Counter-Intuitive Public Opinion On Iraq Troop Levels

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:55


A new poll from Time makes one wonder if the PR strategies employed both by the White House makes and certain segments of the anti-war movement makes any sense. Americans are more likely to want to maintain or increase troops levels in Iraq more if the situation looks worse, not better (9/4-9/8, PDF, page 22):

83. As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.

Increase: 6%
Keep the same: 32%
Decrease: 39%
Remove All Troops: 17%
DK / NA: 6%

84. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is GETTING WORSE, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq? QUESTIONS 83-84 WERE ROTATED.

Increase: 16%
Keep the same: 27%
Decrease: 25%
Remove All Troops: 22%
DK / NA: 9%

Under the scenario that Iraq is growing worse, support for increasing troops in Iraq is higher, in a statistically significant way, while support for decreasing troops declines in a statistically significant way. However, it has actually been pro-war groups, including the White House, that are arguing that Iraq is showing signs of improvement, while it has been those who oppose the war that have argued Iraq is growing worse. Americans are more likely to want out of Iraq if things are going better in Iraq. Go figure.

The befuddlement over troops levels in Iraq among the public does not end there. The same Time poll asks about residual forces, although the poll really slights the "remove all troops" option (same page in link above):

81. Looking ahead in Iraq, if you had to choose, which of these comes closest to your position: 1. The United States should withdraw all of its troops within the next year regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave. OR 2. The United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats. OR 3. The United States should keep the same number of troops in Iraq as are there now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq?

Withdraw all troops: 22%
Withdraw some troops: 56%
Keep same: 20%
DK / NA: 2%

I think throwing the ominous "regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave" clause is a clear negative description of the position, especially since the options were not rotated in this poll and it was followed with an apparent compromise solution. This is one reason why the Time poll shows very different numbers from other polls asking essentially the same question, but in a more neutral fashion:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

9/4-9/8: Increase 11%, Same 19%, Decrease 35%, Remove all 30%
8/8-8/12: Increase 13%, Same 17%, Decrease 31%, Remove all 30%
7/20-7/22: Increase 12%, Same 15%, Decrease 30%, Remove all 36%
7/9-7/17: Increase12%, Same 18%, Decrease 29%, Remove all 34%

The wording of the Time poll seems to have lopped at least 10% support off the "remove all" option. At the same time, there does appear to be a noticeable trend where support for "remove all" is slowly shifting to support for "decrease the number of troops in Iraq." It would seem that removing all troops no longer holds a plurality of public opinion on Iraq. The cause for this seems to be connected to the findings in the Time poll. Reports of improved conditions in Iraq shift people toward the "remove some" and "keep the same" options, while reports of worsening conditions in Iraq push people toward the "increase troops" and "remove all" options. When Iraq seems to be improving to the public, war opponents seem to move toward simply a reduced force, while war opponents see no need to increase the size of the American force in Iraq. When Iraq seems to be worsening, war opponents move toward removing all troops, and war proponents move toward increasing the number of troops in Iraq.

This results in the most counter-intuitive conclusion of all. The frequent Democratic facilitation of the "Iraq is improving" narrative actually helps those Democratic candidates who want to maintain significant residual forces in Iraq more than it helps anyone else, including the White House. When Iraq is improving, support for withdrawal actually increases, and the plurality position in this country becomes the most commonly held policy among Democratic elites: "the United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats." When Iraq is seen as worsening, the plurality position in this country is to remove all troops from Iraq, which is the position held by Bill Richardson, the Center for American Progress, numerous bloggers, and others. The "Iraq is improving" narrative does not help the Republican position on the war. Instead, it helps the residual force Democratic position on Iraq, while hurting both the Republican position and the progressive Democratic position. As such, some Democrats have a vested interest in making comments like:

We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.

We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.

And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.

An improved situation in Iraq increases support for troops withdrawal, while also decreasing support for removing all troops. Given that virtually every Democratic plan among 2008 candidates and those proposed in Congress favors the "withdraw some, but leave residual troops" option, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Democrats are not doing a particularly good job of fighting back against the "situation is improving in Iraq" line coming from Republicans. Dong so strengthens their hand, by making their position on Iraq both a plurality nationwide, and a nice compromise between removing all troops and maintaining the status quo.

