Poll: Americans see no easy Iraq exit

Yahoo Breaking News ^ | 8 December 2006 | NANCY BENAC AP

[shrinkermd]

Americans see no easy exit from Iraq: Just 9 percent expect the war to end in clear-cut victory, compared with 87 percent who expect some sort of compromise settlement, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

The numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago. In December 1965, when the American side of the war still had eight years to run, a Gallup survey found just 7 percent believed it would end in victory.

Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an all-time high of 71 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos survey, which was taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations this week for a new course. Just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.

Pessimism about Iraq is mounting, according to the poll. Some 63 percent of Americans said they don't expect a stable, democratic government to be established, up from 54 percent who felt that way in June.

The pessimism was considerably higher among Democrats, with just 22 percent expecting a stable, democratic government, compared with half of all Republicans. The survey of 1,000 Americans, taken Monday through Wednesday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[shrinkermd]

Posted elsewhere on FR is this article from today's WSJ. It surely seems to be the problem facing the public. Redefining what is and what is not victory seems in order and I would vote for the last paragraph or two of Shelby Steele's magnificent effort.

Our Unceasing Ambivalence

By SHELBY STEELE

December 8, 2006; Page A16

Possibly the most confounding feature of the Iraq war, from the very opening of hostilities to the present day, has been the American government's utter failure to define what victory would be in this war. "Victory" has been a conjure word for the Bush administration, a Churchillian allusion meant to evoke the heroic perseverance shown in the great wars of the past. But no one in the administration has ever said what victory would actually look like. And, lacking this description, even those of us who have supported the war have seen trouble coming for some time. Without a description of victory a war has no goal.

Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also -- and without a whit of self doubt -- imposed our democratic way of life on them. We took our victory as a moral mandate as well as a military achievement, and felt commanded to morally transform these defeated societies by the terms of our democracy. In this effort we brooked no resistance whatsoever and we achieved great success.

But today, as Nancy Pelosi recently put it, "You can define victory any way you want." And war, she said, was only "a situation to be resolved." If this sort of glibness makes the current war seem a directionless postmodern adventure, it is only because those who call us to war have themselves left the definition of victory wide open. And now, as if to confirm that this is a "relativistic" war meaning everything and nothing, there are at least three national commissions -- the White House, the Pentagon and the Baker committee -- tasked to create the meaning that will give us a dignified exit. Of course America is now quite beyond any possibility of dignity in this situation save the one option all these commissions have or will likely dismiss: complete military victory.

Why don't we know the meaning of this war and our reasons for fighting it? I think the answer begins in the awkward fact that America is now the world's uncontested superpower. If this fate has its advantages, it also brings an unasked-for degree of dominion in the world. This is essentially a passive dominion that has settled on a rather isolationist nation, yet it makes America into something of a sheriff. Whether the problem is Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Darfur, America gets the call. Thus our youth are often asked to go to war more out of international responsibility than national necessity. This is a hard fate for a free and prosperous citizenry to accept -- the loss of sons and daughters to a kind of magnanimity. Today our antiwar movement is essentially an argument with this fate, a rejection of superpower

[Williams]

The vast majority of Americans want their leaders to lead and win a war. Not hand wring, not get bogged down, not appoint study groups, and not keep saying they "understand" why people disagree with them.

[MNJohnnie]

Compromise with who? Man are these people at AP/Ipso. What an utterly stupid poll question.

There is NO one to "compromise with" you utter morons. Unless of course you all are going to covert to Islam or kill yourselves?

HERE is what Iraq is about. After 3 years their is NO excuse for supposed "Journalists" to still be this utterly ignorant of what is going on in the world.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it

[shrinkermd]

Good post.

Incidentally, Shelby Steele says much the same thing in his last two paragraphs:

"...For every reason, from the humanitarian to the geopolitical to the military, Iraq is a war that America must win in the hegemonic, even colonial, sense. It is a test of our civilization's commitment to the good against the alluring notion of menace-as-power that has gripped so much of the Muslim world. Today America is a danger to the world in its own right, not because we are a powerful bully but because we don't fully accept who we are. We rush to war as a superpower protecting the world from menace, then leave the battle before winning as a show of what, humility? We confuse our enemies, discouraging them one minute and encouraging them the next.

