# Latest Zogby poll indicates limited support for a serious ground war. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312 "2003-02-25T02:47:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/1 "2003-02-25T02:47:38Z")
[http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm](http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Many of the hawks on this board claim that there is solid support in the US for a big ground war in Iraq. However that is only true of the plain-vanilla "military action " question. Once you ask more precise questions support is much more limited. The latest Zogby poll is instructive especially the following questions: “Would you support or oppose a war against Iraq if it included sending in hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops?” 47% for 45% against “Would you support or oppose a war against Iraq if there were hundreds of American casualties?” 46% for 47% against “Would you support or oppose a war against Iraq if it meant thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties?” 40% for 53% against. The first scenario is about the likely plan against Iraq. The other two are plausible even if the war goes well. Put together they indicate a lack of solid support for the kind of war that is like to be fought. Of course I have no doubt that there will a “rally behind the flag” once the war gets very close and especially after it begins. But these polls now are more instructive because they show that the Bush administration has failed to persuade a large majority that this war is worth the cost. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/2 "2003-02-25T02:53:48Z")
Hrmmm. 79.4% of statisticians warn that statistical polling is unreliable. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/3 "2003-02-25T03:07:47Z")
The questions are meaningless in a way, because nobody knows in advance what will happen. Zogby could have asked, “Would you support or oppose a war in Iraq if we could win it in under a week?” Or, “Would you support or oppose a war if that were the only way to prevent Saddam from getting a nuclear arsenal?” IMHO those are equally likely scenarios. But, the point is, they’re speculation, just as are Zogby’s two scenarios. The real question is the plain, vanilla, “Do you support or oppose war in Iraq?” This question draws a substantial majority for “support” in the US. > [@](#): > > Of course I have no doubt that there will a “rally behind the flag” once the war gets very close and especially after it begins. I agree. > [@](#): > > But these polls now are more instructive because they show that the Bush administration has failed to persuade a large majority that this war is worth the cost. Not exactly “the cost” of the war. Rather, the possible cost under certain pessimistic hypotheses. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/4 "2003-02-25T03:14:46Z")
“Rather, the possible cost under certain pessimistic hypotheses.” Umm hundreds of US casualties and thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties aren’t “pessimistic hyptheses”. They are entirely reasonable estimates even if the war goes quite well. The Gulf War killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/5 "2003-02-25T03:16:13Z")
Not only that, but those questions have a ‘negative’ tilt. You can do the same thing with almost any question: “Do you favor increased funding for education?” - will get you lots of support. “Do you favor increased funding for education, if it means increasing the Department of Education’s budget to almost 60 billion dollars, requiring either tax increases or cuts in other programs?” - will get you an entirely different result, even though the second part of this question is implied in the first. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/6 "2003-02-25T03:25:51Z")
Actually I don’t consider your second education question negatively tilted . I think it gets the respondent to take seriously the costs and trade-offs which is as it should be. Same with the Zogby questions. Note that the plain vanilla question has a majority of only 54% which is hardly overwhelming when it comes to war. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/7 "2003-02-25T03:30:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* Note that the plain vanilla question has a majority of only 54% which is hardly overwhelming when it comes to war. \*\* That is, 54% to 41%, which is indeed a strong majority, particularly given that our President has not quite called for war. Imagine what these numbers will be the day Bush says, “All peaceful alternatives have failed to disarm Saddam. We have no choice but to go to war.” ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/8 "2003-02-25T03:35:46Z")
“That is, 54% to 41%, which is indeed a strong majority, particularly given that our President has not quite called for war” If it was a normal bread-and-butter issue maybe. When it comes to war I think you need a much bigger majority than that. Bush hasn’t quite called for war but he has been building the case for it more than a year. You would have thought that he would have gotten more people to support a serious ground war. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/9 "2003-02-25T03:49:28Z")