While I don't agree with it, at least this allows the way Democrats have been acting on Iraq to make a lot more sense.

Chris Bowers :: Counter-Intuitive Public Opinion On Iraq Troop Levels

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Counter-Intuitive Public Opinion On Iraq Troop Levels | 17 comments
Troop withdrawal-full or partial-isn't a strategy (4.00 / 1)
Troop withdrawal is part of a strategy, not a strategy itself.

This is why the polls are all over the place. A troop withdrawal means that our soldiers won't be dying in Iraq anymore. That's important, but it doesn't solve the Iraq problem.

Many people believe we have a responsibility to clean up our mess in Iraq, and so a troop withdrawal without a larger Peace Plan, or stabilization plan, creates ambivalence.

The first candidate who can articulate a comprehensive Iraq PEACE Plan, which includes the withdrawal of U.S. troops, will turn this debate in his/her favor. That's my guess, at least.

Responsibility to Iraq (4.00 / 2)
I am struggling with that concept.

I was vocally and demonstratably against this war since before it happened, so to saddle me with being responsible for its failure seems a bit unfair.  Of course, you could say that it is only because of my initial, political, failure to stop the invasion that it went ahead, so it truly IS my responsibility. I don't know.  I'm at an impasse with myself.

But, that position is untenable in the long-run.  What is the take-home message to the next US President that wants to commit the US to a war without consulting the citizens, or the Congress?  THINK BIG!  That way, if you screw it up, the entire nation will help to bear your responsibility. 

Maybe I'd feel less cheated IF the actual architects of this inane adventure were held responsible for their actions, but they get to retire, live off my tax dollars, and "replenish the coffers" by writing books and going on speaking tours. Meanwhile, other people die and I'm left holding the bag.

On the other hand - I can plainly see that Iraq has been "broken" by this misguided invasion (and, no, I don't think it would be substantially different if they would have sent 400,000 US soldiers initially).  I feel horrible for the folks that have to live every day in the midst of war and blood-shed and I'd like to help them out of that situation.  But, I don't feel as though I helped to create that situation - only failed to prevent it.

The only way I can see to change this scenario is to get ALL US soldiers and mercenaries out as fast as possible. I suppose we'd have to leave someone behind to protect the US Embassy, but that's it (although, closing the Embassy seems like a viable idea to me, too).  I don't see why the US has to train the Iraqi military, in fact, it seems a bit counter-productive. The continued presence of US "advisors" will be seen as US control of their Iraqi proxy military.  No, the "trainers" are a bridge to re-invasion.  How long after "withdrawing" US forces will they be sent back to "protect our soldiers" left behind? 



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
After we leave, then what? (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you that the troops should leave, and I'm not saddling you with responsibility for the war. I'm explaining why the poll numbers are all over the place.

You may not feel any responsibility for the damage the U.S. caused in Iraq, but many Americans do, just as many Americans feel a moral responsibility to end the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. With Iraq, the feelings are more acute because we created that mess.

But that doesn't mean we need to keep troops there. It simply means we should have a plan in place for when they leave. How can we use our diplomatic and economic power to help Iraqis get back on their feet again -- after we leave? The answer can be conveyed in the form of a Peace Plan.

The fact that our troops are leaving shouldn't even be a point of debate. It's "what's next?" that we should be talking about. The "what's next?" is a Peace Plan.

[ Parent ]
What's Next? Humility (0.00 / 0)
I hope my first response conveyed that I'm still struggling with the question of responsibility to Iraq and Iraqis.  I certainly did not mean to offend you in any way.

The use of first person was more dramatic, and perhaps it muddled my point.  I was trying to convey utter frustration and anger of how easily the arguments surrounding this war get framed by the war-makers.  Initially, they ignore those who dared to question their intentions in Iraq, then they went ahead and did the very thing we vehemently demanded that they NOT do, now when its all gone to Hell, they turn around and ask us, "well, what should we do now?".

But, let's put aside that anger and frustration.  Let's try not to notice that had these kind of questions about responsibility, thinking about the consequences, and taking a measured, sensible approach are coming 5 years too late. Let's pretend that the politicos will actually listen to us.

