PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Americans less positive on Iraq


186k\sec
07-01-2003, 09:05 AM
Conflict doesn't resemble Vietnam, Rumsfeld says

Tuesday, July 1, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As a new poll shows fewer Americans believe things are going well in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the fighting there would continue "for some time."

Only 56 percent of Americans think current U.S.-coalition efforts as going well, according to a new CNN/USA Today Gallup poll. That is much lower than the 70 percent in late May and the 86 percent in early May who thought things were going well.

The poll of 1,003 adult Americans, which was conducted last week, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

U.S. troops in Iraq have been conducting raids north of Baghdad since Sunday in a sweep known as "Operation Sidewinder." The raids are the latest effort to stop hit-and-run attacks that have killed 23 Americans and six British soldiers since President Bush declared the end of major combat May 1. (More on crackdown)

Forty-nine percent of respondents are not confident that the United States can stop such attacks on U.S. forces, but three-quarters believe the number of combat deaths since April were to be expected given the dangers in Iraq.

Although the percentage of those who believe going to war in Iraq was worthwhile has fallen to 56 percent from 73 percent in April, more than two-thirds believe having U.S. troops in Iraq now is worthwhile.

Rumsfeld criticized reporters' questions about the terms "guerrilla war" and "quagmire," saying they drew too heavily on the U.S. experience in Vietnam, a conflict marked by high U.S. casualties.

"There are so many cartoons where press people are saying 'Is it Vietnam yet?' hoping it is, and wondering if it is, and it isn't," Rumsfeld told reporters at a Pentagon press briefing. "It's a different time, it's a different era, it's a different place."

He said U.S. forces face threats from a variety of groups -- including remnants of Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party, looters, criminals released from Iraqi prisons before the U.S.-led invasion that deposed Saddam, and "foreign terrorists" who have gone to Iraq to fight the U.S. occupiers.

"We are dealing with those remnants in a forceful fashion, just as we have had to deal with the remnants of al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and tribal areas near Pakistan," he said. "Those battles will go on for some time."

But to characterize the attacks as a guerrilla war would be "a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world," he said.

"[Hostile forces] are all slightly different in why they are there and what they are doing. That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance," he said. "It makes it like five different things going on that are functioning much more like terrorists."

He also said the fighting will continue.

"How long or how successful the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will be in attacking coalition forces and attacking Iraqi infrastructure, I don't know," Rumsfeld said. "We're going to try to find them. We're working very hard at it. We've got good people doing it. We're either going to capture or kill them, or run them out the country."

Falling confidence
Less than half of Americans said they were confident that U.S. forces would capture or kill Saddam, down from 70 percent in March. About 45 percent said they lacked confidence that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction would be found, up from 15 percent in March.

The poll also found little difference in the number of those who believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about Iraqi weapons -- 37 percent now, up from 31 percent earlier in June. More than half said it would matter a great deal if they were to become convinced that they were mislead.

About 146,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, along with about 12,000 British troops. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would decide whether some units could come home -- or whether more would be sent -- after a review by U.S. Central Command in July.

Sunday, Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, called on the Bush administration to invite NATO troops to help keep the peace in Iraq. The senators, both of whom visited Iraq recently, argued such a move would give the U.S.-led occupation more international legitimacy and make U.S. troops less of a target.

A division from NATO ally Poland is scheduled to arrive in late summer, and contingents from other countries will be posted among troops already there, said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But Rumsfeld -- who dismissed NATO allies France and Germany as "Old Europe" when they voiced opposition to the U.S.-led invasion -- said he didn't know whether the alliance would contribute troops "as a single entity."

"That would be a matter for the 19 NATO nations to sort through," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0306/iraq.poll/embed.gallup.poll.gif


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/30/sprj.irq.iraq.poll/

Mike S
07-01-2003, 10:21 AM
I dont doubt it. Its hard to sit there and go - yeah everything cool in Iraq - when everyday some dead end Ba'ath party nut is taking potshots at one of our people.
Thats gonna end when and if they turn up Saddam or his body.

MS

Roddimus
07-01-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Mike S
I dont doubt it. Its hard to sit there and go - yeah everything cool in Iraq - when everyday some dead end Ba'ath party nut is taking potshots at one of our people.
Thats gonna end when and if they turn up Saddam or his body.

I'm not too sure about that assesment.
Sure, there's a few remaining Ba'ath party twerps who are making things tough, but I really don't see them as the biggest threat facing Iraq's post-Saddam future. .
The fudamentalist Shiite majority are gaining A TON of influence in Iraq and it's making people question just how bright Iraq's future really is.
Women are starting to cover their hair out of fear, liqour stores have been destroyed for continuuing to stay open and infidels have been executed in the street by Shiite extremists. These guys are like a less primitive version of the Taliban
Most experts agree that if an election was held today, the Shiites would most likely gain total control of the government.
The problems in Iraq don't start and end with the Ba'ath party.
In fact, getting rid of Saddam was about the best thing wacko fundamentalist Iraqis could have asked for.
I'm really starting to wonder how much of a gain ousting Saddam was for curbing the rise of extremist fundamentalist Islam...

