70% Say No To Iraq Troop Surge
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Polls, WarWow, it wasn’t even close. I guess that’s what you get when you botch something so badly and mislead people about how successful the war is going.
Still, 70% is pretty incredible.
Just as 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, a like number don’t think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there, the poll suggested. When asked to name the most important problem facing the U.S., 38 percent of those polled volunteered war, up significantly from 24 percent three months ago. [...]Just 35 percent of Americans think it was right for the United States to go to war, another record low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move. Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.
Democrats are far more inclined to oppose an increase of troops, with 87 percent against the idea, compared with 42 percent of Republicans.
Opposition to boosting troop levels is highest in the Northeast, where 79 percent of those surveyed were against the idea. That compares with 68 percent in the South and 67 percent in the Midwest and West.
And you can bet that these numbers aren’t going to change that after Bush’s mediocre speech last night.
So, are you in the 70%?
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 11th, 2007 and is filed under Polls, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Ummm… is the troop surge the real point of the change in strategy? I would think the changing rules of engagement would be more significant. As will be taking more aggressive steps to control the borders with Syria and Iran.
The troops surge is a consequence of the changing strategy, it ISN’T the strategy. People are answering the poll question assuming that the troop surge IS the stragety.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
William, I think you’re spliting hairs here. While it’s not THE strategy, the troop surge is still THE key component of this new strategy, yes? It’s still about securing Baghdad and Al Anbar province. We can try and stop Iran and Syria all we want, but if the increased troop levels don’t bring some moderate stoppage to the violence in those those places insider Iraq, game over.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
[...] (Hat tip: Justin Gardner, Donklephant) Posted by Matt Ortega | 1/11/07, 6:37 pm MST | 0 Views | View blog reactions [...]
January 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
That was White House Press Secretary-level obfuscation on the part of William.
The point being that the American public does not want more troops. Period.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:36 am
The key part of the strategy seems to me, to be the changing rules of engagement. Allowing politically defined “no go” areas was a mistake, and should have been rectified earlier. It was dumb of Bush to have allowed that to go on in the first place. They only need the extra troops because they waited so long in the first place.
Sorry to sounds like a card carying Republican, I’m not, I have always thought that the rules of engagement held us back from finishing the job there. The military can do a whole lot when polititians allow them to.
Political inertia pretty much guarantees that Bush will get whatever he wants. Congress’s only option is to cut funding to the troops, and that is a polititcal non-starter. For whatever reason, people reelected GWB, even after they knew there was no WMD, even though we don’t have Osama Bin Laden, even though GWB’s original strategy seemed to be dumb optimism. So, quite frankly, it doesn’t matter what the American public wants now. They got exactly what they asked for, 4 more years. The last election was the time to make their voice heard, it is too late now.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I proudly proclaim that I am in the 30% bracket. That doesn’t mean I think (in 20/20 hindsight) that the war was a good idea in the first place or the war strategy has been effective or the situation in Iraq hasn’t gone from bad to worse.
What I support is the old American ideal that you can’t be successful in life if you give up and quit every time things get messy. I firmly believe that the ultimate goal of bringing modern civilization to the middle east is something that has to happen if we truly desire to maintain if not improve civilization and freedom in the world at large. This is a good and noble goal that only our great country can help to bring about.
Many now seem put out by the Iraq war. In truth, the vast majority of Americans have not been impacted at all. Only our volunteer soldiers and their families have suffered and sacrificed. The rest of us have been living the good fat life, amusing ourselves pretending to be armchair generals and savy world leaders. And forgetting about what happened on 9/11/2001.
What isn’t being discussed much are the potential consequences to the whole world should we just give up. It’s the big, ugly elephant in the room. This is the most important thing we should be discussing. Imagine the impact of the middle east embroiled in a regional war with the US sitting on the sidelines with our tails between our legs.
We are all so utterly dependent on “the system” functioning within known boundaries. The stability of the whole world system is based on oil (like it or not) and that system is really fragile. How the hell is the system going to function if the price of oil skyrockets several times over? What happens to everybody, especially spoiled Americans, if the system goes into cardiac arrest? I don’t even want to go there.