My point was that it’s NOT a ‘negative tilt’ in the sense that it’s just a more accurate statement of the costs involved, which are implicit in the first question. But when you write the question to include the costs, support always drops. I think questions like that are tendentious, and not good polling. Especially since, in the case of the specific questions mentioned, they ask about the costs, but not the benefits. How about we ask these questions: “Are you in favor of a war, especially if it means removing a major sponsor of terrorism in the world?” “Are you in favor of a war if the U.S. has 41 allies supporting it?” And rather than ask, “Are you in favor of a war even if the U.S. can not get support from the United Nations?”, ask “Are you in favor of a War in Iraq, even if France vetos a U.N. resolution?” When one of the British papers tried that variant, they saw a 30% increase in support. But then what are you measuring? Support for the war, or anger at France? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/10 "2003-02-25T04:06:45Z")
“But when you write the question to include the costs, support always drops.” So what? That just indicates that support for war is fickle which is precisely the point. People who solidly support the war will say yes for each of the three questions. The polls clearly indicate that there is no such support. Let me note again that the 54 support for the plain-vanilla question is far from overwhelming when it comes to war. ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/11 "2003-02-25T06:22:49Z")
Question - since when is America a Democracy? The fickle public gets our chance to have our voices heard every year in November (when 1 in 5 people get off their butts and go push a few buttons) - if we don’t like what our leaders are doing we vote them out, and vote in anti-war representatives. If we don’t agree with the policies we write our congressmen or protest, but I don’t think “support” or “anti” polls hold any real clout. ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/12 "2003-02-25T06:24:39Z")
Additionally, the only poll format I really like are the ones that start off - “do you vote?” If the person says no, they don’t count that data set. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/13 "2003-02-25T06:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > \*\* The Gulf War killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians for instance. \*\* [http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp](http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualty0216p5.asp) > [@](#): > > (Daponte) estimated that 56,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians were killed during the war, and that another 35,000 died as Saddam Hussein crushed Kurdish and Shiite rebellions that rose up after the United States stopped fighting. > … > > Daponte took her figure for combat deaths during the war from Arkin, a former Army intelligence officer. His estimate was in line with an early Defense Intelligence Agency estimate of 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi battlefield deaths, but substantially higher than the current consensus among military experts of 10,000 to 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 1,000 to 2,000 civilians killed. > > … > > Estimates by experts at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and by an air power survey headed by Johns Hopkins University Prof. Eliot Cohen put the number of Iraqi soldiers killed at 20,000 to 25,000, and the number of civilian deaths at 1,000 to 3,000. The Iraqi government claims 2,278 civilians were killed during the war. > > … > > Two scholars think actual Iraqi battlefield deaths were much lower. In a 1993 paper, former DIA analyst John Heidenrich estimated that only about 1,500 Iraqi soldiers, and fewer than 1,000 civilians were killed during the war. Working independently, John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University, came to a similar conclusion. > > … > > Even though she doesn’t enjoy reliving it, the controversy has worked out well for Daponte. Thanks to the publicity it generated, **she is now considered the nation’s leading authority on non-battle deaths in Iraq.** All the more reason to not leave Saddam in power this time, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/14 "2003-02-25T06:58:00Z")
These poll questions put the respondent in the position of having to kill off a known number of people to accomplish the stated goal. You could skew the poll the other way by asking something like: “If Saddam was going to murder thousands of people in the next six months, would you support a war against Iraq?” ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/15 "2003-02-25T07:35:53Z")
"You could skew the poll the other way by asking something like: “If Saddam was going to murder thousands of people in the next six months, would you support a war against Iraq?” Well one difference is that this is neither a direct cost or benefit of the war (Saddam could kill those people even with a war and maybe kill lots more) so it’s rather different from the questions asked by Zogby which are a direct result of war. BTW note that the question about hundreds of thousands of ground troops is.just a description of the kind of war that will likely be fought and isn’t tilted against war. In fact you could argue the opposite since suggests “overwhelming force” . ``` Anyone who seriously believes in the war is not going to change his mind because of hundreds of American casualties or thousands or Iraqi civilians killed. Presumably all the hawks on the board would answer yes to all three questions. The fact that there is not even a majority when asked these fairly reasonable corrolaries indicates that support for the war is fickle at best. ``` Saen, My source for the tens of thousands of civilian casualties was a yahoo news story which I can’t find now. It probably included deaths after the war from the destruction of civilian infrastructure. Note that even your source confirms thousands of civilian deaths which is what the Zogby poll asks. So my point that the question is perfectly reasonable in light of past history remains. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/16 "2003-02-25T18:10:28Z")
