According to new Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, 22% of Americans do not want Bush’s surge in Iraq to succeed. Another 15% aren’t sure. This is not asking about whether they think it will succeed (that was a seperate question), it’s asking if they desire its success.
While it’s possible that some of these may have misunderstood the question, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a very large number of Americans (Pubs included) would prefer a US defeat than a victory that could be credited to Bush. I find this quite ominous.
What, if anything, do you make of this? (Besides, of course, the childish responses that because it was sponsored by Fox it’s all a lie) If you are one of those 22%, I’d like to hear your reasoning.
First of all, what do success and failure even mean in this context? Maybe some people think “failure” means we pull our troops out of Iraq and the “success” of the surge would only lead to another decade of US military involvement there. If “success” means preventing an Iraqi civil war and getting our troops the hell out of there, I’m all for it. If it means permanent military bases and US control of their oil fields and an Iraqi government that is a puppet of the United States (which I can’t help but think is the Bush administration’s idea of success) then I guess I hope we fail. Basically I’m for whatever results in a independent, peaceful Iraq with no US troop presence.
One concern is that the surge might improve the situation slightly – and Bush will take that as a mandate to pour tens of thousands more of troops into Iraq, and screw the whole thing up again.
Who knows. They may want Bush embarrassed and they didn’t think about the consequences. Maybe they think that if this effort fails, we’ll get out sooner and lose fewer American lives than if it succeeds and we stay in longer. Who knows.
Well, a defeat does serve to discourage future military adventures in countries we have no business invading. Bush claims a pull out dishonors the valor of the military personnel who died in Iraq. Others might consider 3000 American lives the “price” for another 30-40 years without a foolhardy war. Seems like a bargain compared to Vietnam, no?
Success for Bush would be an Iraqi puppet state and a springboard to further conquest. I want America and Bush to fail because we are the bad guys, to be blunt about it. We deserve to fail, the worse the better. I feel sorry for the Iraqis, but at this point they are inevitably screwed, thanks to us. As for our soldiers, the more casualties the better.
I don’t want more Iraqis to die, but I admit to very mixed feeling about the idea “Bush succeeds” in Iraq- because validation of his administration’s worldview would be a disaster. If a future President followed his lead and invaded Iran or North Korea, the results could be much worse. In any event, a stable Iraq wouldn’t be regarded as a success by many people because they were expecting a quick war and didn’t get it.
Not at all, it’s just that the tense of the question is wrong. Bush has already failed in Iraq, so any dressup that gets put on the war to make it look like we might be succeeding merely serves to prolong our agony.
It’s nothing I haven’t said before. Nor do I consider it that odd a position, once you understand that I truly do consider us to be the bad guys. I regard America as an amoral conquerer, exploiter and destroyer; outside it’s borders, little better than the Soviet Union was. Why wouldn’t I want the conquerer’s soldiers to get killed ? It’s a form of justice.
Because, for the most part, they are honest people who have found themselves in a situation where they have to risk their lives in order to make a life for themselves and their families. I’m not gonna trot out the typical “following orders” line, but there is some truth in it. Even if you think that we are the bad guy, wishing death upon them is a shitty thing to do.
And they have killed a great many people in the process. If they get killed because they are engaged in conquest and oppression, too damned bad. I have zero sympathy for any of them.
I’m in the 22% now. An American success would be seen by some as validation of an aggressive foreign policy that could lead to an even bigger mistake, if one can imagine it, in the future. I’m not pulling for American casualties nor do I want to see more Iraqi dead. If the US pulled out now and one or the other of the factions in Iraq quickly solidified power, that would be the best outcome for all concerned.
That’s one hell of a poll. I like the bit where NO cohort believes that US Decision on what to do in Iraq should be influenced by what the administration believes is the best policy. Oofah!
Other than our resident nutcases I don’t think anyone is wishing death and such on the soldiers over there. But people sure aren’t lining up behind the ‘surge’. Instead they seem to just want it over with. Anything that extends it is being viewed fairly negatively.
Or, in short, we’ve lost the political will to continue.
Depends on what you mean by “success”. If Iraq turned into Switzerland in 6 months that might be true. But success is likely going to be simply a quasi-stable Iraqi government fighting a low-level insurgency for a long, long time. And once we’re out, I expect human rights abuses to increase, not decrease. I don’t think that will lead to further adventurism. In fact, I think we’ve learned our lesson about wars of choice for quite some time to come.
Bush is only going to be in power for 2 more years, and Congress is not going to let him start another war.
I hear they have balsa-wood drones of death capable of striking anywhere in the solar system within 15 minutes. And if that’s not a cause for war I don’t know what is.