61% of Americans want troops home in a year, 24% want it now

[bascule]

... according to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey:

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal

 

This despite deja vu-inducing assurances that our strategy is finally working and that in pulling out we'd sacrificed everything we've worked for over there.

 

I believe the economic toll at home may be the thing that will finally end the war... well, and a new President.

[Mr Skeptic]

I believe the economic toll at home may be the thing that will finally end the war... well, and a new President.

 

That's generally how a small "defenseless" country can win a defensive war against a far more powerful enemy. It would have been far worse if Saddam had gotten away.

[Pangloss]

Looking a little deeper, we see that more than a third (34%) wanted the troops to stay until the job was done. What these numbers strongly suggest is that if you filter out to a much more specific range of questions, including likely scenarios such as "what if the majority of the troops were brought home immediately but some stayed behind and were rotated until the job was done", support would be much higher. The fact that ONLY 24% want them brought home immediately supports this analysis.

 

Which is why Democratic presidential candidates aren't talking about Iraq. Iraqi disaster rhetoric just isn't playing in Peoria.

[iNow]

Which is why Democratic presidential candidates aren't talking about Iraq. Iraqi disaster rhetoric just isn't playing in Peoria.

 

Or, it could be that it's still the primaries, and the Democratic candidates largely agree, so there's not a lot to debate there. It's important to remember the context of their presentations when you make such general statements like that, Pangloss.

 

It will be an issue when debates with McCain begin. As far as I'm concerned, your comment about it not playing in Peoria couldn't be less accurate.

[Pangloss]

Or, it could be that it's still the primaries, and the Democratic candidates largely agree, so there's not a lot to debate there. It's important to remember the context of their presentations when you make such general statements like that, Pangloss.

 

It will be an issue when debates with McCain begin. As far as I'm concerned, your comment about it not playing in Peoria couldn't be less accurate.

 

No, that's not correct. Nice effort, though -- especially the faux objectivity couched as a lecture on context.

 

The Democratic candidates had Iraq front-and-center in their headlights before, well into primary season. And while they do largely agree in their plans for withdrawl (though notably neither favor the extremism of immediate withdrawl that is the politically correct position here at SFN), Obama still found plenty to talk about regarding Hillary's votes regarding Iraq in 2003.

 

They didn't take Iraq off the top burner because they agree, or because it's primary season, or because the economy got bad (just to toss out another likely excuse). They changed the subject because Iraq got better.

[Severian]

It is a bit pointless to discuss this if we don't know what the actual question asked was. It could have been "If control could be successfully handed over to Iraqi forces, would you support bringing US troops home within a year?".

 

It is about time that journalists started giving their readers fuller information.

[iNow]

No, that's not correct. Nice effort, though -- especially the faux objectivity couched as a lecture on context.

 

<...>

 

They didn't take Iraq off the top burner because they agree, or because it's primary season, or because the economy got bad (just to toss out another likely excuse). They changed the subject because Iraq got better.

 

Everything in your post is conjecture and/or personal opinion. I'll just say we disagree, and that I'm not going to accept your POV until you have some harder evedience to support your position than just your own personal interpretations.

 

Also, for the love of Thor, would you please quit opening every response you have to someone who disagrees with you using condescending put downs and dismissals like "(shrug)" or "nice effort though." It's really getting rather annoying.

[iNow]

If you don't like how I reply to your condescending personal lessons, iNow, then my advice to you is to stop posting them.

Give me an example of a "condescending personal lesson" I've posted, beside what you've termed as such in this thread at post #4 (where I reminded you that it's important to remember the context of a situation before making sweeping generalizations about it). If you cannot, I request that you retract your assertion as false.

 

I'm really trying Pangloss. Can you please do the same?

[Pangloss]

Well that's the beauty of personal opinion. You have yours, and I have mine. Nobody's asking you to accept anything.

 

If you don't like how I reply to your condescending personal lessons, iNow, then my advice to you is to stop posting them.