First establish a time-line (short) for withdraw, then follow it.  A sudden, precipitous withdraw looks like retreat. But, maybe that would be a GOOD thing - the US could stand to be humbled; to be embarassed; to be humiliated.  I mean, its gonna happen ANYWAY, why not accept it?

Without the US as a target, I suspect some of the alliances between foreign fighters and nationalist, or sectarian fighters would no longer have a basis and would dissolve. Any attacks that were intended to "drive out" the US forces would no longer be necessary.

Presumably, the AQ fighters would either go somewhere else, or try to set up some camps in Iraq.  I suspect they'd try and stay put.

Sectarian and nationalists - I have no idea what these folks would do, but based on the historical response of human beings to such situations, they'd probably fight - some might even ally themselves with AQ.  The US, presumably, would broker arms deals with the Iraqi government and maybe even a few tribes, so the chances of a fight are very high.

Economically, I don't think the US has much of a role to play - other than western energy companies profiting from the oil and oil services industries. With the US out of the picture, I believe, international aid organizations would (assuming the violence doesn't prevent it) return to Iraq because they would not run the risk of being seen as "enablers" of the US occupation.  But, really, haven't we blown enough cash already?  (I sometimes think that we would have been better off if we took all the $500,000,000,000 that we've spent in Iraq, converted it to small denomination Dinars, and bombed Iraq with money in 2003, instead of cruise missiles.  Talk about "Shock -n- Awe"!!)

Diplomatically, I think the US is basically useless.  We are not an honest broker, we have little or no credibility, what could we possibly accomplish from that position?  Now, there MIGHT be an opening in the new Presidential Administration and Congress that results from the 2008 election, but in my opinion, it will be a slim chance that 1 election can reverse 60 years of US imperial arrogance.

Indeed, it is the positive side of that same arrogance that makes us think that we can somehow "fix" Iraq before we leave.  Maybe we can't.  Maybe we need to acknowledge our inability to have such influence in another sovereign nation.  Maybe we need to get our own house in order before we try and "fix" some other nation.

How do we get our own house in order?  I'd start with putting those in the Bush Administration that are responsible for this debacle on trial.  Not necessarily war crimes, something more along the lines of misappropriation of funds.  If we cannot hold the neo-con junta to account - we have little chance of regaining international credibility and no chance of stopping the next "pre-emptive" war.  Imagine how cathartic and, yes painful, those trials would be!  They would make Watergate hearings seem like child's play. 

Somehow, I don't think this response will satisfy you.  But, let me close with this - I respect your optimism, but I can't match it.  I think we are in a no win situation and are too hobbled by this war to have any positive effect, regardless of how well intentioned.

Like I said elsewhere: Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
We're agreeing with each other, mostly (4.00 / 1)
Leaving Iraq - and allowing an international organization to step in as a peace broker - is a positive, pro-active step toward stability.  It's part of a sound peace plan. 

But it isn't just "walking away". And it's not "fixing Iraq" before we leave.  It's consciously acknowledging that we can't "fix" the problem - and that we're willing to support any Iraqi or international effort to create stability and peace.

The reason we're in Iraq now is for lucrative oil development and for control of the region. Giving these up is an enormous shift in foreign policy, but it's the right thing to do. How do we justify it? In the name of peace, recognizing that peace in Iraq makes the world more stable and prosperous.

Why should other countries help? For the opportunity to share in Iraq's future economic prosperity - the same reason countries participated in the Marshall Plan after WWII. 

This is a show of humility. But rather than call it the "humility plan," I would call it a peace plan, or something that tells Americans and the world that we recognize the disaster we created and want to make amends, primarily by getting out of the way of those better able to help.

[ Parent ]
We're basically on the same page (0.00 / 0)
While I can see that YOU understand the humility in the "peace plan" approach - I doubt that any US politician would spin it that way.  If the US arrogance is not humbled in a publically acknowledged way - it won't help to prevent the next war.

Thanks for the discussion.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Does it matter what *americans* think? (4.00 / 3)
A new poll from Time makes one wonder if the PR strategies employed both by the White House makes and certain segments of the anti-war movement makes any sense.

