Support: 47.4%
A. Sufficient information regarding weapons: 6.2
B. Remove dictator Saddam Hussein / free Ir: 7.4
C. Support family / people in armed forces: .9
D. We are in danger / we have to protect ou: 5.1
E. Support our President, G. W. Bush / elec: 3.5
F. We were attacked first at the World Trad: 3.6
G. Better there than in the USA: 3.5
H. Inevitable / someone had to do something: 3.3
I. Should have dealt with Saddam Hussein du: .3
J. We must fight terrorism: 5.8
K. It is the right thing to do: 3.0
Support - other: 2.2
Support - don't know / refused: 1.1
Oppose: 46.8%
A. No weapons of mass destruction: 7.0
B. War for oil and money: 2.5
C. Too many deaths: 3.0
D. USA should not have gone in alone / join: 1.7
E. Bush and family's interest / finishing w 204: 3.6
F. War is not the answer / should handle th: 8.2
G. No connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda: 5.3
H. We have no right to invade a sovereign c: 6.1
I. Not warranted / generally oppose / unspe: 2.2
J. Lack of information at the time: 2.7
K. War not necessary / we have more importa: 2.1
L. Don't support Bush: .3
Oppose - other: 3.3
Oppose - don't know refused: 1.6
Other: .4
Don't know / refused: 4.1
Now, the preceding question wasn't perfect, since it asked people whether or not they supported the war back in March of 2003, when it began. Either about 15% of the electorate forgot they supported the war in the first place, or some people simply misunderstood the question. No matter, the rationales people provided were fascinating.
In particular, only 3.0% of the country indicated that the number of deaths in Iraq was their main reason for opposing the war. Given that public opinion on all facets of Iraq has stayed more or less constant since September 2005, even though the amount of violence in Iraq has swung wildly during that 27 month period, this is a salient point that more pundits should be aware of. Opposition to the Iraq war is not primarily fueled by violence in Iraq. In fact, there is evidence to indicate that support for withdrawal actually decreases when violence in Iraq increases, and vice versa.
Also, it is important to note that few Americans consider turning Iraq into a constitutional republic to be sufficient justification for the war. Only 7.4% of the country cited freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein as their primary rationale for supporting the war. By a long way, the most common reason people have for supporting the war centers around self-defense and fighting terrorism. Support rationales D, F, G and J are all variations on this reasoning, adding up to 18% of all Americans. The idea that the Iraq war really means fighting terrorism has become the core of war supporters. Of course, anyone looking at 2004 exit polls showing Kerry winning 73% of the vote among people who cite "Iraq" as their top issue, and bush winning 86% of the vote among those who cite "terrorism" as their top issue already knew that.
Opposition to the war falls into two main camps. First, there are those who reject the rationales for the war, as seen in opposition reasons A, B, E, G and J. These groups add up to 21% of the country. Second, as seen in F, H and I, there are those who oppose the use of war as an instrument of policy (16.5% of those surveyed fell into this group). There is also a smaller, third group, that seems to think the war was simply handled badly and / or the subsequent costs of the war have not been worth it. This group is seen in C, D and K, and make up about 7% of those surveyed.
I think that too many of our anti-war arguments center on the third grouping of anti-war arguments, which state that the cost of the war in terms of lives, money, our standing in the world, and state of our armed forces has not been worth it. This leads to the counter-argument from Republicans and liberal hawks that because violence in Iraq is decreasing, that means the war is now becoming worth it. However, this argument over whether or not the costs of the war are worth it's accomplishments is simply not were most Americans are at. The vast majority of the Americans either think that the war simply isn't justified no matter the costs, or they think it is an integral part of fighting terrorism, no matter the costs. As such, for most people on both sides, it isn't about the costs of the war, but rather about the rationale for the war. Americans believe in the fundamental decency of our country, and as such we don't want our country to be in a war that can't be justified, even if we are winning that war.
Personally, I think that after the weapons of mass destruction arguments collapsed, after people realized that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and after people realized we were fighting an insurgency against Iraqis themselves, the majority of the country simply no longer saw the war as justifiable on moral and / or legal grounds. In contrast to our three favorite wars as a nation, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War Two, it becomes increasingly difficult to portray Americans as the good guys in that situation, Think about how, as a nation, in contrast to those three conflicts, there is comparatively little positive cultural remembrance of, say, the war of 1812, the Mexican-American war, the war with Spain, World War One, and the Vietnam war. I think one of the key reasons for that is because, in those five conflicts, it is much more difficult to portray our participation in those conflicts as morally justifiable. The majority of our population is not hellbent on Empire for its own sake. If we use our military, Americans need to believe that what we are doing is just.
It isn't just about the violence, or the other costs of the war. The reason Americans are done with Iraq if because they no longer believe the war is justified or justifiable. It is important for progressives and Democrats to remember that. |
