Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Want Iraq War Congressional Troop Cap
A new poll shows that Americans have set limits on their patience on the Iraq War — and limits on ways of getting out of Iraq:
Americans overwhelmingly support congressional action to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and set a timetable to bring them home by the end of next year, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — tougher action than the non-binding resolution the House of Representatives is to begin debating today.While six in 10 oppose President Bush’s plan to use more troops to try to stabilize Iraq, a nearly equal number also oppose any effort to cut off funding for those additional forces.
“They’re saying the same thing they said in the 2006 elections — that they are against the current policy and they want something done about it,” says James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.
“They want Congress to debate it; they want Congress to focus on it; they want to bring this war to a close,” says Mark Blumenthal, a former Democratic pollster who is now editor of Pollster.com. “We don’t want to deny our armed services what they need to do their jobs, but we’d like to bring them home.”
The poll also points out another stark fact: just as on so many other policies during the Bush administration, it’s all boiling down to an administration that draws the bulk support from loyal Republicans but not from Americans of the opposition party, or independent voters.
Republicans remain supportive of the war; a majority of them oppose any congressional limits. Still, even among those who back Bush’s troop increase, nearly a third endorse the timetable for pulling out.The House is to begin three days of debate today on a resolution that vows to “support and protect” U.S. troops and then “disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush … to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”
With polls such as this one it becomes evident that 2008 could be bad news for some candidates if there is no change in policy or if things get worse…and if they have been backing the existing policy: “Seven of 10 say their representative’s vote on the war will affect their vote in the next congressional election; more than four in 10 call it a major factor. However, nearly two-thirds aren’t sure where their representative stands on the issue.
But there’s some modest good news for Bush: His approval rating is up 5 percent. And so far Americans are not smitten by the performance of Congressional Democrats, the poll notes. “Just 30% approve of the way congressional Democrats are handling Iraq; 27% approve of congressional Republicans.” That can’t be spun as bad or “no big deal” news for the Democrats.
10 Responses to “Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Want Iraq War Congressional Troop Cap”
That’s what they deserve for not listening to the people who voted them in.
We don’t want anymore of this ill-conceived and botched war. Get us out now.
Please don’t get me wrong but I love Question 9:
When I’m Sixty-four, ask me question #9, #9, #9……
I think this shows why good leaders can’t listen to polls. The population in general is poorly informed, fickle, and horribly inexperienced in international policy and nation building. All they really want is something they can call Success in Iraq. Everything else is just mastibatory attempts at diplomacy.
A useful poll would determine what the American people would we willing to see as a victory in Iraq, and let the leaders figure out which ones are possible and the best way to get there. So here’s my unofficial poll:
What would you see as a victory in Iraq, select ALL that apply:
A. A stable democracy friendly to the US.
B. A stable democracy who is more likely to side with Iran than the US
C. A heavy handed, authoritarian, government that prevents the formation of anti-US groups such as Al-qaeda.
D. Partition of Iraq into three seperate but independantly stable states.
E. An unstable region which has significant local strife, preventing the formation of groups with operational ability outside of local issues.
F. Long term US occupation which manages local tensions and prevents formation of anti-US groups.
G. Other, please describe.
So, anyone want to take the poll?
My answer, A and D seem the best options, but probably pipe dreams. I’d we willing to live with C.
I honestly think that Americans don’t know what they want. Isn’t a troop cap just “stay the course” by another name? When “stay the course” was W’s strategy, only a third of Americans approved. I also think someone needs to spell out how catastrophic casualties or ethnic cleansing can be avoided if the surge is not put into effect.
Don’t blame the public, the politicians only want to throw around rheyoric, nobody wants serious debate about the Messipotamia.
I think what the American public wants is to turn the clock back and start over.
That not being possible, I don’t really see that the US can determine the outcome at this point. Partitioning Iraq may or may not be a good idea, but it’s really up to the Iraqis to decide, isn’t it?
Events will determine the outcome.
I think Kritter makes a good point. We are not in a good position to complain about Iran’s meddling. Our history is piled high with
meddling and regime changes. We do have two standards, one for us (to protect and achieve our interests) and another for the rest of the world. For that reason, when a clown like Chavez rants in the UN, a lot of the world is nodding in agreement.
Only too true, though the “My country, right or wrong” types will never admit this and would probably accuse you of being part of the “Blame America” crowd for merely saying what it objectively true.
A few examples of American policy double standard:
If America wants to possess thousands of nuclear warheads, that’s good.
But if some third world country wants to start a weapons program so that it too can have nuclear weapons, that’s bad.
If America pre-emptively invades another country, that’s good.
But if another country pre-emptively invades another country, that’s bad.
If America attempts to destabilize a democratically-elected government (as we did in Iran in the 1950′s), that’s good.
But if another country attempts to destablilize a democratically-elected government, that’s bad.
If members of a non-governmental militia attempts to overthrow a third-world communist dictatorship (i.e. the contras in Nicaragua), the U.S. government calls them “freedom-fighters.”
But if members non-government military of non-governmental militia attemps to overthrow a third world right-wing dictatorship allied with our government (i.e. several Middle Eastern countries), the U.S. government call them “terrorists.”
It all comes down to patriotism, people. If you truly love your country, you’ll keep your mouth shut and not criticize your government for a foreign policy riddled with double-standards. If, however, you dare to point out that our government has one standard for the United States and different standard for the rest of the world, then you’re part of the “Blame America” crowd.
For shame!
I agree, domajot, but whenever you point out this “inconvenient truth” someone always replies that the left tries to blame America for all the world’s problems. That double standard is partly why we are no longer respected at the UN. (yes I know the UN is corrupt, they had the oil for food scandal, but that doesn’t mean that what domajot wrote is wrong.
Nicr – That worked so well that the Sandinistas leader(D Ortega) just won a democratic election. When does Ollie North go to Iran to refund the Contras?
Simply answering in a poll isn’t good enough. Much more US voters should call their representatives in order to make a difference.
:-/