Actually, at least insofar as the White House goes, I think Glenn Greenwald has this one pretty much figured out. The White House may not be using the right strategy to convince the American public, but that's okay because the American public isn't the target of their PR. Rather, the target of their PR is the political class, media pundits and Democratic congresspeople.

After all, it doesn't matter how much the public is against continuing the war-- all that matters is how much support the war has among the political class, and the war continues. And as it happens, this is working-- the political class is buying wholesale the administration PR about the surge and withdrawal just as the public is rejecting it, and the administration, it seems clear, is going to get what they want.

Not so counter-intuitive (4.00 / 3)
Bush's whole line since the beginning has been that when things improve, we can bring the troops home.  Except for the neocons, no one wants troops in Iraq for the sake of having troops in Iraq; the default is to bring them home.  Only if they are perceived to be really needed will most people want to leave them there.  So if things are getting better, we can begin to bring them home--that's what Bush always promised, and "decrease" is highest. 

People who are opposed to war, or this war in particular, want to bring troops home if their sacrifice is futile; they are more likely to want them home if things are worse.  So when things are perceived as worse, "decrease" loses 14 points.  Of these, 5 go to the "remove all" option (war opponents), 3 go to "DK" and "stay the same" goes up (from "decrease") but then 10 of "stay the same go to "increase".  Does that not make sense?

Shorter version:  War opponents do want them home if things are worse; but those who are willing to back Bush will want an increase, and the more ambivalent will want them to stay or shift to "DK".  So the greatest net loss is from "decrease" and the greatest net gain is for "increase".

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

I think everyone is on target here (4.00 / 1)
1. The American public is all over the place on the specific withdrawal strategy, probably because they want to see someone, anyone do SOMETHING about Iraq, and because they also want to see the situation resolved even after we leave. Personally, I think Richardson's plan is the best for that.

2. The target isn't the public. the Bush adminisatrion just wants to keep the war going as long as he is in office. Public opinion is set, so they are targeting the DC "elite" to keep the war going.

3. Maybe these attitude do kind of make sense, once you bore down into the rationale a little bit more.

So what's the solution? (0.00 / 0)
What's the best framing of the issue to try and get a plurality for a significant drawdown of troops in the fastest time possible? Not to talk about Iraq getting better or worse but to argue that it's broken beyond what a military presence can repair? Because that's a position that could really do with being stressed a lot more.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
If it were me... (4.00 / 2)
I would frame it as an "Iraq Peace Plan," defined as:

* withdrawal of US troops
* surge in international diplomacy
* economic incentives to Iraqi groups and neighboring countries to help stabilize and rebuild the country

I would label anyone who opposed the Peace Plan as "pro-war," and insensitive to the lives of our soldiers.

We should be looking beyond the troop withdrawal; that should be a given, and the Peace Plan should provide a solution for stabilizing Iraq.

[ Parent ]
I agree ... (4.00 / 1)
...but let's face it. Short of a successful effort to defund the war, which just isn't going to happen, there will be no major withdrawal until, at best, a year from now. So everything Obama says Wednesday (or others say between now and then and thereafter) only gives us an idea of how they might behave if they had the clout with which to make something happen.
[ Parent ]
Change the debate: War Plan vs. Peace Plan (0.00 / 0)
It would be easier to defund a war if you could argue that you are funding a Peace Plan.

If you could argue that a War Plan gets troops killed, and a Peace Plan brings troops home and stabilizes the region, you win support for this strategy.

Take the $200 billion that Bush wants to spend on war, and set aside the money -- or some fraction of it -- for bringing home troops and creating incentives for economic development in Iraq.

Granted, Republicans would not likely let such a measure pass, and even if they did, Bush would veto it. But it's really hard to argue against Peace, and Republicans would destroy such a proposal at their political peril.

Having an alternative Peace Plan can give Democrats the political freedom to defund a War Plan. Maybe.

[ Parent ]
Good thing Karl Rove resigned (0.00 / 0)
Otherwise, we might just see the "surge" re-christened as an "Iraqi Peace Plan". Sarcasm aside...

