Support for War Effort Highest Since 2006

The Politico ^ | Thursday, March 13, 2008 | David Paul Kuhn

[kristinn]

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, Pennsylvania, 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 eight percentage points since last summer — foreign policy advisors 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.

“We have seen at great cost here that the surge has resulted in a reduction of violence. That’s indisputable,” said a top Obama foreign policy adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But we have not seen any of the political progress that will be necessary to have that long-term stability.

“[Obama] believes the best way to induce change is to have this strategic redeployment,” the adviser added.

While Democrats increasingly constitute the bulk of voters who support the withdrawal of troops, the public shift of opinion overall has been dramatic. As many voters now believe that the war is going “well” as “not well” — 48 percent each, according to Pew.

Pew also found that 49 percent favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible while 47 percent say the troops should stay in until the situation stabilizes — statistical parity between the two positions.

Late February polling conducted by CBS News has also shown that the public view of the war is better than at any point since August 2006. CBS recently found that 43 percent of the country believes the war is going “well” — less than Pew found but still double the level of last June.

Democrats remain in step with the public mood on the question of the decision to go to war. Pew and CBS have found that a majority of Americans, including independents, continue to believe that the choice to wage war with Iraq was “wrong” — a figure that has held for years.

McCain is betting, however, that the public will view the war through a forward-looking lens. For months, he has argued that Democrats intend to “retreat” in Iraq and ensure failure.

The public may soon come to view that as “a correct narrative,” said O’Hanlon, a Democrat whose views on the war have made him the bête noire of many in the antiwar liberal base.

Perhaps as a result of the uptick in support for the war or his own military record, McCain is well-positioned to retake the party’s traditional advantage on national security issues.

Almost half of registered voters now believe it is “very likely” that McCain would be an “effective commander in chief,” according to CBS polling. Less than one-quarter said the same of Obama and Clinton.

In addition, CBS found that a clear majority of Americans were “confident” that McCain could “handle an international crisis” — 56 percent said so for McCain, 47 percent for Obama and only 39 percent for Clinton.

The McCain campaign has signaled plans to continue highlighting his differences with Democrats over Iraq policy. Meanwhile, Democrats plan to continue to frame McCain as a central player in the president’s Iraq policy who is likely to continue in the same direction.

“Sen. McCain is clearly going to try to depict the Democrat, whoever it is, as cut and run,” the Clinton advisor said. “And Sen. Clinton, or whoever is the Democratic nominee, is clearly going to try to depict Sen. McCain as one who would stay there for centuries.”

For the time being, however, McCain can claim that roughly half of the public does not support a troop withdrawal — a first since the 2008 presidential race began.

[kristinn]

Nothing succeeds like success with a fickle public.

God bless our troops.

[Red6]

It's sad,

War and the fate of millions of people, essentially is dealt with like a sports team by the American public.

If the team is doing well, everyone jumps on board and wants a T-shirt. If the team does bad, everyone second guesses the quarterback, owner, trainer, and no one attends the games.

Iraq, and the GWOT is not a game.

[Larebil]

Vietnam veterans have likened Vietnam war to a 15 round fight that you won every single round, then the 15th round, you are forced to quit.
The media helped them lose at home but back there, they were winning, they were getting there missions accomplished.
It is essential that this does not hapen again, where we are winning and making huge progress and incompetent politicians decide to pull out denying total victory.

[avacado]

"Nothing succeeds like success with a fickle public."

Yep! People like a winner -- even a Democrat or two.

[jrooney]

The truth can only be hidden for so long by our media and those in our government that hide from it. Surrender Monkey Ron Paul is deeply saddened. His minions are in denial. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Ron Paul and Code Pink will be having a meeting later today to at their yellow round table, to plan another surrender course.

[MattinNJ]

how sad that a party roots for us to lose to the jihadists to further their political gain. Heartbreaking.

[mainerforglobalwarming]

Do you think al-qaeda in Iraq is looking at the same polls we are? I think they are and are using what little they have left to try to drive up casualties in this election cycle. The reality is that if we stand firm and allow the generals to run the war, Al-qeada is dead in Iraq inside of two years. But if obama gets in and starts withdrawing troops, it certainly aides the enemies cause and life expectancy.

[going hot]

One of the architects of that defeat in the senate just died, none other than Mr. Metzenbaum, good riddence.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

how sad that a party roots for us to lose to the jihadists to further their political gain. Heartbreaking.

NO,...it's bigger than that....it's part of the plan....

********************************

Time for my link to :

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Paperback) by David Horowitz (Author)

*******************

and a review:

505 of 597 people found the following review helpful:

Vastly Illuminating, September 25, 2004

By	Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Nothing succeeds like success with a fickle public.

Isn't that the truth!

[BullDog108]

What is they saying? “Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan.”

[MattinNJ]

Thanks-I will pick up the book.

[cake_crumb]

Wars are not popularity contests, but everyone on the left insists the war on terrorism should be run like one. I love it when some idiot reporter calls the war in Iraq “divisive”...as if war has ever been harmonious. God bless our troops.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Hot Air:

Harvard economists’ study: Media’s anti-war rhetoric emboldens Iraqi insurgents

************************EXCERPT***********************

posted at 2:18 pm on March 12, 2008 by Allahpundit

Caveats aplenty — the data didn’t include Baghdad, there’s no way to tell if attacks increased because of the rhetoric or were just re-timed to coincide with it — but to no one’s surprise except possibly the left’s, “U.S. out of Iraq” does indeed create an incentive for jihadis to try to push the U.S. out of Iraq.

Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq? The short answer, according to a pair of Harvard economists, is yes…

The paper “Is There an ‘Emboldenment’ Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq” concludes the following:

* In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.

* In periods immediately after a spike in “antiresolve” statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.

* Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

The actual study is behind a reg wall so I can’t tell if it addresses whether there’s some “optimal” level of war criticism beyond which attacks spike sharply or if it’s a steady upward slope starting from zero. I know which way the comments on this post are going to go, but keep this in mind: If the propriety of anti-war rhetoric turns on whether it makes the mission in the field harder, then arguably the same is true of Geert Wilders’s film. The Secretary General of NATO has said that explicitly, in fact, as has one of the U.S. military’s joint task forces in Afghanistan. If an economist can prove that criticism of Islam increases attacks (which shouldn’t be hard), you want to roll that back too?

Exit question one: Will the media report on this rather media-unfriendly finding?

[Fox_Mulder77]

Sad example of America: all for you when you succeed, but turn their backs on you when times are tough.

[mainerforglobalwarming]

I don’t think the liberal media cares at all for the lives and well being of our troops. They are not looked upon as heroes but, to parapharse bob dylan, as pawns in their game.

[USMC Brat]

ping

[EyeGuy]

“Wars are not popularity contests, but everyone on the left insists the war on terrorism should be run like one. I love it when some idiot reporter calls the war in Iraq “divisive”...as if war has ever been harmonious.”

Absolutely.

The current idiotic phrase to demean the Iraq theatre of the GWOT is, of course:

“the unpopular war in Iraq”.

An absolutely simple-minded, moronic way to describe something as complex as war. Surprisingly, this idiocy is routinely employed by conservatives like the redoubtable Victor Davis Hanson, who ought to know better.

[prairiebreeze]

bump for the finest military on the planet

[trooprally]

D.C. Master Ping List

Success no matter what the NY Slimes says.

[\/\/ayne]

I went looking to refer to the latest success story from Armed Forces Press Service News Articles and found this crazy story. Initially it looks like Dims are frantically back-pedaling to try and cover their slimy tracks, but their death references and other turgid comments still let the sludge ooze through.

Congressional Leaders Unite in Praise, Support for Troops in Iraq

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 13, 2008 – Congressional leaders honored U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and elsewhere around the world during a bipartisan remembrance ceremony here today in the Capitol Rotunda.

During the ceremony, which marked the upcoming fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, the Congress members extended praise and appreciation to all U.S. servicemembers, emphasizing that their support for the troops transcends political lines.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, speaker of the House, opened the ceremony by lauding servicemembers who responded without delay when their nation called.

“When sent into battle, they performed their duties effectively with bravery, dignity and honor that are the hallmark of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines,” she said. “After five years of the war in Iraq and more than six in Afghanistan, the selflessness of our heroes continues to make us proud.”

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate minority leader, acknowledged the ongoing debate about the future of war in Iraq and overall war on terror.

“There is passion and seriousness and patriotism on both sides,” he said. “Yet one thing is certain: The men and women of our military have done their jobs. Their purpose is just. And on this day of remembrance, in this place of honor, we thank all who have served.”

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader, emphasized that today’s ceremony rose above any political differences.

“Today we stand together, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans, all to honor every airman, soldier, sailor and Marine who has served and every American hero who has perished in that far-off land of Iraq,” he said.

Reid joined the other leaders in extending his recognition to troops who have served in Afghanistan. “We could not possibly honor our troops with words to match the honor of their brave action,” he said.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, House minority leader, thanked troops following in the footsteps of those who have served the country throughout its history.

“The men and women of our military and their families are our nation's greatest heroes, and their incredible accomplishments are indeed a cause for celebration,” he said. “Their achievements are too numerous to count and too widespread to fully catalogue. The least we can do is to take time from our daily routine to stop, to think, and to express our thanks and gratitude for the sacrifices our military (and their) families … continue to make.”

The lawmakers paid special tribute to wounded troops and the families of those who have died serving their country.

“We honor the service of our men and women in uniform of our armed services, those who have returned home, and their brothers and sisters in arms we've lost,” Pelosi said. “We mourn every day.”

“We honor their parents, children, husbands, wives and friends, those they loved and those who loved them,” Reid added. “They too bear a heavy burden in service to the ideals we cherish.”

