Poll: Americans Split On Troop 'Surge'

55% In CBS Survey Don't Think Increased Troop Levels Will Help Stabilize Baghdad

(CBS)  Americans are nearly evenly divided on the idea of a short-term increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq — which President Bush is widely expected to call for when he announces his new strategy for the war later this week.

In the latest CBS News poll, 45 percent are in favor of the so-called troop "surge," while 48 percent are opposed.

However, most Americans — 55 percent — don't think a troop increase would actually help stabilize Baghdad; just 35 percent think it would.


SHORT-TERM TROOP INCREASE TO STABILIZE BAGHDAD

Favor
45%
Oppose
48%

A majority — 59 percent — would prefer to see troop levels either reduced (30 percent) or brought to zero with a full withdrawal (29 percent).

---

Read the complete CBS News poll results.

---

Most Americans expect Mr. Bush will announce changes in the U.S. strategy in Iraq, but not the kinds of changes they want.

Forty-three percent say the U.S. should keep fighting the war but with a new strategy, which is what 55 percent say the president will do. But 52 percent want the U.S. to start ending its involvement in Iraq, which only 6 percent think the president will do.


U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD BE…

Increased
18%
Kept the same
17%
Decreased
30%
All removed
29%

Just 3 percent think the U.S. should keep fighting with the current strategy; 35 percent think Mr. Bush will stay on the same course.

Americans continue to have dim views of how the war in Iraq is going. Seven in 10 say the war is badly for the U.S., while only 28 percent say it's going well. In some good news for the president, a majority of Republicans (54 percent) now say the war is going well, up 8 points from last month.

HOW IS THE WAR GOING?


Well
28%
Badly
71%

More than half of Americans (52 percent) think Iraq will never become a stable democracy, but there is less pessimism than a month ago. Forty-five percent think Iraq will someday have a stable democracy, 9 percent more than last month, though just 3 percent think that will happen in the next year or two.

Only 17 percent say the U.S. is winning the war, about the same number as say the Iraqi resistance is winning. Six in 10 say neither side is winning.

Just 23 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, while 72 percent disapprove.


WAS REMOVING SADDAM WORTH IT?


Yes
30%
No
64%

As for Saddam Hussein, nearly two in three Americans — 64 percent — do not believe removing the now-executed Iraqi dictator from power was worth the loss of American life and the other costs of attacking Iraq. That's the largest number ever to say ousting Saddam wasn't worth it.

Your polls are slanted and biased, as is the smarmy Katie Couric. You have more Dems and Independents on the poll than GOP's. Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense?

The biased CBS news will never have my respect or credibility.

Paul

Your polls are slanted and biased, as is the smarmy Katie Couric. You have more Dems and Independents on the poll than GOP's. Who are you trying to fool with this nonsense?

The biased CBS news will never have my respect or credibility.

Paul

[antoniof123]

Santafe66 it is not fiscaly sound for them to spend the type of money to do a poll to have it skewed to one side or the other. You should go back to Eco 101 if you ever had it.

[benhess]

Please support the President on increasing troops in Iraq. If we don%u2019t take on the insurgents now, we are going to have suitcase nukes going off in our major cities in ten years. You need to educate the public on that threat. They are currently brainwashed by the liberal bias in the media.

[benhess]

Please support the President on increasing troops in Iraq. If we don%u2019t take on the insurgents now, we are going to have suitcase nukes going off in our major cities in ten years. You need to educate the public on that threat. They are currently brainwashed by the liberal bias in the media.

[benhess]

Please support the President on increasing troops in Iraq. If we don%u2019t take on the insurgents now, we are going to have suitcase nukes going off in our major cities in ten years. You need to educate the public on that threat. They are currently brainwashed by the liberal bias in the media.

[lucasnico]

sorry....can't support it.....we should have never been there in the first place, and the sooner our troops come home, the better..... quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and start thinking for yourself.

[observantx]

I%u2019m very skeptical about the American public being %u201Csplit%u201D on escalating troops into Iraq. I can%u2019t understand that if so many think the war is going badly and El Presidente del Grande Busho%u2019s numbers are in the toilet, how only half the American people think throwing more of our sons and daughters into the meatgrinder is a good idea. This doesn%u2019t add up. CBS: you need to check how the question was posed and/or your basic math skills.

