MyDD :: Out Of Touch

Out Of Touch

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:57:19 AM EST

The foreign policy establishment of both parties, but especially Republicans, is completely out of touch with the public when it comes to withdrawal. First, here is what the public thinks about withdrawal:

Gallup Poll. June 29-30, 2005. N=883 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"If you had to choose, which do you think is better? For the U.S. to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years. OR, To set a time-table for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time." Options rotated

No timetable	       48
Stick to timetable	       49

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 23-26, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?" Options rotated

Stay	    58
Withdraw     41

Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. June 20-22, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"Should the United States keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or should the United States bring its troops home from Iraq immediately?"

Stay in Iraq	59
Bring Home	37

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 8-12, 2005. N=1,464 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

Keep Troops    50
Bring Home     46

No matter how this question is phrased, there are clearly large numbers of Americans, ranging anywhere from 37-49 percent of the population, who are in favor of withdrawal. However, these questions were all vague in terms of time, and did not offer any specific dates. Look at what happens when an actual date is introduced into the question (emphasis mine):

The Harris Poll. June 7-12, 2005. N=1,015 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"

Wait for Stable Govt	   33
Bring Home in Next Year        63

Once the generalities of "As soon as possible" and "as long as it takes" are removed from the question, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawal. In fact, Harris finds nearly a supermajority in favor of withdrawal within the next year.

In the face of this, what do we find from "insiders" of both parties? Nothing but opposition:

Should the Bush administration set a timetable to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq?

Poll of 80 "insiders"
	     Yes    No
Republicans    0    42
Democrats     13    24

Go to the actual poll and read the comments from the insiders--they are enlightening. Not a single one is concerned with what the American public actually thinks about Iraq.

It is stunning that not a single Republican is willing to support this idea. It is depressing that not many Democrats are either, even though the vast majority of people who actually vote for Democrats are in favor of withdrawal / timetable. If there is going to be a major third party challenge in 2008, it is going to be because no Democratic presidential candidate had the guts to actually stand up for what the actual people who vote for Democrats believe in.

I imagine that right now that many potential Democratic candidates are trying to figure out how they can use the blogosphere and the netroots to help their campaigns. They are probably sifting through primers on terms like podcast, blogosphere, unique visit, Civic Space, and other such things. As someone who is quite familiar with all of these terms and new institutions, I can best sum up for any candidate exactly how they can receive the most potential benefit from the netroots in 2008: come out in favor of withdrawal. If you do not do so, do not expect much support or excitement, period. It really is as simple as that.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

I still think this is a bad idea (none / 0)

I think it would be devastating to US foreign policy if we withdrew our troops any time soon. I agree that there isn't a lot of good options available at this point, or for the foreseeable future, but that means that we need to reach beyond the simplistic approaches of the Republicans and come up with a more holistic and consistently liberal approach to this.

Not only that, but if an anti-war candidate does emerge by the 2008 election--and especially if he is nominated--it will be another generation before the American people trust the Party on national security. There's a reason why Dean is not supporting the withdrawal movement.

This is a situation where paying too close attention to the tactics polling can provide you with can harm you strategically over the long haul. Championing a popular position in the short run can be a devils bargin the long run.

by Jonathan Schwartz on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:47:17 AM EST

Re: I still think this is a bad idea (none / 0)

The reason Dean is not supporting withdrawal is that he doesn't support it. I think he's wrong. But he's been clear about his views ever since we occupied Iraq, and it's not about political positioning, it's about what he believes.

I strongly believe that both you and Dean are wrong (and I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of DFA members and Dean's most loyal supporters also think that). Yes, it could be devastating to pull out of Iraq - just not as devastating as staying in Iraq could be. We're digging ourselves a hole and we're going to face a lot of serious consequences for sure. But the answer is not to keep digging it deeper under the delusion that we can somehow dig ourselves out. We're just making it worse.

One of my main concerns about the Iraq occupation is that we've almost entirely neutered our military capability, and with it our deterrent effect. No country in the world has any reason to care what we think, on military grounds, because they know we have no military force to spare. We don't even have enough military to do what we're trying to do in Iraq right now, let alone maintain that commitment through next year. We're literally using up our army and reserve, sending training units into combat and degrading our training capability so we'll have fewer trained units in the future, ruining our equipment faster than we can replace it or afford to replace it, bankrupting ourselves, making more and more parents tell their children not to join the military - we're doing all this and yet we still don't have enough. We're taking troops out of places like Korea and Europe!

The disaster is already upon us. If a real threat demands our military attention in a serious way, we'll have to face the choice of abandoning Iraq to deal with it, or not dealing with it. Better be prepared by withdrawing from Iraq on our own schedule, than be forced to face such an abrupt and devastating choice.

That's just one reason we need to get out. There are many others, and this essay does a great job outlining them and elaborating. I highly recommend it.

by cos on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I still think this is a bad idea (none / 0)

The fear you articulate is killing the Democratic Party--and America.

Americans have long had a belief that the GOP was a better defender of the country than the Dems.

