New WaPo Poll: Majority Say Iraq Wasn't Worth It
rantingprofs.com
By Cori Dauber
That's the headline, lets take a look at how it's covered.
The fact that a majority now say the war "was a mistake" is the headline.
While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.
Now, that's interesting. They think the war was not worth fighting, even though it has contributed to the long-term security of the United States. The fact that such a large majority think the cost in casualties has been "unacceptable" is completely misleading. That question is, frankly, virtually meaningless. What, exactly, would an acceptable level of casualties be? A majority has been saying the casualties are unacceptable for awhile, even during the period when a majority thought the war itself was worthwhile. It just isn't a question that gives you useful information, if useful is defined as helping you predict how people feel about the war or when support will crack.
I've talked to genuine experts in the relationship between polling language, casualties, and public support, and gotten agreement on this: that question just doesn't help you understand what it is you want to get at there. (You've got to ask those who no longer support the war why they don't support it and see whether casualties is the answer they give.)
You have to go a bit further in the article (fascinated as they are by Rumsfeld's fortunes) to find this:
A strong majority of Americans, 58 percent, support keeping military forces in Iraq until "civil order is restored," even in the face of continued U.S. causalities. By a slight margin, 48 percent to 44 percent, more voters agreed with Bush's position that the United States is making "significant progress" toward its goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Yet, by a similar margin, the public believes the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order.
Which could just as easily have been the headline, no? A Strong Majority of Americans Continue to Support Iraq War, because that's accurate too.
It would appear that on the question of progress there is at best ambivalence:
On the question of whether Iraq is prepared for elections next month -- a topic widely debated among national security experts -- 58 percent of respondents believed the violence-plagued country is not ready. Nonetheless, 60 percent want elections to go forward as scheduled -- even though 54 percent do not expect honest results with a "fair and accurate vote count." Fifty-four percent are not confident elections will produce a stable government that can rule effectively.
So people have no expectations elections will work, but are convinced we have to proceed.
What this suggests is that Americans (although, as the article explains, with a very sharp partisan divide) are committed to the mission, but have little or no confidence in the way it is proceeding.
That would suggest that the support that exists is "soft" support; very fragile.
Remember that for Americans to continue to support casualties in war, the most important single condition is that they have to believe there is a chance of success. (Subsequent polling has changed that 500 number, obviously.)
If that belief craters completely, the whole house of cards goes.
Which means that the storylines that matter may not be the constant emphasis on casualties per se, but simply the constat repetition that the entire country is in chaos. I suspect there isn't enough time between now and the election for support to change -- it wouldn't anyway, because those who are left are doubtless the hardcore supporters and those who are willing to wait and see how elections go.
But the elections (no surprise) are the absolutely critical turning point. Because they'll be taken as proof either that the mission still has hope, or that the thing just isn't working. |