Rather than focusing on what the idea is named - we need to look at what is actually entails.  I mean, some of the earliest propaganda out of the WHIG was about how toppling Saddam Hussein would bring peace, justice, and the American Way to Iraq.  The word "peace" has been so mis-used by politicos over the decades - used to support their war-making.

How many "Peace Plans" have been proposed for the Middle East over the last 40 years?  How many have resulted in peace?

How are "economic incentives" supposed to stop a suicide bomber from attacking book-stores, or markets?

I think the US - even the well-meaning folks like yourself - have to realize that WE DON'T CONTROL THE WORLD.  We can't just wave a magic check-book and make people do what we want.  One the diplomatic front - the US has so little credibility that our involvement may be toxic.  I don't think that the US is seen as an honest broker - we are tainted by 60 years of imperial meddling.

Sometimes, perhaps, the best thing to do is WALK AWAY.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The U.S. Can't Walk Away From the Rest of the World (0.00 / 0)
We live in a global community, not on an island. We -- as global citizens -- have a vested interest in seeing stable, humane governments prosper. Not Democratic governments, necessarily, but stable and humane governments.

Therefore, we should use our economic and diplomatic power to promote such governments. Not military power. Economic and diplomatic power.

Right now U.S. subsidies to American cotton farmers are causing African cotton growers to go broke, commit suicide, and in some cases starve. Our subsidies to U.S. farmers cause Mexican corn growers to give up their farms and risk their lives to immigrate here illegally. U.S. policies can save or destroy lives everywhere.

The humanitarian crises that develop around the world, including in Iraq, ultimately wash up on our shores. You can't walk away from it. It finds you.

To put it more crudely: if your neighbor is dealing crack to survive, it affects your quality of life too. The world is smaller now. We're all neighbors.

[ Parent ]
Not the world - Iraq (0.00 / 0)
Don't expand my words beyond their intent.

I was not making a case for isolationism - just acknowledging that the US may not have much to say about how Iraq gets "fixed".

You mention crack dealers, but I see this more like an abusive family.  If some parent is abusing their child, you don't ask THEM to fix the situation before they leave the home - you get them out and let someone else fix the problem.

The abuser might benefit from some self-reflection - which is what I think the US needs very badly. 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see more and better polling, for one thing (4.00 / 1)
This buttresses the argument I've been making here that public opinion is not fixed on this issue, despite the "70% favoring withdrawal," and that Democratic politicians are (quite legitimately) worried about a Doclhstoss PR offensive, which is why they look so unresponsive to apparently compelling polls.  So what I'd like to see is polling to help flesh out this effect.

So people are more likely to want more troops if things get worse?  Worse how?  What are their assumptions about the efficacy of troop deployments?  What are their assumptions about costs?  What are their assumptions about resources?  The most amazing thing one learns in polling is often -- as with the "Saddam was involved in 9/11" 30%er idjits -- is what a skewed factual basis people work from.

Let's take just one highly probably "worse": increased influence of Iran within Baghdad and eastern/southern Iraq, calling forth Saudi pressure to deploy troops.  So:

"One concern expressed regarding Iraq is that a withdrawal of American forces may create a "power vacuum" that would lead to increased influence of Iran over Iraqi policy [and/or Iraqi oil.]

"Would you favor increased or sustained troop involvement in Iraq if it required a tax increase/draft/substantial increase to the deficit?  [Also poll on whether they think the deficit *is* increasing over this.  They may not connect those dots.]

"Would you favor increase or sustained troop involvement if it was unclear that the U.S. troops were actually helping to reduce Iranian influence?  If they were effective?  If their presence was making it worse?  etc."

I'm going to beat this drum a lot: polling is not just about describing the present and explaining the past, it's about predicting the future.  We know that people have a poor ability to predict what they'll feel in the future -- they are answering here in the absence of the sustained media blitz that will accompany the election -- but we can at least try to see where the fault lines are and how seriously they threaten us when the threat described becomes concrete, vivid, and salient.

Without this kind of information -- which can be sought with much more carefully phrased questions than this first draft -- I don't see us moving enough votes to end the war, or getting top candidates to commit to withdrawal, anytime soon.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

Counter-Intuitive Public Opinion On Iraq Troop Levels | 17 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox