Surging Optimism, Revisionism
Dave Price
This Financial Times article is all over the 'sphere:
Some 48 per cent of Americans now believe that the US military effort in Iraq is going well, compared with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll by the Pew Research Center.Of course, no media article on Iraq would be complete without some wild misstatements of fact:
During the past month more Iraqis have returned than fled. It is the first time that has happened since the war began in 2003.Oh really?
Apparently long-forgotten are the halcyon days shortly after the regime was toppled, when Ted Kennedy was claiming the war was "cooked up for political gain," the insurgency was barely a rumor, and Bush's photo-op with the "Mission Accomplished" banner was being criticized as political opportunism rather than premature triumphalism... and refugees who fled from the Hussein regime (remember those Shia mass graves? the Kurds attacked with WMD?) were heading home.
The first convoy is relatively straightforward as these refugees have volunteered go home to Iraq.Sure enough, by early 2004, more had gone home:
Some of them began agitating to return soon after the fall of President Saddam Hussein, even staging sit-ins in their remote desert camp to press their case.
...
The agency says it believes that up to half a million refugees could eventually seek its help to return to Iraq.
Since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has organized returns to Iraq for about 4,500 refugees. An additional 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis have returned, according to the U.N. agency.There's also a misleading question about when we would like troops to come home, misleading because it's spun as a measure of "support for the war" when, of course, everyone who supports the war would like our troops to be able to come home as soon as possible; not surprisingly, this confused metric hasn't changed much.
A better poll question would be:
"Who should determine troop levels in Iraq, U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq or politicians in Washington?"
Then we'd see how much "support" those troop levels really have.
your "question" is just a push-poll. The pew question only needs to be amended to eliminate the bias you're seeing in it. Word it more like "The US should... ( ) keep troops in, ( ) bring troops home immediately."
That's an interesting perspective. Or maybe you just don't like the answer.
"Should troop levels be determined on the basis of opinion polls or the judgement of our professional military?"
Then we can find out which of our polls is more meaningful.
I'm not saying it's out of bounds, but it's clearly worded to yield a certain response. I mean if you want dishonest opinions that's cool. If you want a meaningful poll then you have to be more careful with you're wording.
Incorrect. There may be only one reasonable answer, but some questions are like that. Wording it to give equal weight to both options results in "dishonest" (more likely, misunderstood) responses.
And no, the military does not wholly determine troop levels to the extent they reflect strategic military engagement in lieu of civilian leadership. Military control of troop levels committed to an engagement stop at the water's edge of overall policy.
As dumb as it would be, if a Democrat President decides the policy is quick withdrawal, that would necessarily dictate troop levels.
If you want to formulate a question, I'd say it would be something like: "Do you think the US is making progress in Iraq or not?" With a conditional follow-up about whether troops should be kept in to maintain the effort, removed immediately or phased withdrawal.
It's a foregone conclusion where that question goes, which really doesn't tell you who wants to ditch the policy.
Yes, it's clearly worded to determine whether people think the military or politicians should be deciding troop levels.
The fact that we know people are going to prefer the military does not make it an invalid question.
Look, if Democrats want to tell Petraeus how many troops they think he should be allowed to have, fine. But let's ask the American people who they think should be making that call, and publish that in the front pages of the major media.
Asking people what they think the troop levels should be is like asking them what they think the tariff on Canadian caribou should be: they have no freakin' clue. It's a waste of time, they are not subject matter experts and their opinions are mostly irrelevant to the decision-making process anyway.
What the people do have relevant opinions on and can influence is who makes those decisions. That's how representative democracy works. If the people say overwhelmingly that "Hey, Congress really shouldn't override commanders on the ground" then Congress must respect their wishes or risk voters' wrath.
Assuming appropriate authority, they are allowed to tell him what his mission is, which may dictate how many troops he has.
I'm not sure what you mean. If it conjures up Harry Reid standing in front of huge strategic maps dictating the disposition of forces, I understand. If it means General Petreaus has the ability write a blank check as to how long the US maintains military involvement in Iraq, and at what levels, I don't understand it. What am I missing here?
(and btw, if I'm missing your point via the poll question, I'm not sure it's properly constructed)
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works, for better or ill in individual examples.
BTW -
Aside from the lack of clarity in the question on wanting the troops home, seems there is a lot of detail, and much of it is positive for the policy.
The only question that remains is what portion of the 89% mean that they shun timetables because withdrawal should be based on events (advice of commanders) on the ground vs. what portion of the 89% means "remove everybody NOW!"
Sure, of course they're allowed to, the question is whether the American people think they or the military should be making that call, and whether that opinion is promulgated through the media or quietly ignored.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean the bills Dems keep introducing trying to restrict troops levels in Iraq.
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works
That's exactly how our democracy works: we elect politicians as much for the things they agree NOT to do as for the things they do.
The poll does get close with the timetable question (albeit again with the confusion you noted), but it still avoids the core issue of who Americans want to make the troop level decisions.
Yes, you are missing something. The question is not whether the U.S. should become a military dictatorship. The question is Congress should defer to the judgement of military commanders on the ground in Iraq regarding the question of what the proper troop levels are for that country.
In fact this is not true, they have the same debates over this that go on over on the civilian side. History is replete with examples, from the parade of Northern generals who thought the Civil War was unwinnable (McClellan actually ran against Lincoln on that platform) to Ridgway and Eisenhower, who had to systematically purge the overly cautious from their ranks in order to find commanders who could win.
In general, however, I don't think anybody, including Dems in Congress, would disagree that the tactical and strategic observations and opinions of the commanding generals should be considered when making war policy. But, with that last sentence, I have to come back to the fact that, contrary to the original question, the elected officials should make war policy, not military leaders.
Or are Conservatives not allowed to acknowledge that the Bush Team has lowered teh bar for themselves, once again?
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.