January 23, 2003
WE HAVE MET THE IGNORANT, AND HE IS US:
Many Americans Wary of War With Iraq, Just as in 1991: But almost 8 out of 10 believe the United States would win such a war (Frank Newport, January 13, 2003, GALLUP NEWS SERVICE)A Jan. 3-5 Gallup Poll re-asked several questions about a possible war with Iraq that had been asked of the American public in early January 1991, just prior to the outbreak of the military action against Iraq that became known as the Persian Gulf War.One of the basic results shows that Americans are slightly more likely now than 12 years ago to consider the situation in Iraq "worth going to war over." This is a question Gallup asked on a regular basis in the late summer, fall, and early winter of 1990 and 1991, as the United States and its allies moved troops and equipment into the Persian Gulf in anticipation of an invasion of Iraq.
There was remarkably little variation in the responses to this question during that time period (between August 1990 and early January 1991), with the percentage saying "yes" varying only between 45% and 51%. The final reading on this question before the war got underway was 46%, measured in a Jan. 11-13, 1991 Gallup Poll.
The precise circumstances in regard to Iraq are different now than they were 12 years ago in many ways. But the basic facts remain quite similar: there was then and is now a build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf area in anticipation of possible military action against Iraq. And, asked today this same question about the "worth" of a war against Iraq, a quite similar 53% say yes.
The 1991 data clearly show a dramatic increase in positive attitudes about the justification for war once military action actually got underway, with 71% saying the situation was worth going to war over in a Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 1991 poll. We can anticipate a similar increase in support if and when military action against Iraq begins this year.
One of the frequently mentioned weaknesses of the American people is that we tend to have roughly the historic recall of gnats. But these days even pundits and politicians who should know better are talking about the public unease over war with Iraq as if it were signficant and as if it were significantly different than in past circumstances. In particular, there's an odd assumption that the prior Iraqi war was popular when it was anything but. Do folks think that the 52-47 Senate vote on the 1991 war was a function of Democrat courage? To the contrary, they were then, as they are now, merely following the polls that showed the American people wanted no part of that war.
On the day we start this war with Iraq the polls will likely show no more than about 45% support for the action. The poll after that will show support in the high 60s or low 70s. Or, since polling takes two to three days and the war could be over by then, it may be in the 80s.
Leadership requires you to do what you believe to be right and to have sufficient vision to know that the people will follow. President Bush seems to have made up his mind a long time ago about the Saddam problem and folks who are mesmerized by the poll numbers of the moment (which includes all the Democrat presidential candidates) are in all likelihood completely misjudging what's going on and what's about to happen. Perhaps they should let history be their guide, rather than transitory public opinion.
Posted by Orrin Judd at January 23, 2003 3:12 PMMr. Judd;
Hopefully President Bush has learned from history that nothing succeeds like victory.
"..unease over war with Iraq as if it were signficant and as if it were significantly different than in past circumstances."
Letting "history be our guide" is all well and good, except that present circumstances *really are* substantially different from those of the "first" Gulf War. Now, I almost look back fondly on those months in late 1990 when a predatory Iraq invaded a "friendly" Middle Eastern country and it was crystal clear what America and its allies needed to do.
But it's no longer so crystal clear because what the US is now contemplating is not, unless one truly tortures the logic, a response to aggression.
Why did we need to free one dictatorship from another? All Saddam wanted to do was sell us Kuwait's oil.
Posted by: oj at January 23, 2003 4:08 PMOrrin, you are correct that Kuwait is (and was) a "dictatorship", just as Iraq is a dictatorship.
But surely I needn't explain to you how these two dictatorships differ. (Where is Jean Kirkpatrick when I need her?!)
George,
The reasons why we are taking the actions we are taking are truly different and ALSO crystal clear. To quote British Prime Minister Tony Blair, "[The action we are taking] has nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward. It has to do with one simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been laying down for 10 years...the only reason we have weapons inspectors back in there is the firm stand that has been taken. Does anyone believe that we would have U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq if there were a possibility of disarmament happening in a peaceful way? Does anyone believe that they would be there if we had not sent the clearest possible signal?...If Saddam believes for a single instant that the will of international community has abated - that the international community does not have the solidity of purpose that it needs to see this thing through - the consequences of conflict...are increased...Does anyone believe that, if we do not take a stand as an international community now in respect to weapons of mass destruction, some terrorist group is not in the future going to get hold of that material and use it?
Torturous logic?
Only if you wish to believe that Saddam has not helped Al Qaida in the past, is not helping them now, and has no intention of helping them in the future.
Granted, there is a lot of wishful thinking out there, so you'd be in good company.
As for the term "victory," I think that with the worldwide terrorist network as well developed, maniacal, and focused as it is, we're going to have to redefine exactly what victory means, and then decide just what it will take to "get there."
Victory, as in Ireland, will come when the population that's supposedly the beneficiary of such acts joins the targets in rejecting them.
Posted by: oj at January 24, 2003 7:21 AMThe problem, Bartman, is that the inspectors are a charade. The US already knows that Hussein must go and that he will never disarm; the Gauls and their ilk would always say give the inspectors more time to find WMDs, regardless of the Iraqis actual behavior.
So now we're in the position of pretending that the decision to go to war depends on UN Security Council review of a charade, which, with the Gaulish veto already promised, will also be a charade. Although I understand the tactical decisions made that got us here, I would prefer that decisons about war not depend upon a charade about a charade.
This is not to say that the inspections have been a complete waste of time: we have no confirmed that Iraq has been importing contraband missile parts; that they have undeclared chemical warheads; that their declaration was a sham; and that, contrary to the requirements of 1441, they have refused to allow U2 overflights. Each of these, however, has been dismissed as immaterial by those who would deny that any finding is material.
Actually, I was thinking much more locally. Many of the problems we have now with that region are because Bush 41 thought it was enough to beat Saddam's force in the field without achieving real victory. I believe the biggest reason his "victory" didn't stick internally is because it wasn't really one. What I hope Bush 43 has learned is, if you send the US to war, kick ass and take names. Leave no doubt whatsoever about who won. Make it clear that after the war, the US will do whatever it wants to the opposing leaders, people and nation, that there is no negotiating or weaseling.
The final victory in WWIV will be a long time coming, but it will come faster if we have some very clear smaller victories, like grinding Saddam and his regime into a very fine paste.
(No so-)Annoying old guy has it exactly right. As Orson Scott Card would say, it's not enough just win, you have to win thoroughly.
Posted by: T-Dub at January 24, 2003 8:36 PMWe are constitutionally unsuited to finishing wars, that's why WWI begat WWII begat Korea, Vietnam and the whole Cold War.
Posted by: oj at January 25, 2003 3:30 PM