|
|
Building Public Support for Withdrawal from Iraq |
|
|
When thinking about building public support for withdrawal from Iraq, voters fall into three groups: 1) people who favor withdrawal, 2) people who oppose or are ambivalent about withdrawal, but have negative feelings about the war, and 3) people who oppose withdrawal, and have positive feelings about the war. Many voters think the war is going poorly or dislike the war, but aren’t convinced that withdrawal is the right solution. Consequently, we’ve seen many Democratic leaders equivocate on their opposition to the war.
Using the Pew July 2007 Political Survey data, we can view the proportion of the public that falls into each group:
One way to intensify pressure on elected officials to push for a speedy withdrawal is by increasing public support for withdrawal. We have the 54% who support withdrawal on our side, and will have the most difficult time convincing the 27% who both oppose withdrawal and believe that the war is going well (this group is mostly self-identified Republicans). So, in order to build public support for withdrawal, we need to persuade the 19% who currently oppose withdrawal but think the war is going poorly.
This approach raises a couple questions. If these 19% think the war is going poorly, which should imply that the United States isn’t currently achieving its political objectives, why don’t they want to withdraw? How can we convince this group to support withdrawal? Although we can’t use this data to determine what causes people to “move” in favor of withdrawal, here’s what I think is going on:
This group’s reluctance to support withdrawal may be because their dislike for the war is complicated by Bush’s rationales for staying in Iraq: that withdrawal would cause a civil war that would draw the entire region into conflict, and that withdrawal would make Iraq an Al Qaeda stronghold. These assumptions are often repeated uncritically in the media and are probably salient considerations for many people when they form their position on withdrawal.
Here’s each group’s responses to the question “If the U.S. withdraws its troops from Iraq over the coming year, would it INCREASE, DECREASE or have no effect on the chances that Iraq would go into a full scale civil war?”:
Here’s each group’s responses to the question “If the U.S. withdraws its troops from Iraq over the coming year, would it INCREASE, DECREASE or have no effect on the chances that al Qaeda would establish terrorist bases in Iraq?”:
(”Other” was not offered by the interviewers as a possible response for either question)
One might expect the group of 19% to be less open to these rationales, but that isn’t the case. People who oppose withdrawal overwhelmingly accept these two rationales regardless of how well they think the war is going, whereas people who support withdrawal do not. For the 19% who oppose withdrawal but think the war is going poorly, these considerations may be stronger than their negative impression of the war, which could be what caused them to articulate that they opposed withdrawal.
The problem with these rationales to oppose withdrawal is that they are wrong, and are justifications to continue a flawed foreign policy. I’ll leave it to smarter foreign policy minds to explain why responsible withdrawal from Iraq won’t further inflame Shiite-Sunni tensions or leave an Al Qaeda stronghold in the long term.
Ending the war responsibly entails challenging these false assumptions, particularly by fighting the media conventional wisdom that contributes to much of the public believing them. The Bush administration has put forward, and the media has largely accepted, a series of false choices involving worst-case scenarios when it comes to Iraq. They claimed that either we invade Iraq, or Saddam Hussein will use WMDs. Now, they assert that either we stay in Iraq, or the terrorists will come after us here. If we want to build public support for withdrawal, we need to challenge these false choice scenarios that contribute to confused feelings about Iraq.
Disclaimers about the data:
- I used the most recent Pew data available to the public on Iraq, which is from last summer. Given the recent increase in violence, public attitudes on Iraq may have changed since then.
- I included the few people who answered that they didn’t know whether they favored withdrawal in the “does not favor withdrawal” category, because withdrawal is the change in the status quo we’re interested in, whereas a lack of an opinion is not.
- The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented in this post.

















Saddam Hussein did start to use a “WMD”: He started to require that oil be paid for in Euros. To the US Government, this is an economic weapon of mass destruction (for the “American way of life.”). I think what the US has done in Iraq is deplorable, but from the government’s stand-point, they were right. Now you see how they are talking about invading Iran…and for the same exact reason.
We need to start talking about the war in Iraq in terms of economics, and how the value of the dollar is propped up by the fact that every nation in the world needs to have dollars to buy and sell oil. Take that away, and the dollar will be a 3rd-rate currency.
The author didn’t explain fully (leaving it to smarter foreign policy minds) why he disagrees with those who think the war is going poorly but oppose withdrawal. I am one of those people, and I feel that regardless of the incredibly poor justification which led us into this Iraqi quagmire, we now have an obligation to the people of Iraq to stabilize the situation somehow before pulling out. Pulling out unilaterally, with only the hope that the situation will stabilize on its own is immoral and could potentially jeopardize millions of Iraqi lives. Such a situation would overwhelmingly be our fault. Maybe the idea that U.S. troops can eventually stabilize the situation is little more than wishful thinking at this point; it probably is, in fact. But we have a moral obligation to try a little longer. Maybe a new President can find a solution to bring peace to the region and bring our guys home. I certainly hope so. (Maybe a partial pull out would do the trick, giving us enough of a presence to respond to major threats to the Iraqis, while minimizing our risk.) If not, then at least we can say we tried our best to correct our mistake before pulling out.
Responsible withdrawal is the name of the game. We can both leave, and not leave chaos - by employing the diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian tools at our disposal. It won’t be easy, but as you point out, we have little other choice.
Totally true.
If we did not invade Iraq, we would have given Saddam WMD’s to use. So what they said was true.
And if we pull out the troops, we are bringing them home to use on US citizens. Terrorism at it’s finest. So again, what they say is true.
Follow the money…
If the Iraqi government controls the violence and begins to re-build, it will be hard to justify to Americans the need to continue to send billions in %u201Crebuilding%u201D aide. The Iraqi leaders know if they restore order%u2026they no longer get paid.
So%u2026if we attempt to leave Iraqi%u2026it will get very ugly in the attempt to keep our money-troops still in the country.
Exactly right! Ending the war and drumming up public support to do so means talking about responsible withdrawal and combatting the false choice that we can either leave in chaos or stay forever. I think people are ready to here a responsible plan to end the war, and we need to give it to them.
The problem with many of the hawks that want us to stay in Iraq is that they never think before they speak or write. This bothersome chore has been taken care of for them by their hero Rush Blowhard. IF you ask them what benefit our country has gotten from being in IRaq they spew the terrorist/safer world view. Then ask them why the UN shouldn’t have done this job or why that can’t take care of it now, they go blank they have no answer.
Your pie chart shows 27% think that the war is going well. I believe these would be the same people that are prospering the most from our current system.
These people are insulated. Would they send themselves or their progeny into Iraq for this nation building exercise?