 

Let's keep it clean, please, folks. My PM box is open if needed.

[bascule]

The Democratic candidates had Iraq front-and-center in their headlights before, well into primary season.

 

[...]

 

They didn't take Iraq off the top burner because they agree, or because it's primary season, or because the economy got bad (just to toss out another likely excuse). They changed the subject because Iraq got better.

 

I suspect the issue of what to do about Iraq will come up again, with a passion, in the national election...

[Pangloss]

Certainly Iraq will be an issue. But unless the situation on the ground goes sour again (which is certainly possible), the primary emphasis will be on support prior to the war (where Obama has a clear advantage over McCain), not so much withdrawl. And under no circumstances will any candidate advocate immediate withdrawl regardless of the situation on the ground.

 

Not that this necessarily applies to anyone here, but I think those the far left want this issue to return to the front-and-center for ideological reasons -- they hate all war, they think Republicans are responsible for it, and they think we can just snap our fingers and it'll never happen again. The situation in Iraq is irrelevent to these people. But I don't think the majority of American people think that way. The message that premature departure is bad has sunk in, and will only be rejected if the situation on the ground becomes costly in lives again.

 

And it's even worse than the far left may think. If Obama tries to play the immediate withdrawl card, it will fail with moderates, and open the door for McCain to use it against him. So they may want to be careful what you wish for. What works in those discussions over at MoveOn.org is very different from what works around the family dinner table in Ohio or Nebraska.

[ecoli]

But I don't think the majority of American people think that way.

But you don't know for sure. I would love to see some statistics on this. Or at least, what you're basing this opinion on.

 

The message that premature departure is bad has sunk in, and will only be rejected if the situation on the ground becomes costly in lives again.

I wasn't aware that it ever stopped being costly in lives.

[Pangloss]

Casting aspersions on my opinion won't change the fact that Americans seem steadfastly uninterested in rallying behind the anti-war cause. My opinion is based on 30 years of following politics. I'm sorry if you find that unacceptable.

 

Yes, it became less costly in lives, to the point of public acceptability and was dropped from primary media focus. To the point where only PBS's Lehrer was reporting American casualties on a nightly basis from something like November through much of February. (Recently that's changed a bit, I've noticed, with regular casualty reporting on ABC and NBC.)

[ecoli]

Casting aspersions on my opinion won't change the fact that Americans seem steadfastly uninterested in rallying behind the anti-war cause. My opinion is based on 30 years of following politics. I'm sorry if you find that unacceptable.

This is a science forums, so I would like the see statistics. I'm not casting aspersions... I actually tend to agree with you on this sentiment. Asking for empirical data to back up a position is not the same as casting an opposing argument, though I do find it odd that you seem to be getting defensive about it.

 

Yes, it became less costly in lives, to the point of public acceptability and was dropped from primary media focus.

I tend to think it's the other way around... After so many years of war, reporting on casualties just isn't interesting news anymore, from the perspective of the mainstream media. I think there's a difference between public acceptance about the cost of human life and what the media considers 'newsworthy.'

That may just be my low opinion of the MSM speaking, though.

 

To the point where only PBS's Lehrer was reporting American casualties on a nightly basis from something like November through much of February. (Recently that's changed a bit, I've noticed, with regular casualty reporting on ABC and NBC.)

Interesting observation... is this because there are more casualties to report, a leftwing bias in these stations, or merely that war casualties is 'getting interesting' again, now that it's getting closer to the general election.

[Pangloss]

I tend to think it's the other way around... After so many years of war, reporting on casualties just isn't interesting news anymore, from the perspective of the mainstream media.

 

The change of focus coincided with the vast reduction in hostilities under the surge. The media, having had Iraq front-and-center on a nightly basis for several years, reported the success and then moved on to other stories. If it were just a matter of tiring of Iraq, that would have happened much sooner.

 

In general, media focus is a very short-term thing. The "media cycle" is typically something measured in days, not years.