McConnell said those who sacrificed did so because “they loved their families and believed their service would keep their families safe.”

“We’ve been humbled by the sacrifice of so many Americans,” he said. “And today we recommit ourselves to their service, to the care of those who have returned and to the full support of those who fight.”

All the speakers expressed hope for a time of peace.

Pelosi looked to the statue of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who expressed hope for a future when people can live together in peace. “In the spirit of his farewell prayer, we seek to end conflict, to promote peace and to build a future worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform,” she said.

McConnell said America’s servicemembers are helping to secure that peace. “On this day of remembrance, we can be sure that as long as good and generous souls rise up to defend America, the world can hope for days of peace to come,” he said.

[3D-JOY]

going out...ping for later read.

Thanks

[lonestar67]

I really appreciate that this is put in the sidebar of signficant news here.

It is vital to begin undoing the pathology surrounding the Iraq war if Republicans are to win this fall.

Independents are moving on this issue in a good direction.

Bush’s victories in Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia and elsewhere are historic. The breaking of the Jihad militarism cycle is as significant as the end of the Cold War. Iraq and AFghanistan are two huge hammer blows that have fractured that social psychosis.

Combined with recent news that Al Sadr has given up his Islamic vision for Iraq means that the US is winning big against Islam in a war that predates this republic. Jefferson fought Arab radicals at the beginning of our nation’s history. The US has the means to reverse the cultural tide of Islamic radicalism.

The win in Iraq needs to be understood for the powerful success that it is.

[CDB]

Nothing succeeds like success with a fickle public.

God bless our troops.

Well said, Kristinn!

[gondramB]

>>Support for War Effort Highest Since 2006<<

That’s kind of an odd title because I don’t think of 2006 as a good year for support.

But the important point is since we are obligated to stay and try to give democracy a chance over there, its darn good to have the public recognizing the successes on the ground and generally being more supportive.

Did you you Iraqi oil revenues estimated at $60 billion a quarter? As much as high oil prices are bad for us, as least some of that money should be available to help rebuild Iraq.

[cgk]

God bless our troops.

I continue to support our troops, and our President. God Bless them, their families, and our country.

[phillyfanatic]

McCain and the RNC need to remind the public of the appeasement of every Dem who undermined our military and our war against Islamfascism. Reid, Pelosi,Obama, Murtha, Kennedy, et al. Run general ads nationwide to make sure that all these bums are exposed as cut and runners.

[R. Scott]

Bad news for Obama and other pro-jihadists.

[kenavi]

The US has the means to reverse the cultural tide of Islamic radicalism.

Bears repeating.

[EDINVA]

When did Howard Metzenbaum die? I missed it. Not too many tears shed, for sure.

[going hot]

couple days ago?? it was posted on FR, with many...shall we say, less than steller reviews?

[Soul Seeker]

Just another reason wars shouldn’t be governed by polls.

They supported the war before they didn’t before they did before they wanted out and right after they still wanted to stay.

[SunkenCiv]

New Report Finds Increase in [CodePink?] Attacks
Against Military Recruiters in America [FR’s speak]
PRNewswire-USNewswire | March 13, 2008 | MAF Press Release
Posted on 03/13/2008 6:07:39 PM EDT by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1985271/posts

[EDINVA]

one is not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but in Howard’s case, I’ll make an exception. He was a wretched person.

[Eric Blair 2084]

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[SunkenCiv]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985015/posts?page=33#33

[SoCal Pubbie]

“There is no military solution”- Hillary Clinton

“War is the continuation of politics by other means”- Carl von Clausewitz

There cannot be not war without politics. All wars decide a political question. Someone needs to sit Hillary down and teach her a thing or two about war and history.

[Digital Sniper]

Many thanks for the link to that book. I've added it to my Wish List.

[Digital Sniper]

The US has the means to reverse the cultural tide of Islamic radicalism.

We also have the means to stop illegal immigration and deport every illegal invader in our borders. ...but do we?

I'd love to see Islam relegated to nothing more than a grotesque footnote in history, but our government seems to be more interested in propping up the "religion of peace" myth than it does in lowering the boom on Islamist regimes (see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, et cetera).

[lonestar67]

I am fairly ambivalent about illegal immigration. I would be more motivated if conservatives had not used it so illegitimately to stab this President in the back in 2006.

Mexicans did not fly the planes into the WTC. The fact that we have not had another attack does not entitle the Buchannanites to act as they have in this conservative union and betray the war on terror.

The pacifying of the Islamic world is every bit as important as crushing their radicals militarily. Doing one without the other is foolish. Bush does both and deservers far more praise for his perseverence than he gets from Conservatives or the Media.

[Digital Sniper]

Sorry...it was Bush who stabbed us in the back. He had loads of political capital in the wake of the 2004 victory and he squandered it on people who were not only foreigners, but in our nation illegally.

So don't try to pin 2006 on conservatives. That was entirely the fault of the illegal-coddling RINOs.