Mike S
07-01-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Roddimus

I'm not too sure about that assesment.
Sure, there's a few remaining Ba'ath party twerps who are making things tough, but I really don't see them as the biggest threat facing Iraq's post-Saddam future. .
The fudamentalist Shiite majority are gaining A TON of influence in Iraq and it's making people question just how bright Iraq's future really is.
Women are starting to cover their hair out of fear, liqour stores have been destroyed for continuuing to stay open and infidels have been executed in the street by Shiite extremists. These guys are like a less primitive version of the Taliban
Most experts agree that if an election was held today, the Shiites would most likely gain total control of the government.
The problems in Iraq don't start and end with the Ba'ath party.
In fact, getting rid of Saddam was about the best thing wacko fundamentalist Iraqis could have asked for.
I'm really starting to wonder how much of a gain ousting Saddam was for curbing the rise of extremist fundamentalist Islam...

Good point. But do you think that after living under an authoritarian system for so many years the Iraqis would allow themselves to live under a similar system? My guess is that the shiite extreme in no way represents the shiite majority.

MS

Justin
07-01-2003, 12:55 PM
It doesn't need to be a majority to be a problem, or even an effective revolution.

Remember that by current estimates, only 30 percent of America was Patriot, with another 30 being Loyalists and the rest not giving a damn.

(Of course, that revolution had heavy foriegn backing, but I digress).

Mike S
07-01-2003, 01:21 PM
Point taken.

MS

Cedwyn
07-02-2003, 12:38 AM
The fudamentalist Shiite majority are gaining A TON of influence in Iraq and it's making people question just how bright Iraq's future really is.

and who, pray tell, didn't see this coming?

Ishkur
07-02-2003, 12:03 PM
Boy, I can't wait until Iraq becomes a stabilizing, democratic force in the Middle East, Palestine and Israel have a cease fire and a Palestinian state evolves, and Islamofascism goes out of style.

...

oh man, I crack myself up.

Mike S
07-02-2003, 12:56 PM
Yeah no kidding. I mean who would have ever thought that Germany and Japan would be the democratic, pacifist, economic powers they are.

I mean what *are* we thinking. That's like thinking you can take some vast tract of land dotted with a few Hudson's Bay fur trading outposts and turn into a vibrant, successful country.... oh. um.. *blush*

So what fuels this cynicism of yours ish? Something of substance or just the outlook of a particular Canadian National pissed at having to be the consummate spectator and never a player.

MS

Mike S
07-02-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Cedwyn


and who, pray tell, didn't see this coming?

I dont think anyone didnt see it coming.
I do doubt the severity of the problem.
Naturally the news were going to get outa Iraq is going to be of the "if it bleeds it leads" variety - and thats just in the mainstream press. The left wing/progressive tabloids are going to take what ever negative news they can and stretch it as far as possible in order to mold it to their adminstration bashing rhetoric.

We'll see tho

MS

Justin
07-02-2003, 02:12 PM
Who didn't see this coming? Well, aparently the president and all his advisers.

Or did they plan on all this chaos?

Germany and Japan we're both well occupied and well policed after their conquest. They also had massive aid packages from us for over a decade, and promises to that effect too.

Mike S
07-02-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Doc Mahem
Who didn't see this coming? Well, aparently the president and all his advisers.

Or did they plan on all this chaos?

Germany and Japan we're both well occupied and well policed after their conquest. They also had massive aid packages from us for over a decade, and promises to that effect too.

They were eventually but if my history serves me there were in Germany and France a rash of killings and reprisal killings by civilians against nazi collaborators that followed the cessation of hostilities.
Reprisals the allies did nothing to stop btw. If this were happening in Iraq I'm sure the left and the anti war crowd would be ranting aobut it.

Chaos? I suggest you look at the refugee issue in post war Europe and issues surrounding the end of ww-2. What's going on in Iraq is nothing compared to any of that.

What's different is then you didn't have some people foaming at the mouth with glee over the thought of the administration and the allies getting bogged down in post war reconstruction and reorganization.
(not saying you are doc just pointing out thats the case now)
Kinda sad actually.

MS

Ishkur
07-02-2003, 07:50 PM
Comparing Germany and Japan to any current conflicts is like comparing apples and telephones. But you get the white ribbon of defeat for invoking Godwin.

Cynicism? No, I just like to call it reality.

Have you been mugged yet?

burnt
07-02-2003, 08:39 PM
this is *JUST* like Vietnam. these people are *JUST* like Hitler!

Justin
07-02-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Mike S


They were eventually but if my history serves me there were in Germany and France a rash of killings and reprisal killings by civilians against nazi collaborators that followed the cessation of hostilities.
Reprisals the allies did nothing to stop btw. If this were happening in Iraq I'm sure the left and the anti war crowd would be ranting aobut it.

Chaos? I suggest you look at the refugee issue in post war Europe and issues surrounding the end of ww-2. What's going on in Iraq is nothing compared to any of that.

What's different is then you didn't have some people foaming at the mouth with glee over the thought of the administration and the allies getting bogged down in post war reconstruction and reorganization.
(not saying you are doc just pointing out thats the case now)
Kinda sad actually.

MS

Europe was in hell, yes, but there were also a plethora of troops everywhere. While that situation shared with this one the horrible lack of police officers, it must be noted that after WWII, we didn't have SS men or German nationalists sniping at us for months on end.

What I'm getting at here is; we not only lack forces to impose or create order, but we lack even the troops to impose total victory.

As to the administration being hamstrung by liberals, I am baffled. Republicans control all 3 branches of government. Even if you were correct in your analysis of the left (and for the record, I disagree) it is obvious that the left is irrelevant in this situation.

All success and all failure lays squarely at the hands of the president. If you see something you don't like here, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's his fault.

edited to focus the argument more.