Support For Iraq War Highest Since 2006
This story was written by David Paul Kuhn.
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe "the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals" in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going "very well" or "fairly well" is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The situation in Iraq remains fluid, of course. A surge in violence or in troop deaths could lead to rapid fluctuations in public opinion. But as the war nears its fifth year, the steady upturn in the public mood stands to alter the dynamics of races up and down the ballot.
The repercussions will be most acutely felt in the presidential contest. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain committed to a staggered pullout, while Republican John McCain holds steadfast in his support for the Bush administration's military surge.
In recent years, election results have tracked perceptions about the progress of the war in Iraq. The Democratic wave in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public's view of the war. The resurgence of McCain's candidacy also tracks the decrease in U.S. fatalities in Iraq. Monthly troop deaths have dropped by about two-thirds since the summer of 2007, according to Department of Defense records.
Democrats' resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House.
Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should "keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized," according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico's request.
Senior foreign policy aides to Clinton and Obama said in interviews that their candidates have no intention of reconsidering their pledges to withdraw troops from Iraq, despite the waning of public opposition.
As recently as Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., Clinton reiterated her pledge to "end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home." She added, as she has for months, that she would "carefully and responsibly" start the withdrawal of those troops within 60 days of taking office.
"There is no military solution," Clinton is prone to say, a sentiment echoed by Obama. Obama has also proposed an end date for "removing all combat brigades" from Iraq.
The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration's war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.
"How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?" asked Michael O'Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war's outset.
"Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it's ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican and most other issues - including most foreign policy issues - could most favor the Democrats," O'Hanlon added. "Yet Democrats keep wanting to fight the Iraq debate."
The positions taken by Obama and Clinton reflect the majority sentiment in their party: Seven in 10 Democrats continue to believe the war in Iraq is going poorly. Only about a quarter of Democrats support maintaining troop levels until "the situation has stabilized," according to Pew polling data.
Views of the war in Iraq have long varied depending upon party affiliation, unlike during the Vietnam War. Although even Democratic discontent has ebbed for the first time in more than a year - 29 percent now support keeping troops in, an increase of 8 percentage points since last summer - foreign policy advisers to both candidates dispute the idea that Democrats are in the unenviable position of disagreeing with the majority of Americans over whether the war in Iraq can succeed.
The Politico American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe "the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals" in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going "very well" or "fairly well" is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The situation in Iraq remains fluid, of course. A surge in violence or in troop deaths could lead to rapid fluctuations in public opinion. But as the war nears its fifth year, the steady upturn in the public mood stands to alter the dynamics of races up and down the ballot.
The repercussions will be most acutely felt in the presidential contest. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain committed to a staggered pullout, while Republican John McCain holds steadfast in his support for the Bush administration's military surge.
In recent years, election results have tracked perceptions about the progress of the war in Iraq. The Democratic wave in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public's view of the war. The resurgence of McCain's candidacy also tracks the decrease in U.S. fatalities in Iraq. Monthly troop deaths have dropped by about two-thirds since the summer of 2007, according to Department of Defense records.
Democrats' resolute support for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces may soon position them at odds with independent voters, in particular, a constituency they need to retake the White House.
Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should "keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized," according to polling data assembled by Pew at Politico's request.
Senior foreign policy aides to Clinton and Obama said in interviews that their candidates have no intention of reconsidering their pledges to withdraw troops from Iraq, despite the waning of public opposition.
As recently as Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., Clinton reiterated her pledge to "end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home." She added, as she has for months, that she would "carefully and responsibly" start the withdrawal of those troops within 60 days of taking office.
"There is no military solution," Clinton is prone to say, a sentiment echoed by Obama. Obama has also proposed an end date for "removing all combat brigades" from Iraq.
The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration's war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.
"How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?" asked Michael O'Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war's outset.
"Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it's ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican and most other issues - including most foreign policy issues - could most favor the Democrats," O'Hanlon added. "Yet Democrats keep wanting to fight the Iraq debate."
