Letters to the Editor
Foodle
Published Letters: 45
-
My point, YankeeFrankee
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...with regard to the polling data is that (contra Greenwald), one does have to look at just some -- not all -- of the most recent data to reach the conclusion that the American people unequivocally want to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months regardless of any facts on the ground in Iraq. As is not uncommon with public polling, the data seem to indicate that the American people simultaneously hold contradictory positions. Ask them whether they want to win in Iraq, and they will say "yes." Ask them whether they want to withdraw from Iraq, and they will say "yes." Ask them whether they want to withdraw from Iraq regardless of what is going on in that country, and they will say "yes." Ask them if they think we have an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing, and they will say "yes."
Sorting out what those seeming contradictions mean is difficult. Some of it has to do with exactly what questions are asked. For example, the USA Today/Gallup poll that seems to indicate substantial support for withdrawal "regardless of what is going on in Iraq," only offered a choice between keeping "a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better" and a timetable for withdrawal regardless of what is going on. Those aren't the only two policy options, which means that it is hard to say what percentage of Americans would think we should stick to a timetable for withdrawal regardless of the facts if they are given other policy choices, such as phased withdrawals with periods of reassessment to ensure troops safety, or to allow for pauses in withdrawal in response to significant acts of political reconciliation in Iraq (i.e., a Carrots and Sticks policy instead of just the Stick of unconditional withdrawal.) Meanwhile, the very same USA Today/Gallup poll that seems to indicate overwhelming support for withdrawal regardless of the facts also indicates that 65% think that "the United States ha[s] an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops." However, the poll doesn't ask whether that obligation has already been met, or whether we should withdraw even if that obligation has not been met.
Even doing our best to account for polling questions that can allow for ambiguous results, it would seem that some residue remains of the American people actually simultaneously holding contradictory positions. That can remain so until the decision is about some future policy and not about the hard reality of right now. In the here and now, people can still believe that we should withdraw from Iraq within 16 months of the inauguration of the next President, AND that our policy in Iraq should be based upon a careful assessment of the facts on the ground. It would not be until that assessment came back and said that withdrawal within 16 months cannot be accomplished without some list of negative consequences occurring that the American people would be faced to resolve the now obvious contradiction and decide whether those facts demand a different policy or whether the new President should stick to the 16 month promise. Current, contradictory polling data do not tell you which way the American people would break.
Mara Liasson asserted that they will break in favor of a policy based upon the new assessment, not on sticking to the campaign promise. She did not assert that the American people don't want to withdraw within 16 months.
-
Correction
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"That can remain so until the decision is about some future policy and not about the hard reality of right now" should read "...can remain so as long as..."
-
@casual_observer
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My assessment is that the American people do not trust the Bush administration to make or present a fair and accurate analysis of the facts on the ground in Iraq, so they would prefer a hard and fast timetable for withdrawal regardless of what the administration says. Whether they would be so distrustful of a new Obama administration and its assessment is less clear, but I would expect there to be at least some honeymoon.
-
@sinjan
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The polling data that you seem to find so persuasive are really just another example of polling ambiguity. Are you confident that you know what the responses would be had the question not included "even if it takes four years or more," and had instead been something like: "Do you believe that President Obama should stick to his campaign promise to bring most of the troops home from Iraq within the next sixteen months, or should the U.S. wait until Iraq is relatively stable now that the best assessment of the facts on the ground is that doing so will mean that withdrawal will take 24 months?" I simply do not find Liasson's assertion that the American people would prefer their commander in chief to choose policy guided by the best current assessment of the facts over policy locked-in by campaign promises to be all that unreasonable, even if the current polling data neither unequivocally support or contradict that assertion.
-
@Holly McLachlan
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Liasson's "that's what the American people want a commander in chief to do" refers directly back to the immediately preceeding clause: "He's going to look at the facts on the ground." You really have to stretch and contort Liasson's words to make her say that the American people don't want to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months; and the assertion that the misconstrual of Liasson's meaning is incorrect because the American people unequivocally want to stick to a 16 month timetable regardless of any reassessment of the facts on the ground in Iraq is also unsupported by the polling data.