July 12, 2007

Throwing Cold Water on Latest Gallup Poll re: the Iraq War

This week various media outlets are noting the result of a Gallup Poll, reporting that:

A new USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S. troops by April.

A visit to the Gallup site shows the text of the poll question:

37. (Asked of a half sample) Do you favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts?

BASED ON 505 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A

	Favor	Oppose	No opinion
2007 Jul 6-8	71%	26	4

To throw a little cold water on this, it is necessary to point out that the question asks interviewees to respond without regard to the consequences of a troop pullout. Iraqi and U.S. analysts believe that a troop pullout would be catastrophic for Iraqis and for the U.S. From AP:

BAGHDAD - Iraqi leaders warned Monday the country could collapse if American troops leave too quickly as pressure mounts in Washington to draw down U.S. combat forces. More threats to Iraqi stability could be looming to the north with Turkish forces gathering in a possible prelude to a cross-border attack against Kurdish rebels.

...The idea of a withdrawal drew a sharp response from Iraq's foreign minister, who warned that a speedy U.S. military withdrawal could lead to all-out civil war, the collapse of the government and spread conflict across the Middle East.

"We have held discussion with members of Congress and explained to them the dangers of a quick pullout and leaving a security vacuum," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters. "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state."

That sentiment was echoed by leading political figures from the Sunni Arab community, the group that had been the least supportive of the U.S. presence following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government in 2003.

"A hasty withdrawal . . . would lead to a crisis that would obliterate all the positive aspects of the U.S. troop deployment," said Salim Abdullah, spokesman for the largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament.

Sunni legislator Adnan al-Dulaimi said a quick U.S. departure would "destroy Iraq" and that the American presence was necessary to "keep a balance between Iraqi sects" after the wave of Shiite-Sunni reprisal killings that plunged the country to the brink of all-out civil war last year.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

A Greek Tragedy in the Making

Vietnam has been evoked so many times for Iraq that most snore when they hear it.

But the real parallels are the images of an orphaned war (Vietnam circa 1972-5) when the public had given up, the politicians had begun getting most troops out, and after Watergate, begun to cut off funds in a series of Congressional actions.

Few cared then to hear that the South Vietnamese government, corrupt as it was, was far superior to the alternative, or was viable in a way that late 1950s South Korea had become (compare the modern state there to the present alternative to the north), or that Saigon could evolve in a way Hanoi could not.

Much less did anyone want to hear of possible consequences of defeat and flight. Indeed, talk of camps, executions, and refugees were written off as right-wing scare stories. The last five years of Vietnam before the fall were largely the work of a small dedicated group of military people and diplomats who finally figured out counter-insurgency, had trained and supplied the South Vietnamese effectively, and very slowly drew down while providing air and material support-until the cutoffs.

...And now the Vietnam parallel again. Are we going to read books in the next decade with titles like "Triumph Forsaken" and "Victory Lost", whose themes will be that the US had almost done the impossible by going into the worst place in the Middle East and, all at once, addressing Saddam's reign of terror, Islamic fundamentalism, ex-Baathism, religious sectarianism, Iranian and Syrian infiltration, and seeing something far better emerge-and then at the climax quit in recrimination and despair over the terrible loss in blood and treasure?

If the question had been followed up with something like this, there would likely have been a different result:

37 A. (Asked of a half sample) Do you favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1st of next year, except for a limited number that would be involved in counter-terrorism efforts, if this would increase the risk of the collapse of the Iraqi state?

Hanson observed that in the Vietnam war, no one wanted "to hear of possible consequences of defeat and flight." The same thing is exemplified in this poll. The poll asks respondents whether they want troops out of Iraq, without regard to consequences. In fact, the poll merely asks respondents if they "favor or oppose removing all U.S. troops..." Of course everybody favors that. Consequences aside, of course everybody wants the troops out.

But the very next question of the Gallup poll - ignored by most of the MSM - does touch remotely on consequences - and does give a far different result. Again, from the Gallup site:

38. (Asked of a half sample) Which comes closer to your view about U.S. policy toward the situation in Iraq -- [ROTATED: Congress should act now to develop a new policy on Iraq, (or) Congress should not develop a new policy on Iraq until September when General Petraeus reports on the progress of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq]?

BASED ON 509 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B

	Act now to develop new policy on Iraq	Not develop new policy on Iraq until September	No opinion
2007 Jul 6-8	40%	55	5

The majority opposes changing policy in Iraq until Petraeus reports. Sure, when asked without regard to consequences, 70% want our troops out. But when asked about what they want to do now, in the real world, where there are consequences - the majority favors maintaining GWB's policies until the September report comes in.

Yet MSM ignored this poll result. Too often, this is how MSM operates - selectively hiding key facts, in an effort to stampede the populace - and successfully stampeding some Congressmen, who should know better.

(Note that the question, #38, asks respondents to choose between changing the policy now, or changing it later - leaving out a third option, namely, to maintain current U.S. policy, if they like what Petraeus reports.)