[jeffstersf]

It is appalling that some American disregard irrefutable evidence: Saddam and Iraq had ZERO nuclear capability (oh, and by the way, NOTHING to do with 9/11.) The war was a sham, and escalation (i.e. supporting Bush and his fascist ideals) would be as disastrous as the war so far. Let%u2019s hope the new congressional leaders listen to their hearts and not more Republican propaganda. Benhess2, I would propose that YOU need an education! Bush CREATED this spate of terrorism and more American boys and girls in the crosshairs is NOT the answer.

[bluestardad]

These numbers are a window dressing for Bush. 88% of Americans do not want to send more troops. You can pound these numbers up your back side!

[bluestardad]

Remove troops from Iraq you pimps!

[cruzn66]

Continued support for this President and his failed "ideology" of a free Democratic Iraq is beyond ridiculous. There is not one shred of proof that a democracy as we know it can exist in a country where the loyalties are tied more to the mosque than to the nation. A theocracy such as Iran would probably stand more of a chance, and then, what have we actually won. The animosities of past slights and violence brought about by the continuing infighting of Sunnis and Shias will not simply go away because we are willing to sacrifice more of our men and women into the fray. Western-style democracy is not easily accepted if it threatens the power of the Imams and the central authority of the Muslim faith. What part of this is so hard for the neo-cons to understand?

[bluestardad]

There are American cities that need the money we are spending in Iraq! wtfover!

[fascistusa]

END THIS FASCIST IMPERIALISTIC WAR AND THE HORRIBLE POLITICIANS THAT WANTED IT!!!!

Our "news" says that we're evenly split, yet I saw another "poll" at ABCNEWS that said 72% DO NOT WANT THIS NONSENSE SURGE.

How odd.

[samthetvcat]

Well, this just goes to show you how much wording in a poll can affect the outcome . . . like how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction in findings within the SAME poll?

SHORT-TERM TROOP INCREASE TO STABILIZE BAGHDAD
Favor:45%
Oppose:48%

U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD BE%u2026
Increased:18%
Kept the same:17%
Decreased:30%
All removed:29%
(in other words 18% favor, 78% oppose)

The only way I can make sense of these findings is that perhaps people feel conflicted . . . like for about 30% of us our hearts want to believe that there is still hope things can be made better, but our heads are telling us we need to be realistic about what can be achieved and accept that a surge will ultimately be in vain. Actually reports from the troops seem just as conflicted don't they? Like aren't they saying that yeah additional troops would sure take a load off of them but that they really don't think it'll help with the long-term goal of establishing democracy? I don't know . . . can't wait to hear what Bushie's got to say on Wednesday.

[samthetvcat]

Oh, pt 2 (lol)

My point being that for the long-term, clearly the focus ought to be on withdrawal. I'm just not sure about how the short-term is supposed to play out if Bush is intent on keeping the level of troops the same and 'staying the course' . . . like if Congress tried to short-change him, wouldn't he just then be more likely to cut corners when it comes to the troops by doing stuff like giving them cheaper gear and fewer days off? Like if that's the case that Bush isn't going to let Congress try and extract a gradual withdrawl then I would be troubled by the thought of troops being any more taxed then they already are. On the other hand, I would hate to see Congress bullied and hard-balled into giving Bush what he wants just because he was willing to put the troops through greater hardship to get his way (IF that's the kind of thinking that's going through his mind). Meh, all speculation at this point . . . gotta wait until Wednesday I guess . . .

[oysterfloyd]

How is it that 45% favor a "troup surge", but only 35% think it would actually do any good? Is this the same 10% who put these guys in charge in the first place?

[frankly6]

The only thing this president has proven he's good at is digging us into a hole. Now he's asking for a bigger shovel.

We have already had two such "surges" in the last year and things have only gotten worse on the ground. He should have listened to the generals and sent in enough troops to begin with. By not securing Iraq imediately, Bush and co. have unleashed a sectarian civil war that will run it's course no matter what we do.

[downtowner97]

Singinrick, how did you pry yourself away from Fox news long enough to read this poll? Aren't you afraid the liberal media is going to make you a gay, weak peace lover? Stick with Bill O'Liely and Sean Hamity and you'll only see news that makes you feel good about your presidenter.