In the last 5 years, Bush has proven that the GOP sux as a defender of the country.

But, support does not shift to the Dems. Why not?

Precisely because the Dems have tried to hide under ths skirts of the GOP the whole time. They have never ...

Directly attacked GOP incompetence.
Directly challenged the idea that Iraq has anything to do with the War on Terror.
Offered an alternative.

So, Americans look at the GOP game plan as the only one available.

Then they see that Dems are nothing but timiod followers of that game plan.

So they prefer the party that wrote the game plan.

Never, ever will Dems gain any trust from the people by failing to have the nerve to broach their own vision of security.

You think that a step out of timid support will doom the party for another generation.

I say that timid support IS CURRENTLY ensuring that Americans do not trust this party with defense.

I say that an opposition party that can't hang an anvil around the neck of a ruling party that has screwed up this badly doesn't deserve to regain power.

by Thresholder on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

despite the parties (3.00 / 1)

The really remarkable thing about this is that the public is so split even though both major political parties have essentially taken the same position: the Republicans actively oppose withdrawal, and the Democrats don't challenge it. Imagine what public opinion would be like if the two parties actually lined up on opposite sides of this issue and made it a topic of debate between them?

by cos on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 12:20:07 PM EST

Re: despite the parties (3.00 / 1)

You mean like what would could happen with universal health care and cheaper college, which already have overwhelming public support but no corporate dollars, ergo no major party support? Yeah...

by berns19 on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Roger that. (none / 0)

You have just put your finger on the crux of the problem.

The Democratic Party does not stand up for anything the people believe in. No wonder they think we stand for nothing.

American is dying because no leader will stand up and articulate the positions people want to take, tactically lead the battles people want to fight.

Your post touches on the very heart of the whole problem in America.

by Thresholder on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Despite the Parties (none / 0)

I also agree that you highlight a major proublem we are facing in our country today. It is easy to say that our representatives are too afraid to stand up and truly articulate their views to the American people and instead sit idle and no one really stands for anything, but the difficult thing we need to determine is how will we fix this?

In today's age, when a politician does take a chance and stand up for their beliefs they face being portrayed as some kind of extremist by the media. Instead to save face, our representatives follow the crowd for lack of a better word.

Debate is a neccessary component of a healthy democracy so that the people can find a side that best represents their viewpoints. Our representatives need to stop thinking how they can save face in front of the media and how they can change this country's policies for the better. I know this is a very idealistic statement to make and not realistic in today's world, but I truly believe it to be the case.

by aedc on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 02:31:00 PM EST

withdrawal (none / 0)

I don't think a withdrawal plan that is attached to a date is a good idea, either.

You only do that when all the variables are in your control, like when you've reached a stability point, and it's just a matter of mechanics and so on.

But I also don't think that we want to have such a nebulous policy that we still find ourselves there ten years from now.

So I think that what Democrats should do is instead fashion a real withdrawal plan - one that isn't attached to dates, but to principles and dependencies. Identify the exact conditions that would have to be in place in order for us to withdraw - set the goalposts, and then don't move them. Then work towards those conditions. And they can't be abstact conditions either, like "Peace in Iraq".

Withdrawal should include withdrawal from military bases. Iraqi security forces could be supplemented with UN forces from muslim-speaking countries. We can entice them with building contracts. Right now it seems like we are possessive of all the contracts because we went in it alone. But it appears as if our choices are to lose by ourselves, or win with partners.

by tunesmith on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 03:37:50 PM EST

Something like Nixon's plan? (none / 0)

I think that approach has already been tried. If the Democrats want a major third party challenge from the left in 2008, they should probably take your suggestion.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That would be (none / 0)

fantastic!

I'm all for a major third party on the left. If 20% of the electorate votes their conscience, that would be awesome!

by Paul Goodman on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:43:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something like Nixon's plan? (none / 0)

You talking about vietnamization? I think you'd have to convince me that any effort to help a assist a nation towards becoming self-sufficient over time is by definition evil and anti-Democratic, before I'd be convinced that Democrats would leave the party en masse.

I also don't believe that failure to withdraw by 10/2006 will lead to a major leftward third party challenge by definition. I think the left wants to elect a president, and so they are smarter than that.

In other words, I don't think your comment has much of any substance behind it...

by tunesmith on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something like Nixon's plan? (none / 0)

I was actually talking about Nixon's secret plan to end the war.

Now that you mention Vietnamization, it was a much easier goal than democratizing Iraq. I don't know about the left, but speaking for myself, I won't support a candidate or a party that doesn't have an immediate exit strategy from Iraq.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My problem with withdrawl (none / 0)

Here's my biggest problem with withdrawing troops at this point:

We broke this country, we must fix it.

Let's face it, we screwed up royally in Iraq. We've destroyed their infrastruction, we've bombed their hospitals and schools and we've encouraged thousands of people there to kill their countrymen. We can't just say, "oops, my bad, I'll be leaving now."

I think we have some moral obligation to make right what we've messed up and that means a presence in the country.

