“No, and our opinion should count for something. Oh, and we don’t really trust the Democrats either.”
This would seem to be the majority position revealed in the most recent polls on the Iraq war. Polls from January 11 (CNN) revealed that 69 percent of Americans polled “disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq”, 67 percent oppose the war in Iraq, 50 percent strongly oppose the addition of 20,000 or more troops, and 66 percent strongly or moderately oppose the so-called “surge”. Sixty-six percent of individuals polled thought that sending more troops would either make no difference in the acheivement of U.S. ‘goals’ or make the U.S. less likely to acheive its goals. In addition, 68 percent thought that the end result of U.S. operations in Iraq would be statemate or defeat. Similarly strong support was shown for proposed blocking of the administrations plans, although there was some confidence shown in the U.S. government to handle the situation in Iraq (more than for the Iraqi government). Despite the rumors that president Bush was changing his policies and that they would be more in line with what the people wanted, only 27 percent who watched the president’s speech said they felt it made them more likely to support the president’s policies, with an equal percentage saying the speech made them less likely, and 45 percent saying the speech made no difference.
In another poll (AP), when asked if all in all the decision to go to Iraq was the “right decision” or “a mistake”, 62 percent said it was a mistake, and 57 percent said it was a mistake to send troops at all. In still another poll (USA Today/Gallup), 72 percent said they disapproved of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, and an equal percentage said he does not have a clear plan. As good as this might look for Democrats, 66 percent said that they do not think the Democrats have a clear plan either. When offered four different plans on what could be done in Iraq, 15 percent chose immediate withdrawal, 39 percent chose withdrawal by the end of the year, 31 percent chose withdrawal with no time limit, and only 12 percent chose “send more troops.” Finally, when asked how much public opinion should effect U.S. government decisions on Iraq, 74 percent chose either “A great deal” or “a moderate amount” and only 11 percent chose “not at all”.
How to interpret all this? We have been at war for years, and it is generally accepted that the deceptive but successful pre-war propaganda of the Bush administration has been debunked in the eyes of the American people. Support for the war has both been revealed by analysts and recognized (finally) by the American people as being based on false and misleading information and deceptive tactics of propaganda and ‘public relations’. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that now that people in general have recovered from being misled, they no longer support the war. However, while the Nov. 7 election can be read as revealing in part the frustration of people with Republican leadership and the war, it cannot exactly be read as a statement of faith in the Democratic party. It seems to me that in this case public opinion is quite realistic, and the stage is well-set for grassroots public protest of this unpopular war with appropriately little confidence in the Democratic party to solve the problem and no other real recource on the part of a rightly disgruntled and disillusioned populace. It is significant, given this, that groups like United for Peace and Justice, allied with hundreds of other anti-war groups, are planning a large demonstration and three-day get-together in Washington, D.C. starting January 27.
Power to the people, I say. I will be there in spirit, if not in person.
Peter Broady is a regular guy from Wasilla, Alaska, who reads and writes when he gets the chance. He can be contacted at pbroady@gmail.com or at his current website, http://internationalnv.blogspot.com/
Loading ...
2 users commented in " Polls: Do the American people support the proposed ’surge’? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThink about this: if we dont put troops into Iraq, who will? The British are pulling out, and when there are no more troops there Iran will be free to take control of Iraq, thereby securing the oil fields to themselves. They are also working on nuclear power, and we believe that they have it, but not the oil to fuel thier rockets. If we dont stay and quickly secure it, (which we cant do with the amount of troops there now) then there will almost certainly be a WWIII.
Avatarslayer,
I don’t understand. You obviously oppose Iran’s supposed (references? evidence?) plan, but to replace it you think we should take control of the oil? How about this: if the oil is in your country, you get to say what you do with it. We and other major powers accept this priniciple when it comes to our resources, but seem to quickly abandon it when it comes to others. I don’t know, things are a damn mess over there, not having been helped at all by either the invasion or this administration’s pathetic attempt at an occupation.
I am glad that you recognize what this war is really about: access to and even control of Iraqi natural resources. Paul Wolfowitz seems to have made this clear (while embarassingly exposing the lies of Donald Rumsfeld and others) in 2003 by justifying the invasion by saying “we had no choice”, Iraq swims on “a sea of oil”. Our country, largely because we cannot stop using too much petroleum or get decent environmental legislation passed, has to invade other countries and kill thousands of innocent people to feed our “addiction” (to use the president’s phrase). As Kurt Vonnegut once wrote though, this is standard addict behavior.
Iran probably does not have a nuclear weapon; in fact the best conservative estimate is that it will take three years or more before they could even develop one. I get this information from reading publications like The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and others. That is a lot of time for negotiation, if this administration is interested. Unfortunately, given the disasterous arrogance of this regime, we may have to force them out of office or face some grave consequences indeed. We cannot control the behavior of foreign nations and leaders, or the Iraqi people. We can only influence them for better or worse, and so far, and especially with this administration, we have done so in many ways for the worse.
I doubt we are on the verge of WWIII, given how small and relatively weak countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others are, but the fact is that this administration has isolated us from the world, turning a formerly sympathetic (post 9/11) world against us because of our disregard for human rights and international law. If there is a WWIII, you can bet the arrogant and imperialistic leaders of the world’s only superpower will have a lot to do with it.
Leave A Reply