 

 

I think there's a difference between public acceptance about the cost of human life and what the media considers 'newsworthy.'

 

I agree, the media places more importance on the loss of a single life than the public generally does (if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly). But what's more important to the media is something called "the focus of the story", or more simply put, "the story" (often phrased as the question, "What is the story here?"). In this case the story was that the casualty count dropped radically, and therefore its value as a story dropped as well.

 

If individual loss of life were the main determining factor, the 30-minute nightly network news would never make it past reporting on highway deaths and cancer.

 

 

Interesting observation... is this because there are more casualties to report, a leftwing bias in these stations, or merely that war casualties is 'getting interesting' again, now that it's getting closer to the general election.

 

Casualty counts may have been up in late January and early February, I'm not sure. There were a few specific incidents of suicide bombing that reached the level of national reportage. I haven't looked into this, but I suspect the latter was more a factor than the former.

 

They're watching the situation, and if the casualties increase dramatically again, that will be a big story. My GUESS is that with Al Sadr extending his cease fire for another six months that we will not see this issue come up again for... well... six months. That would put us into August, which is, interestingly, just enough time for violence in Iraq to become a central-focus issue again before the election.

 

So the anti-war can probably just relax and pray for the cease fire to have a monumentally bloody end.

[timo]

Casualty counts may have been up in late January and early February, I'm not sure.

According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm, the (US) casualty count dropped from ~90 / month during the time 01/07 - 09/07 to about ~35 / month. Total count agrees with http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ and http://icasualties.org/oif/, so it seems to be a reasonable source (they might be copying the number from each other, though).

[bascule]

...the primary emphasis will be on support prior to the war (where Obama has a clear advantage over McCain), not so much withdrawl.

 

I sure hope the addressing the present situation takes precedence over assigning blame for past mistakes. I hope Obama will nail McCain on his recent remarks about an indefinite presence in Iraq, and focus less on who voted for what.

 

The situation in Iraq is irrelevent to these people. But I don't think the majority of American people think that way. The message that premature departure is bad has sunk in, and will only be rejected if the situation on the ground becomes costly in lives again.

 

Well, we have at least a poll here saying the majority of Americans want out of Iraq in a year. To put this poll in perspective: that's about one month after the new President takes office. That's probably the earliest we could realistically see a withdrawal anyway, and the majority of Americans support it, at least according to this poll.

 

It is a bit pointless to discuss this if we don't know what the actual question asked was.

 

According to the article, the question was:

 

"When it comes to the War in Iraq, the U.S. should... a) withdraw now b) bring the troops home in a year c) stay"

[ecoli]

I agree, the media places more importance on the loss of a single life than the public generally does (if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly).

Sort of... I would agree with that, but every life is not considered equally under the eyes of the media.

 

At this point in time, a dozen people killed by a mining accident in Pennsylvania would be given more media attention than a dozen troops killed by an IED in Iraq.

 

One's a tragedy, and thus news worthy, the other is a statistic.

 

I tend to blame this on human nature, rather than intentional media bias, however unfortunate that may be.

 

What I do blame on the media is giving more air time to Britney or Paris than to those 12 men killed by the hypothetical IED. I don't understand how celebrities are more newsworthy than troop casualties.

Montel Williams [allegedly] lost his job over this very issue. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/23326/1083/699/446791

 

But what's more important to the media is something called "the focus of the story", or more simply put, "the story" (often phrased as the question, "What is the story here?"). In this case the story was that the casualty count dropped radically, and therefore its value as a story dropped as well.

But, what I want to know, what's the statistical correlation between the number of casualties and the number of reported casualties by media news outlets. If it's a direct relationship, than there's no problem... but I'm not sure if there is. At least, I haven't seen any studies on this.

