Coming on the heels of a Los Angeles Times report indicating that the Pentagon wants “to “double down” in [Iraq] with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government,” a new poll underscores a bit of a problem:
The White House’s political clout is shrinking by the day:
As the White House searches for a way to move forward in Iraq after the midterm elections and the Iraq Study Group’s recent recommendations, the American public has grown increasingly pessimistic that the war there can be won, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.
Nearly seven in 10 respondents say they feel less confident the war will come to a successful conclusion. What’s more, two-thirds believe the United States is already doing all it can to reduce the violence there. And a majority even says the U.S. doesn’t have an obligation to killed or wounded American soldiers to remain in Iraq until the mission there is completed.
“For the public, there is no confidence left,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff. “It is just not going to happen — that we’re not going to be victorious, that we’re not going to be able to stay the course, that we’re not going to be able to have a successful conclusion to the war.”
Will Bush and his new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates essentially not read the 2006 mid-term election results as indicating a growing public sentiment for signs of a “light at the end of the tunnel” in Iraq?
It’s still too early tell. Perhaps Bush and Gates won’t opt for an increase in troops. But if they do, it is increasingly clear that they will battle a political pincer comprised of opposition from Democrats (who now control Congress partly because of public souring on the war) and from Republican political survivors (who saw their colleagues go down in defeat partially because of the war and would like to remain in Washington a bit longer themselves).
The tantalizing question: was Vice President Dick Cheney stating actual policy when he told ABC News before the election:
Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush’s Iraq policy.
“It may not be popular with the public — it doesn’t matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Cheney said. “We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”
Several problems facing the White House should it decide to actually boost the number of troops and go for a huge spending boost on the war:
- The conventional wisdom (which you could also call “consensus”) matters in American politics. And the conventional wisdom immediately after the elections was that the vote was the public sending the administration a message, partially on the war.
- There was enormous hype about the Iraq Study Group, its members, and how it could help provide a blueprint to a graceful U.S. exit from Iraq. If there’s a big boost in troops, lots more spending and no sign of any kind of timetable indicating the beginning of a wind down, many Americans (of both and no parties) will perceive this as meaning the administration basically brushed the Study Groups’ findings aside. Given the polls, election results, prevailing Democratic party sentiment and unease within the Republican party itself, this will enmesh the White House in more debilitating political controversies and perhaps send a message abroad that it’s not a political lame duck White House but a politically dead duck White House.
Is the stage set between a large portion of Congress (including some Republicans) and an increasingly antsy and irritated public opinion against the White House? The answer should emerge within weeks…
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.