Wow.
Just as a sense of a polling question, this surprises me. (May)
It's not a conditional of "should we stay and try to win the war." The question is starkly, winning or leaving, and America is choosing leaving. (Maybe it reflects the perceived value of what we might "win?")
WSJ/NBC from today has a slightly different question, but,
Most Americans—52%--say bringing the troops home within four years is a higher priority than winning the War. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say winning the War is more important. Men, by a 51% to 44% margin, say it is more important to win the War. Women, by a two-to-one margin, say it is more important to get the troops home.
It's not a conditional of "should we stay and try to win the war." The question is starkly, winning or leaving, and America is choosing leaving. (Maybe it reflects the perceived value of what we might "win?")
WSJ/NBC from today has a slightly different question, but,
By the narrowest majority yet, voters are basically evenly divided over the idea of troop withdrawal beginning in 2009 (49%) vs. waiting until there's stability (45%). That said, 54% still believe that victory in Iraq ISN’T possible....
posted by mikevotes at
3:15 PM
4 Comments:
Rasmussen says 59% want the troops out within a year.
25% want an immediate withdrawal.
And McCain had a vision in which the troops 'mostly' are home within five years.
Yeah, people really are tired of "the Iraq thing". No clear-cut good guys or bad guys, and no glorious battles, either. Just typical "occupation stuff"...boring.
I am truly surprised that no one is pointing out that the Iraq debacle is really hurting our capacity in Afghanistan.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 12:31 AM
One of the more interesting questions in the back of my mind is what Americans think we will win if we "win."
What's the tangible result? I don't think they see national pride or some strike against terrorism.
By
mikevotes, at 8:05 AM
One of the more interesting questions in the back of my mind is what Americans think we will win if we "win."
I'd never thought about that. Certainly we don't win the oil. We don't gain a strong ally. We don't promote democracy in the region.
I suppose that the thinking is that if we "win", we get out of the mess without looking like failures, but that ship has sailed, IMO.
McCain's 'vision' didn't really provide anything worth a ten-year effort. I can come up with at least ten countries off the top of my head that we could have brought about real, positive change in for a tiny fraction of the casualties, money and time.
However, in the newly created "reality", Iraq is apparently "vital to our national interests", though we seem to have done pretty well for a couple of centuries without worrying about it all.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 8:56 AM
and notice too that the word 'war' is capitalized, which makes it seem as though the War is an unassailable fact.
what makes this framing worse, in my mind, is that it's not a war. it's an occupation.
By
r8r, at 11:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home