The stark reality of the potential consequences of the system crashing, more than anything, makes me a firm supporter of doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. Not finishing the job there would be a selfish, shameful and irresponsible act of cowardice and betrayal. I don’t want my country to be defined by any of those terms.
January 12th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Lewis –
We don’t have the number of forces to quell the violence.
And even if we did, the wounds the war has opened up are, in my opinion, to much to overcome to achieve a lasting peace. (Or at least “victory.”)
January 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Matt,
Are you certain about what you say? Or is that just an opinion you’ve formed based on reading blogs and newspapers? And by what experience/expertise do you feel qualified to reach those conclusions? Also, have you thought through the consequences that will affect all of us should we decide to give up on Iraq?
I say ask the troops what we should do. If they are willing to continue their sacrifice because they believe their efforts will be successful, then who are we to deny them that opportunity? Those of us sitting at home have given no sacrifice whatsoever. Are we worthy to tell them that we don’t care about making their sacrifice all for nothing?
That’s what happened in Vietnam. 50,000 lives, several times that served there, and we made all their sacrifice mean nothing at all. Millions more locals brutalized after we left. Is that something to be proud of…or ashamed of?
January 13th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Good thing this president leads and doesn’t follow the polls!
January 14th, 2007 at 7:22 am
I guess the right of center bloggers will take this as Americans having no backbones and folding whenever trouble arises.
These bloggers are the same people who hate when the government decides what is best for them, and generally believe in the “wisdom of the crowds,” and distrust “experts,” and let the markets do the rest.
I guess this war is an exception to the rule: Blind obedience, follow the party lines, and keep throwing money at the problem. These people are the ones that always answer, “I consider myself more intelligent than the average person” on those stupid personality tests.
Guess what: The 9-11 terrorists, the DC snipers, the miami seven, London bombers, et al. are not from Iraq or even indigenous from the middle east. They were westernized, educated, middle class people. And subsidizing secratarian violence in Iraq does nothing to quell the terrorists. Isn’t that we are concerned with? Or is it “saving” the “ungrateful” middle east?
$500 billion…? I think we could have found an alternative fuel source with that much money and colonized mars.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The cost of finding an alternative fuel source, while a very good idea, is immesurable and must be done incrementally. As for right-wing bloggers, I think the 30% approval rate comes from both political sides, not one. Right-wing complaints and Left-wing complaints about conduct of the war are not the same. It’s not a quesion of party loyalites
And Iraq is only one front in a world wide war. You say many terrorists grow up here, in the West. That’s true. But your implication that there is no common thread to those who commit these acts of terrorism is false. It is willful blindness.
It’s surprising how little curiosity some people have. Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that the war is planned in incremental stages to achieve a goal, the details of which it would be wise not to let the enemy know? The White House has done a very bad job of getting this message out.
January 28th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Even Oliver North is against Iraq ’surge’
Do you think President Bush could be doing the “surge� just to hold off a civil war till he leaves office?
DP-Virginia is home to three gallant, patriotic men with much in common. They are all three ex-Marines. They are all three highly decorated Vietnam veterans. They all sought at one time or another to be our junior senator. One lost his bid, another won his, and the third both won and lost. Our state can be proud of all three, and grateful for their service to our country.
I refer, of course, to Chuck Robb, Jim Webb and Oliver North. Strange bedfellows, nicht wahr? One may challenge any suggestion that the similarities I cited can withstand the drastically divergent political paths they have trodden since Vietnam. Before Wednesday night, I would agree, they had nothing in common. Now, it appears, George Bush has given them common cause.
North writes, “Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: ‘We don’t need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops,’ was a common refrain. They are right.�
February 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Finally here is a message that neatly sums it up. Of course it had to be on a T-Shirt :-)
A parade with everyone wearing these will bring everyone to their senses!
Take a look here: [url]https://www.goodstorm.com/stores/clearthinker[/url]
August 26th, 2007 at 5:29 am
[...] tip: Justin Gardner, Donklephant) These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]