You'll feel much better when the number of our dead American soldiers reaches 400,000 so you know we've made some real progress. Sorry it's only 3000 so far. We really suck as a nation.

[arthurcl1]

Everyone check out DVD called Bushes Brain which shows how Karl Rove orchestrated Bushes rise to power and how he orchestrated Bush to get us into Iraq on the ploy of weapons of mass destruction! All lies as Karl is the mastermind of Bush! Because he can't think for himself! Now look at where we are. 3,005 of our brave troops died so far and now Bush wants 20,000 more? The Republican Blank Checks are OVER!

[arthurcl1]

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who is critical of the surge, met with Mr. Bush on Monday and says the president understands what's at stake now.
NOW HE KNOWS? After all these years? Watch in his speech Bush will say "But were still on the hunt for Osama"
Who as far as anyone knows is probably already dead, but he needs to keep lying to us so we will not question anything he says! That's how he will justify another 20,000 troops! Which we already have tried before and failed miserably.

[arthurcl1]

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who is critical of the surge, met with Mr. Bush on Monday and says the president understands what's at stake now.
NOW HE KNOWS? After all these years? Watch in his speech Bush will say "But were still on the hunt for Osama"
Who as far as anyone knows is probably already dead, but he needs to keep lying to us so we will not question anything he says! That's how he will justify another 20,000 troops! Which we already have tried before and failed miserably.

[arthurcl1]

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who is critical of the surge, met with Mr. Bush on Monday and says the president understands what's at stake now.
NOW HE KNOWS? After losing House and Senate gave him a Thumping to his head? After all these years? Watch in his speech Bush will say "But were still on the hunt for Osama"
Who as far as anyone knows is probably already dead, but he needs to keep lying to us so we will not question anything he says! That's how he will justify another 20,000 troops! Which we already have tried before and failed miserably.

[exusmcsgt]

singinrick-

I find your comparison between Iraq and WWII casualties to be invalid. WWII was fought in response to Japanese and Nazi agression. We did not start WWII, but rather responded to those who did attack other countries.

Your comparison fails because, in the case of Iraq, WE are the agressors/invaders/occupiers as Japan and Nazi Germany were in WWII. History categorizes these regimes as warmongers, and rightly so.

Obviously you support Bush and his agression, but I'll tell you that it gives me no sense of pride to now have our country joing the ranks of agressor nations in history such as the aforementioned and the former USSR.

[exusmcsgt]

I am not surprised that 28% of those polled think the occupation of Iraq is going well (exclusive FoxNews viewers, no doubt).

What is curious is, with that said, only 3% feel the current strategy is successful. In my observation, a curious incongruity to say the least.

[exusmcsgt]

yurpallid-

I don't know if you read your own posts, but you come off as a seething lunatic.

[bluestardad]

Billions of Dollars in Job Creation funds have been spent in Iraq and are now requested for Iraq. What elected official either in the House of Representatives or the Senate could with good conscience vote to send Billions of American Tax Dollars to create Jobs in Iraq while the Midwest and Rust Belt States in America have lost millions of Jobs because of unfair trade practices and the political decisions to send jobs to foreign countries? When will our elected officials turn their priorities to support their electorate?

[bluestardad]

yurpallid; You know I share your view but in reverse If one of my children gets another scratch in these bulshitoilwars I along with other Americans will hunt down all the Neocons and bring them to justice until someone kills me!

[exusmcsgt]

janem4-

I read 5 or 6 news sites every morning - including FoxNews.com. Their slogan "Fair and Balanced" is just a slogan, in my observation. They preach the RNC line to the faithful.

[luvny-2009]

exusmcsgt - VERY well said

[exusmcsgt]

luvNY-

Thank you.

[luvny-2009]

yurpallid - WOW you need a serious anger management class oh and take Dumbya with you.

[exusmcsgt]

luvNY-

When it comes to people like yurpallid, singingrick, and lieberman, I am reminded of a comment made by one of my professors in college regarding debate tactics. He said "when they're screaming, they're not thinking. Game, set, match".

How true that is.

[exusmcsgt]

tru_america1-

Try international sources - you'll get a much more "fair and balanced" pictue than from FoxNews, in my opinion.

