Americans are no longer buying
A new CBS poll is making the blog rounds (Bush - 33% approval, 60% disapprove.) This poll is probably getting overcovered because it's the first since Zarqawi was killed, and it shows no appreciable difference in any of the numbers. (Changes within margin of error.)
But what caught my eye was this.
Only 16% responded that Zarqawi's death will lead to a decrease in attacks in Iraq, and only 13% responded that it would reduce the terror threat to the US. I just found that surprising.
UPDATE: USAToday/Gallup - "The new poll found that 48% believe the United States probably or definitely will win the war, up from 39% in April. It also found that 47% believe things are going well in Iraq, up from 38% in March."
That is the kind of shift in numbers I was expecting.
But what caught my eye was this.
Half think the level of violence in Iraq will be unchanged by Zarqawi's death, while 30 percent say it will actually lead to more attacks against U.S. forces. Just 16 percent think the number of attacks will decrease as a result of his death.
Sixty-one percent also say Zarqawi's death won't have any impact on the terrorist threat against the United States, while 22 percent it will increase that threat. Thirteen percent predict a decreased risk of terrorism.
Only 16% responded that Zarqawi's death will lead to a decrease in attacks in Iraq, and only 13% responded that it would reduce the terror threat to the US. I just found that surprising.
UPDATE: USAToday/Gallup - "The new poll found that 48% believe the United States probably or definitely will win the war, up from 39% in April. It also found that 47% believe things are going well in Iraq, up from 38% in March."
That is the kind of shift in numbers I was expecting.
posted by mikevotes at
9:24 PM
8 Comments:
I'm all for approval polls, but I hate it when the media (of which I am a member) takes an incredibly complex issue such as how terrorism will be affected by Zarqawi's death, asks a bunch of Americans what they think will happen and then publish it as news.
The news is what people say who know what the f*&% they're talking about, at least until the effect can be ascertained. I'm worried that these polls are taken too seriously, that since 61% say it won't have any effect, that it won't (in the public's eyes).
It is telling of how resilient the Iraq pessimism is right now, though.
By
Nonplussed2, at 1:41 AM
You don't like "Family Feud" nation?
I think you're making a good point on polling, but the polling itself has become a story generator.
And your last line hits my point. After 36 hours of near nonstop coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and I assume FoxNews, that's not much optiomism.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:18 AM
I think polls about Islam, the war on terror, and specifically Iraq when polling Americans or non-Muslims only gives an idea of what those polled believe of a worldview they don't really understand.
In other words, people that generally believe in democracy and majority rules, and fairness for all in regards to gender, race, creed, etc, DO NOT UNDERSTAND what Islam truly teaches and what the Islamo-fascists believe: that Westerners, Americans, Jews and women are less than valuable and unless they convert to Islam, to death to them all.
If you don't understand the people, like Zaqarwi, and what they truly believe, how can a poll be of any benefit to anyone? If you believe the war was illegal, you are already swayed to believe in certain things (bad U.S., good U.N., etc). If you believe the U.S. military is abusing POWs, war criminals or whatever you call the people in Abu Gharib or Gitmo, then you are swayed to believe in certain things and no amount of catching the "bad guys", ie Zaqarwi, is going to change your mind on the war and the outcomes of it.
Basically, whether or not Zaqarwi was captured or killed ever in our lifetimes, for crimes of terror, there are certain people that believe the war was illegal and the U.S. shouldn't still be in Iraq and no matter what the military does (or even the Iraq government), whatever the U.S. military does, it makes life in Iraq and the world worse. That is the mentality of anti-war people.
My question to them would be "what do you think you can do with terrorists that want you to convert to their religion or way of life or be killed/beheaded?" I believe negotiating with terrorists, bullies or criminals of that ilk does absolutely no good. Giving in to them is like "cutting off your own head". As soon as they are released, they will murder you, your family, your friends, etc.
By
Anonymous, at 7:44 AM
That's a very good and complete point. I agree with your description of people answering polls through their own filter and I think you're right that there are actors you cannot negotiate with. They are enemies.
My specific interest in this post was regarding how the Zarqawi killing influenced US opinion, seperate from any reality of what the killing of Zarqawi might really mean in a tactical sense.
I was just very surprised that with the killing so publicly covered that there was not a greater surge in the numbers.
That's a great comment! I hope you keep coming by.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:57 AM
They can call it a 'war' if they like. From the US point of view it's an invasion, and from a Middle East point of view it's an occupation. Between Iraqi factions it could be considered a war.
By
Anonymous, at 1:12 PM
Welcome, t. Jeff,
At this point it looks more like a police action. Great irony, huh? From US perspective, the one we called a police action was an out and out war, and the one we call a war is becoming more of a police action.
And they were both invasions, and seen byu the non-vichy locals as occupation and war.
Made me think. Thanks.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:27 PM
Yeah good post anonymous. I think your point is illustrative of the great contradiction of this "invasion." This all-or-nothing mentality of Islam and especially radical Islam doesn't bode well for a unified government or democracy in the Mideast in general.
Also, I don't think that you should pigeonhole people like you have in your third and fourth paragraph. It seems a deterministic cause-effect for you, but I disagree. There may appear to be only two sides of this debate but that's not so. This war WAS illegal, but that doesn't mean every person against it wants us to lose, or that they all have the same thought process. Personally, I'm very pessimistic but would truly love to see the Iraqis pull this together and hunt down the Zarqawis, though Bush ever being a favorable footnote to that outcome is outrageous.
Another problem I see is this idea of only "good" and "bad" guys in Iraq. There are...but there are also a lot of people in the middle, who don't want to help us but aren't murderers. Also, don't forget about the next crop. This war is constantly breeding terrorists...as we hunt them down, another will take his place. Good one day, bad the next. It's not a matter of flushing out one select group of the population, it's a matter of winning their hearts and minds, and the new Iraqi government doing the same. I don't see that happening, unfortunately.
By
Nonplussed2, at 2:42 PM
Thanks, nonplussed2, that's a good clarification. I didn't even really see that and it's important.
I would love to see Iraq come together. That's one of the reasons I criticize the policy so sharply, because we're on a knife's edge and can't afford any mistakes.
And, on hearts and minds, I'm not sure how putting an Iraqi face on the coalition will work out. It's the only solution, but right now the units are factionally segregated. It'll be key to see how they police their own.
It's the only game we've got though. US forces will never be able to pacify Iraq, as you point out, because every action potentially creates more fighters.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home