The positions taken by Obama and Clinton reflect the majority sentiment in their party: Seven in 10 Democrats continue to believe the war in Iraq is going poorly. Only about a quarter of Democrats support maintaining troop levels until "the situation has stabilized," according to Pew polling data.
Views of the war in Iraq have long varied depending upon party affiliation, unlike during the Vietnam War. Although even Democratic discontent has ebbed for the first time in more than a year - 29 percent now support keeping troops in, an increase of 8 percentage points since last summer - foreign policy advisers to both candidates dispute the idea that Democrats are in the unenviable position of disagreeing with the majority of Americans over whether the war in Iraq can succeed.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 308 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 321 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 403 Comments
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 261 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 241 Comments
Now on a Lighter Note in the "GOOD NEWZ PROPAGANDA DEPT"
(Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Paul Kane.
The former treasurer for the National Republican Congressional Committee diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and possibly as much as $1 million -- of the organization''s funds into his personal accounts, GOP officials said yesterday, describing an alleged scheme that could become one of the largest political frauds in recent history.
For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.
"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman
Posted by bobmarisol at 01:54 PM
Interesting that you say it is a "problem with [the] liberals", presuming that non-liberals (conservatives?) do not have a problem with it. You see, the difficulty in what you say could not be "more clear" is that the reasons for going into Iraq have changed several times, and it is only "clear" to those with a tendency toward cognitive dissonance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
Posted by trapbreak at 01:00 PM : Mar 14, 2008
Look at the picture ...
Deadly Bus Bombing In Iraq
Eight U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks in Iraq, the worst one-day death toll for coalition troops in months.
Posted by sigotratando at 12:41 PM : Mar 14, 2008"
If Bush Sr had pulled out before the job was done ... sigh ...
Posted by nokoolaid
-----------------
Prove it. I think you are lying.
Posted by bhoogren
See, here''''s the rub boohoo - nobody gives a flip what you think. How do I "prove it" ... scan my retirement papers and mail them to you? Here''''s one, prove to me you have more than a grade school eduaction - prove to me that you aren''''t a pinhead''''s love child - prove to me that your loss of brain cells isn''''t a result of sniffing too much glue. You''''re the first one on here to lob insults, but never, not once, back up your asinine diatribes with facts. Not once.
Posted by nokoolaid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is you came after me and in your FIRST post to me called me a liar along with a diatribe that reflected unprofessional and emotional prejudice.
In toying with you a bit it was interesting to observe the level of egocentric immaturity and lack of introspection you demonstrated.
Most entertaining to see your insulting, aggressive and presumptive responses as you chided me for merely sending back a toned down version of what you sent me in the first place.
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." - Army Officer''s Guide 1894
4th ATAF - M/Sgt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nokoolaid at 01:59 PM : Mar 14, 2008
thank you. Any military men out there got a comment?
How about unit and rank.
This cultural/religious war really started going badly when the U.S. invaded Iraq will have no winners.
If we win, what do we win, and if we lose, what do we lose? Makes no sense to me. Many deaths on both sides and a cost of $2.4+ billion a week.
If we were to win the war in Iraq would that make al Qaeda go away? No. Make sense to you?
Posted by tibu987 at 01:41 PM
-----------------------------
That is the problem with you liberals. After four years of war you still cant even figure out what we are fighting for. Liberals dont understand that losing in Iraq means Al Queda has a safe haven from which to plan more 9/11 style attacks. Liberals dont understand that winning in Iraq means we establish a bellweather of freedom and prosperity in the Middle East that will inspire millions of Arabs to pursue their own freedom rather than to turn to violence and hopelessness.
Liberals ask what we are fighting for. I ask how can they not know? What is at stake in Iraq could not be more clear. We either succeed in which case the USA will be much more safe and Al Queda will be defeated and on the run, or else we surrender in which case the USA will be in grave danger and Al Queda will be free to plan evil attacks against us that will take countless innocent American lives.