 

If individual loss of life were the main determining factor, the 30-minute nightly network news would never make it past reporting on highway deaths and cancer.

yes, thousands of deaths every day from these things is not a national tragedy. Not that I'm complaining and think that it should be considered so by the media... I don't think it is feasible to solve all these problems simply by increasing media exposure... certainly the public knowing how many people die from cancer each die isn't going to directly help us cure cancer (aside from getting more funding). But, lord knows the last thing this country needs is a "War on {blank}" for every problem we come across. This tends to just create more inefficient bureaucracy.

 

Casualty counts may have been up in late January and early February, I'm not sure. There were a few specific incidents of suicide bombing that reached the level of national reportage. I haven't looked into this, but I suspect the latter was more a factor than the former.

That would be my initial, rational, guess as well.

 

 

So the anti-war can probably just relax and pray for the cease fire to have a monumentally bloody end.

Well, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Though I doubt it will result in either side getting what they want.

[iNow]

What is currently post #9...

If you don't like how I reply to your condescending personal lessons, iNow, then my advice to you is to stop posting them.

 

... was originally post #8, to which I responded:

 

Give me an example of a "condescending personal lesson" I've posted, beside what you've termed as such in this thread at post #4 (where I reminded you that it's important to remember the context of a situation before making sweeping generalizations about it). If you cannot, I request that you retract your assertion as false.

 

Now, my quote above (which is now shown as post #8) appears before the post to which it was responding (which now appears as post #9) due to some moderation. In case it wasn't clear, I'm still waiting for a response.

 

 

 

 

According to the article, the question was:

 

"When it comes to the War in Iraq, the U.S. should... a) withdraw now b) bring the troops home in a year c) stay"

Which, per your thread title, suggests that ~15% want to stay. I'm glad to see that number significantly down from previously.

[bascule]

Which, per your thread title, suggests that ~15% want to stay. I'm glad to see that number significantly down from previously.

 

Actually, it was my thread title (you think Pangloss would post a thread like this) and it was poorly stated, my bad.

 

That 61% figure includes the 24% who want to pull the troops out immediately.

[Pangloss]

According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm, the (US) casualty count dropped from ~90 / month during the time 01/07 - 09/07 to about ~35 / month. Total count agrees with http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ and http://icasualties.org/oif/, so it seems to be a reasonable source (they might be copying the number from each other, though).

 

Interesting, thanks.

 

Well, we have at least a poll here saying the majority of Americans want out of Iraq in a year.

 

Yes, we have a poll that says that (when poll participants were asked that specific question).

 

But' date=' what I want to know, what's the statistical correlation between the number of casualties and the number of reported casualties by media news outlets. If it's a direct relationship, than there's no problem... but I'm not sure if there is. At least, I haven't seen any studies on this.

[/quote']

 

I'm not sure I understand... are you suggesting the media is exaggerating or failing to report the full numbers? If there's something like that going on, I've not heard anything about it.

 

Now, my quote above (which is now shown as post #8) appears before the post to which it was responding (which now appears as post #9) due to some moderation. In case it wasn't clear, I'm still waiting for a response.

 

For the curious, I deleted two posts that (I felt, apparently erroneously on one of them, as I was overruled, but that's cool) were too personal in nature, and when I posted a further message it was merged with my previous one, and it placed my "merged" post after the two deleted ones. I believe that's what caused the renumbering.

 

As for the rest, I have explained my position. If you want to discuss it further, my in-box is open.

[ecoli]

I'm not sure I understand... are you suggesting the media is exaggerating or failing to report the full numbers? If there's something like that going on, I've not heard anything about it.

 

I'm not suggesting that there is or there isn't, I'm just curious if this has been investigated.

[iNow]

Actually, it was my thread title (you think Pangloss would post a thread like this) and it was poorly stated, my bad.

You'll notice I did attribute the quote to you. The post just got merged with my previous one, which was off-topic anyway.

 

 

That 61% figure includes the 24% who want to pull the troops out immediately.

That's too bad. So it's more of a 60/40 split then an 85/15 split?

[ecoli]

So is it 24% of the total who want to pull out immediately, or 24% of that 61%?

[YT2095]

*Moved to the Maths Forum*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just Kidding