But if the deaths of civilians was my concern on wheather to go to war or not, wouldn’t it be prudent to actually take out Saddam by force considering that it is cited that he, personally, killed ten times the number of civilians mainly because of our inactions and lack of support of the civilians? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/17 "2003-02-25T18:37:22Z")
Not really. The civilians killed by Saddam were also a result of the civil wars triggered by the war. Even if Saddam had been removed , Iraq could have well have become another Lebanon or Afghanistan with decades long civil war which would have taken even more lives. Anyway looking forward to the next war there are some very scary scenarios which weren’t there last time like Saddam pursuing a scorched earth policy,destroying dams etc. Also the fact that millions of Iraqis are now dependent on the Iraqi government for food ,many of whom may starve if war disrupts the food distribution system. Not to mention the use of chemical and biological weapons. There are realistic scenarios with maybe hundreds of thousands dead. So there is simply no way that anyone can say with any assurance that war will save more lives than it takes. The opposite seems more likely considering the fact that the no-fly zones today prevent Saddam from attacking the Kurds or Shias in any significant way. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/latest-zogby-poll-indicates-limited-support-for-a-serious-ground-war/157312/18 "2003-02-25T19:27:10Z")
I certainly agree that poll questions can be designed to get whatever response you want. Even if you try your best to design unbiased questions, you may not capture the essence of the public’s opinion. In absolute terms, the responses have little meaning. But I do think they have relative value. That is, ask the same questions over time, and look at the trends. In doing so, you will see (as has been observed above) that the American public is quite fickle on the questions - which leads one to believe that the overall resolve, in either direction, is weak. Reading this board, you would conclude that the issues are very polar. That is, calculate a distribution of support for war and you’d end up with a bi-polar distribution. Lots of folks are hawks, lots are doves, and few are inbetween. But the reality from the polling suggests otherwise. There are certainly some die-hard hawks and die-hard doves, but the distribution looks much more normal (bell curve). And the median value seems to shift with the wind. For example, take a look at this transcript describing recent CNN-Time polls: > [@](#): > > _From [CNN Inside Politics 2/20/03:](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/20/ip.00.html)_ > WOODRUFF: … While Bush administration officials keep working to get the allies lined up behind them, they may want to take another look at opinions here at home. Our senior political analyst Bill Schneider is with us now. Bill, what about those anti-war protests all over the country last weekend. Is that not having an effect on overall public opinion anyone. > > WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYSTS: Well, it looks like it did. The public’s view of Iraq has shifted twice in the last few weeks. In late January, before Secretary of State Powell testified to the U.N. Security Council, a third of Americans held the view that the U.S. should invade Iraq event without a new U.N. vote authorizing the use of force. The largest number, 40 percent said the U.S. should invade only if the U.N. endorsed the use of force. And 22 percent said the U.S. should not send troops at all. > > Now, on February 5, Powell testified, and the number of Americans who said the U.S. should invade, even without a new U.N. vote, grew to 39 percent. And that became the prevailing opinion. The number who thought the U.S. should wait for a new U.N. vote shrank to 34 percent. Those who said don’t send any troops remained steady. The momentum had clearly shifted in the Bush administration’s favor. > > WOODRUFF: So has public opinion shifted again? > > SCHNEIDER: Yes, it has. In the past week, we’ve had Hans Blix’s report and massive anti-war protests around the world. Now, the number who say invade Iraq even without the U.N. has dropped to 30 percent, below where it was in January. > > Once again, the prevailing opinion is get a new U.N. vote. And the number who oppose sending any troops at all is up slightly, to just over a quarter. The past week has seen another momentum shift, this time, away from war. > > WOODRUFF: So are Americans sensing, Bill, is this what you are saying, that the rest of the world may not be with the U.S. on this? > > SCHNEIDER: Well, Judy, the public sense is that president Bush is a growing target of criticism in the world. We asked Americans whether or not they think leaders of other countries have respect for President Bush. And look at this trend. > > A year ago, only 21 percent of Americans felt President Bush was not respected. And that number has been growing steadily. Now, after the events of the past week, a striking 55 percent of Americans think the rest of the world does not respect President Bush. Americans clearly are feeling increasingly isolated. Despite all the rhetoric about “going it alone”, and not leaving US national security decisions to the UN, it would be tough to argue that the Bush administration isn’t listening to what these polls are saying. If I were to judge Bush on his words - I’d be very scared. But if I were to judge Bush on his actions (continually going back to the UN to garner an broader international coalition), I am comforted. Nonetheless, the longer-term downward trend in support for the war has to be very frustrating to the administration.