptical that this conflict is “winnable” (a major problem here is that the state of being “won” is very vaguely defined)
d. the people think invading Iraq was a mistake
It seems to me that b. is the one element that is keeping us in Iraq. If, when, that goes, there will be nothing to keep us there. Yes, polls should not drive national policy. However, in this case, polls suggest how people will vote in 2008, and the people still decide national policy.
We already had one “stay the course”, “changing horses in midstream” election, in 2004. I doubt that we will have another like it in 2008. I can see two things happening: conditions improve, that lead to a big drawdown, or conditions worsen or stay the same, which will also lead to voters’ demands for a big drawdown.
#6 I also think that if we are in the same situation that we are in now in 2008, i.e., 150 K troops in Iraq, and about 200 K in the region (including Afghanistan), that cracks will start showing in the armed forces establishment. In a way, this is not news, because most top brass concede that the armed forces are very stressed right now. My point is that the commitment in theater is not open-ended or can be sustained indefinitely. That is what the casualty discussions have been about.
We’ll see what happens. Here’s hoping for a successful surge.
The Public Opinion Strategies poll is ridiculous and designed to get the result that the right is touting. Let’s look at the wording:
What does the first part have to do with the second? Who is going to say they “don’t care” about what happens in Iraq?
“Reducing the threat of terrorism at home”? What the fuck does that have to do with victory in Iraq? Also, the question, as it is written, is designed to be confusing.
“Finishing the job”, eh? Now, who doesn’t disagree with finishing what you started? Of course, they could have just left that wording out but that wouldn’t have gotten the results they needed.
It is sad that such transparently dishonest methods have to be used in order to get such modest results.
Steve- some interesting points. But a question- how do you think the electorate will react if the situation changes not in a better/worse manner, but the content of the situation shifts? Just as our post “war” phase has seen a shift from focusing on ex-Baathist insurgents to Al-Queda to now Shia militias, what would it mean if the daily violence levels remain about the same, but it is clear that cause of the violence is something different than now?
Say (for a very off the wall example) Violence erupts between Kurdistan and Turkey and US soldiers have to shift north to try and defuse the situation?
Chicago: I think that if the war widens or shifts in some degree the people will be highly pissed off. They might see the NECESSITY of it, like, if for example, we had to get between the Kurds and the Turks, or if the enemy is defined as Sunnis, Shi’tes, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Iranian, etc. etc.
In short I think the American people have highly identified this war with Bush and the Republican party (I am a Republican, by the way). If the situation does not radically improve between now and November 2008, I expect the GOP will be crushed. The thinking will be, at best, Well, if we’re going to have to fight this thing, let’s elect an entirely new cohort.
On a related subject, I think Bush would have done much better if he had fired a whole raft of people after the _2004_ elections, or even earlier, instead of allowing graceful retirements, Medals of Freedom, and so on. He’d be better off at least in my mind if he had.
I also think that Bush has lost whatever ability he ever had to provide comprehensible rhetorical leadership. I don’t know if it’s because of lack of sleep or what. But his speeches and press conferences for the past several years have been excruciating. That also constitutes a lack of leadership and a failure.
Now I see in the paper, Cheney said we would leave Iraq “with Honor”, which is just a terrible thing to say. Not just because it hearkens back the Vietnam situation but because it allows the enemy to define “honorable conditions.” Furthermore, it sounds like desperation.
I don’t think it’s the end of the world, but I expect the current conflict to carry into next year, at which point I think the competing parties will be falling over themselves to offer up a quick withdrawal strategy in order to get votes. And I think the GOP is going to get crushed in 2008.
Words that could easily be used for most polling these days. It’s only the left that seems to worship at the feet of the polling gods.
Truckloads of dead jihadis = Reducing the threat of terrorism at home.
Or did we make Iraq a breeding ground for jihadis, heet?
I seem to forget.
I knew this would raise the ire of a halfwit. And you are the halfwit I love the most, Pablo.
“Dead Jihadis! Dead Jihadis!” Keep singing it, loud and proud. Difficult subjects call for simple thoughts, I always say.
I can skip taking my irony supplement today.
Facts rile you up, heet? Pity, that.
And keep your filthy dickbeaters to yourself, bub.
Heet, you can continue to believe Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 justifies your anti-war stance, but surely you see how abandoning Iraq now will increase the threat of terrorism in the US.
Having our guys there, partnering with Iraqis, and capturing/interrogating terrorists from the battlefield, is a tremendous itelligence source, one I think is largely responsible for our lack of terrorist attacks in the US since we went to war.
That is just one example. There are others.