Could it be that our enemies are really paper tigers made formidable by our unceasing ambivalence? And could it be that the greater good is in both the idea and the reality of American victory?

[webheart]

Americans see no easy exit from Iraq: Just 9 percent expect the war to end in clear-cut victory, compared with 87 percent who expect some sort of compromise settlement, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

Well, well, the MSM is doing a fine job then, they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

[ohioWfan]

The numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago.

Maybe that's because the anti-American left has been 'evoking parallels' to Viet Nam since Day One (and a few sympathetic-with-the-left freepers who shall remain nameless).

Thank the LORD that we have a Commander in Chief who will not lead by opinion polls!

[himno hero]

I think the job would be a lot easier IF the intermeddlers Iran , Syria, Saudis withdrew their efforts in fighting Uncle Sam. Perhaps what is needed is to poke the epicenters of terrorism Tehran and Damascus right in the eye, and then pop them in the jaw. If they want in, let them step up to the plate instead of hiding behind the guise of insurgency in Iraq. Iran already declared war in 1979.


Iran and Syria are both in there for oil, people and real estate and they will continue to work the situation sending "Jihadists" until someone hammers them.

[TheCrusader]

The problem with war is that people expect to win that war, and there is no hint whatsoever that we are winning. Maybe they should have kept a body count, at least they could point to that and claim we are winning.

Of course the final proof of having won a war is that it comes to an end and peace is restored; but there is really no end in sight in Iraq. Of course the greater reason for this is that we are not really fighting "terrorism", as our government believes, but we are fighting islam, a bloody, barbaric cult with over 1 billion members. My feeling is that whenever we kill a "terrorist" another one or two replacements step up from this vast pool of koranimals. Until the U.S. and the West decide to declare war against our real enemy, islam, this thing will never come to an end.

[albie]

Who cares what Americans think about an exit strategy! They voted in a socialist government! They voted for higher taxes! They voted for the biggest anti-american group of commie pigs the world has ever seen. They think Bush controls gas prices! They think Wal-Mart is unfair to thier employees! They think minimum wage should be raised to a "living wage"! They vote for whoever Oprah tells them to vote for! WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

What is it with the left and the 60s and Vietnam. What does everything compare to Vietnam. Why cant they move forward fresh, forget about the 60s. This is the year 2006

[elhombrelibre]

For nearly three years, the media has told us we cannot win. And now that they've convinced an impatient American public that this is another Vietnam, we probably will find it very difficult to succeed. The MSM and the DNC did al Qaeda's propaganda for them, even if they were only doing it for their own partisan reasons.

[ohioWfan]

I think Rush is right on this one. They see it as their 'glory days.'

They controlled the media, manipulated the thinking of the American people, started riots on campuses all over the country, controlled the White House and the Congress, and wreaked anti-American havoc everywhere.

They're just trying to do it again. And that's why many of us are so deep in prayer that they don't succeed.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

it almost seems like what is bad for America is always good for them

[ohioWfan]

That is precisely the case. And what is good for America......victory, honor, a strong economy, success.........is bad for them.

In other words, they are losers, plain and simple.

[samm1148]

"Historically victory in foreign war has always meant hegemony: You win, you take over. We not only occupied Germany and Japan militarily after World War II, we also -- and without a whit of self doubt -- imposed our democratic way of life on them."

Missing is the lead up to that: The US and its allies bombed both Germany and Japan into submission--including civilian populations (see Dresden and Hiroshima among others). Although there are vague allusions to targeting capabilities of the day the fact is we destroyed the enemies' will to fight. Leaders of that day acknowledged that the enemies were Germans and Japanese; both of whom had ample chances to remove their dictators and sue for peace.

Today our president has called Islam a "religion of peace." I wonder what the words "Nazism is a party of pasifism" would have sounded like out of FDR's mouth? How can we win against an enemy that we are refusing to engage?

[dr_who_2]

The numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago. In December 1965, when the American side of the war still had eight years to run, a Gallup survey found just 7 percent believed it would end in victory.

What percentage then believed that there would be some sort of compromise settlement? Funny how they left that out.

F*** the yellow press.

[Shion]

I disagree with Mr. Steele on this one (and I usually think he's awesome).

I know EXACTLY what victory would look like, unfortunately like another poster wrote, I'm quite disillusioned with the hand-wringing and commitee-appointing that's been done instead of any necessary steps to real victory.