[observantx]

posted by yurpallid

I will personally hunt you down


yurpallid:

No doubt about it, you are the worst troll ever. This makes bushrocks look utterly reasonable and even likeable.


I would recommend that everyone boycott this troll and not respond to any of his posts. Personal threats are WAY over the line. In this space we are all allowed to disagree, debate, and even call each other names, but this is too much.

[exusmcsgt]

ObservantX-

No surprise that these obviously violent individuals support invasions, eh?

[luvny-2009]

ObservantX - You got my vote!

[bluestardad]

ObservantX ; you are right!

[luvny-2009]

exusmcsgt - He said "when they're screaming, they're not thinking. Game, set, match".
NICE!

[luvny-2009]

LOL I just jumped to another article and yurpallid is "Hunting people down" there too.

Oh wait I got it...didn't Cheney go hunting? How sweet yurpallid you wish you were with him orrrr you are Cheney!

[exusmcsgt]

luvNY-

Thank you, again.

[exusmcsgt]

I am still struggling to understand the relationship between the 28% who think that the war is going well and the 3% who think we should continue with the current strategy. How can 28% think it's going well if only 3% think that our strategy is working. Makes no sense to me.

[grumpas]

The only way I will go for a troop surge is if George and his administration leads them personally!

[i-tack]

grumpas, pretty funny.

the difference between 3% and 28% values could be simply explained by the questions that people were asked. Although an overwhelming majority people think that a change in "strategy" would be good, a different percent of people think that we are accomplishing some degree of our goals.
For example, if someone feels that avoiding terror acts on US soil is sufficient grounds for the cost we are paying overseas, then they might answer the questions this way.

Bush is acting for the history books...trying desparately not to appear the fool. I wonder how many Americans are going to have to die while he tries to save face!

[clestes-2009]

54% of Republicans think the war is going well. How the hell can anybody think the war is going well?? By any standard of progress Iraq is a failure. The increasing violence, increasing body count, failure to reconstruct any infrastructure, lower levels of gas, electricity, no water in some places.

This is their idea of going well?? This is the reason I have no respect for Republicans. They have the stupidest ideas of what is success in Iraq. I heard this morning the the diplomat to Afganistan say that "great progress" has been made, and the Taliban is back in full force. Where is the progress??

Are they so wed to their party that they cannot see the truth when it comes home in body bag after body bag? Billion after billion. Violence going up and up.

That is progress? There is no way I want anyone who cannot look at unvarnished truth running the govn. Look at where we are now because of it.

[tejasdemo]

Bush is an idiot. Republicans are idiots. If it hadnt been for the NeoNazi's redrawing of congressional districts there would have been about 2 Republicans left in Congress.

[random_radar]

I am opposed to the draft, but you can see it coming. The lesson learned from Iraq is not that war is useless; rather, our government has figured out they need a bigger military to prosecute their goals.

Sure, the American public is cold to the draft right now. That is why the quiet drumbeat is being ramped up. A steadily increasing stream of propaganda is appearing--including this article and Charles Rangel's proposal of renewing the draft. Over time, a well orchestrated campaign is going massage public acceptance.

Enjoy your sons and daughters while you have them. Soon you may be visiting their graves. The government has plenty of wars on the drawing board. Syria, Iran, North Korea--there are even people writing books arguing that war with China is inevitable! Laugh at me today, because you will cry with me tomorrow.

[socabron]

What should be done in Iraq instead of a surge is to re-deploy US Troops ... some to Kurdistan and others to Kuwait, Jordan or even Afghanistan and wait it out until the Civil War is over..it will take about 9 years. .. In a Civil War one must take sides... but in Iraq both sides are the enemy... ****** and Iran hate the Americans... Sunnis (Bathists , Al-Khaida and the Syrians ) also hate the Americans so we can't win...as they say in Iraq... even the trees, the dogs, cats and rocks hate you. The trick is to sit it out and watch the game just like the super bowl. Or why don't we ask our welfare recipients (Israel) to do dirty work for us for a change.

[Jasonian18]

we need the surge of troops to get our men out sooner simple why really 1 more troops mean more support so less death 2 less death means not as many things to report on for news groups as well as better spport of Iraqy training operations.