That having been said, I think our presence there needs to change with an emphasis on aid rather than arms, butter instead of bullets, and education instead of errors. Once we do that and do it correctly, I think Iraq will settle down.

For the near future, we will need troops there until we get the country back up on its feet.

by jd142 on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:00:56 PM EST

The problem is... (none / 0)

...the car (Iraq) isn't broken down on the side of the road, just needing a new alternator.

No, it is wrapped around a tree and been set on fire.

That is, Iraq is unfixable, IMHO. No matter what we do, no matter how long we stay, chaos and mayhem will rule the day. We are just flushing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US soliders' lives down the toliet by staying-the end result (full-fledged civil war) will happen if we leave or stay.

by Geotpf on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Civil War (none / 0)

is actually part of the solution, not a problem to be avoided. Its like major surgery to remove a tumor... the sooner you operate the better. No middle-eastern country can operate without a strong man. We should have picked a strong man favorable to the shiites and walked away last year.

by Paul Goodman on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Civil War (none / 0)

If the problem is like a tumor and civil war is like the chemotherapy that kills it, we have to understand that the cost is not just hair falling out. It is the deaths of thousands, or tens of thousands, of innocent people.

Are there lives so worthless?

If we say to American parents that the war in Iraq is not worth the deaths of our sons and daughers, how can we say that it is worth the deaths of Iraqi sons and daughters?

by jd142 on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 09:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To quote Tonto (none / 0)

Who's this "we" you're talking about whiteman?

We didn't do jack shit. Bushco and the theocons engineered the Iraq disaster and I don't have any moral or ethical obligation to "fix" Bush's disaster.

"We" don't have any moral obligation to continue a hopeless and immoral war with no solution.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Chris, you made a significant typo... (none / 0)

Fixed

by Chris Bowers on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 04:58:14 PM EST

Democrats have a high opinion of themselves (none / 0)

Not setting a timetable for withdrawal means Bush will have three more years to screw Iraq up even further. Why do Democrats think they are so smart and so enlightened that they can fix Iraq, no matter how badly Bush screws it up?

Chris is absolutely right that the best way to guarantee a third party challenge from the left is to support Bush's Iraq war - with Democratic improvements to be articulated and implemented at a future date.

Once again the Democratic party finds itself to the right of the WSJ, which has criticized Bush's Iraq policy, because there is no objective, rhyme or reason for the troops to stay.

What would a Democratic military objective be for Iraq? The first part of the Powell Doctrine is to have a clear objective. What's the plan?

There isn't a single Democrat that has a clue what to do in Iraq execept "Stay the Course." What a sick, pathetic joke.

The Humpty Dumpty Rule is clear and simple:

If you run over a piece of pottery or an egg with a tank, you can't put it back together again.

How many more innocent Iraqi men, women and children do Democrats want to sacrifice for a military mission without an objective? How many more GIs do they want to see killed and maimed to extend Bush's war?

I can't believe the Democratic party is really that stupid, but they are determined to make the same mistake Nixon made. Nixon turned LBJ's war into Nixon's war and it turned out so well for Nixon, the Democrats want to repeat history.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:03:01 PM EST

There have been several Democrats... (none / 0)

...in both the House (where they were joined by at least one Republican and one pseduo-Republican (Ron Paul, really a Libertarian)) and in the Senate who are calling for a timetable.

Oh, and one of them (Feingold) is running for president in 08.

by Geotpf on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stunning lack of leadership (none / 0)

On the part of Democrats in office. Not all, but most.

by Coral on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 05:24:14 PM EST

And this is why statistics is useless. (none / 0)

eom

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:19:48 PM EST

Wars cannot be waged by opinion polls (none / 0)

That said, the administration is thinking politically, not strategically. Chaos in the middle east does not equal WTC style attacks: our presence there does. Think about human nature for a second. What if France invaded Utah and tried to legalize gay marriage? The kooks would come from miles around with pickups and shotguns to drive the "libruls" into the sea. From the point of view of the Islamic male, we are the French and equality for women is akin to gay rights. Are we shocked that the suicide bombers just keep coming? They won't stop until we truly wage an epochal war of annihilation, which we have long ago decided not to do. Since we bypassed on a "cure" for the disease we ought to go back to quarantine, only this time with a little extra vigilance (remember when people were asking "who?" "why?" after 9-11? I wouldn't exactly describe that as vigilance (!))

by Paul Goodman on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:54:49 PM EST

Different Priorities (none / 0)

The party insiders want to rule the world. They are the Establishement. What they have to win or lose in Iraq is radically different than what most Americans have to win or lose.

This is not just ranting on my part. It's basic sociology. Just read any of William Domhoff's books. Different social classes have different interests at stake. Nowhere do the interests diverge more sharply than in foreign policy.

Of course, the true Democratic wing of the Democratic Party (Wellstone, not Dean) actually does represent the people, and they're the folks--most notably, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus--who are leading the charge to find a way out of Iraq.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 11:05:12 PM EST