Poll: Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

[Midnight Mike]

August 28, 2007
UPI/Zogby Poll: Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

Survey finds two in three Democrats believe the war is already lost


A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.


The poll comes ahead of a September report to Congress by David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, on the progress of the so-called surge in quelling attacks by insurgents and creating an atmosphere where the new Iraqi government can develop.


This strong skepticism of success in Iraq among Democrats echoes the position of some party leaders, most strongly worded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said in April that he believed that "this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything." This latest UPI/Zogby poll shows Americans are divided on the success of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq - while 49% believe it is not working, nearly as many (45%) said the surge has been effective. The vast majority of Democrats (86%) don't believe the surge is working, compared to just 11% of Republicans.


Asked to define a U.S. victory in Iraq, 37% of American adults overall said it would be achieved when Iraq gains control over its own internal security (a view with which 58% of Republicans, but just 17% of Democrats, agree). But nearly as many Americans (34%) said they don't believe a U.S. victory in Iraq is possible - 60% of Democrats agree there cannot be victory in Iraq, compared to just 7% of Republicans.


Overall, 13% said a U.S. victory will be achieved when a secure Iraq forms a democratic government, and 11% said the U.S. has already achieved victory in Iraq.


The online survey of 6,711 adults nationwide was conducted August 17-20, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.2 percentage points.


During a recent speech in front of members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush referenced the after-effects of the Vietnam War while drawing comparisons to what might happen if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. When asked which previous United States conflict was most similar to the war in Iraq, more than half (52%) in the online survey said it is most like the Vietnam War. Democrats (78%) were much more likely than Republicans (26%) to make the comparison between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq.


As Democratic and Republican presidential candidates gear up for upcoming state primaries and caucuses, Americans are split over which party, if elected, would be more likely to bring the war to a successful conclusion - 39% believe a Republican president would be more likely to bring a positive end to the war, while nearly as many - 36% - feel the same about a Democratic president. Another 17% said neither party would be likely to successfully end the war.


Asked which of the 2008 presidential candidates would best handle the war in Iraq, Rudy Giuliani topped the list with 14% support, followed by Fred Thompson (11%), Hillary Clinton (10%), Barack Obama (9%), John McCain and Joe Biden (7%), John Edwards (5%), and Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich at 4%. But overall, more Americans said they were unsure (15%) than supported any single candidate to best handle the war.


Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani (28%), Fred Thompson (21%) and John McCain (11%) were seen as having the ability to best handle the war, while Democrats favored Hillary Clinton (22%), Barack Obama (17%) and Joe Biden (12%).


In this latest online poll, 27% give President Bush a positive rating on his handling of the war in Iraq, up slightly from 24% who gave the president favorable marks in July. While the President's approval for his handling of the war showed slight gains, Congress remains stuck at just a 3% positive rating for its handling of the war, unchanged from polling last month. Congress faces overwhelming dissatisfaction among Democrats - 95% give Congress negative ratings for handling the war, compared to 94% who felt that way in July.


Overall, 43% believe that since the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress in January, the current Congress's performance in handling the war in Iraq has been worse than the previous Republican-held Congress. Just 20% believe the current Democrat-held Congress is doing a better job, while 35% think its performance has been about the same. While half (50%) of Democrats believe there has been no change in the performance of Congress handling the war since the Democrats took over, 42% believe performance has improved since the Republicans had control - just 6% believe the Democrat-led Congress is doing worse.


Most Americans are highly critical of the U.S. government's pre-war planning - 80% don't believe the government adequately planned for the post-war phase prior to launching the war in Iraq. Three in four (72%) don't believe the U.S. government's conduct of the occupation phase of Iraq was handled competently.

The war in Iraq has also negatively impacted many Americans' views of various areas of the U.S. government - 60% said their confidence in the president has decreased since the start of the war, and even more (73%) say the same for Congress. Confidence in U.S. Intelligence Agencies has also decreased for 63% of Americans since the start of the war, while 45% say they now have less confidence in U.S. military senior leadership.

[nwafan20]

I think its more of a question of who WANTS us to loose the war. I know many democrats who wish for us to loose the war, they won't say it as to not look unpatriotic but even this notion of "We already lost" shows their true colors.

[adam613]

What a lot of Democrats don't understand is that it wouldn't sound unpatriotic to say you want us to lose this war, because entering the war in the first place was severely detrimental to American interests both abroad and domestically, and at this point admitting we lost is the only way to begin repairing those interests.

On the other hand, it's surprising to hear of a poll like this coming from Zogby...he has historically been a Democratic hack.

[nwafan20]

because entering the war in the first place was severely detrimental to American interests both abroad and domestically

So, removing an evil dictator who (as all evidence pointed to at the time) had weapons of mass destruction and had announced intent to harm America, and at the same time creating a democracy in the Middle East to attempt to spread democracy and end Islamofascism was, as you say "Severely detrimental to American interests"??? :| :|

[Nonstop2AUH]

Bush says he doesn't run the country according to polls so perhaps this is another one he should ignore.

[adam613]

because entering the war in the first place was severely detrimental to American interests both abroad and domestically

So, removing an evil dictator who (as all evidence pointed to at the time) had weapons of mass destruction and had announced intent to harm America, and at the same time creating a democracy in the Middle East to attempt to spread democracy and end Islamofascism was, as you say "Severely detrimental to American interests"??? :| :|

Yes.

First of all, all of the evidence never pointed to there being WMD in Iraq. Some of the evidence did, but not nearly as much as some wanted us to believe. From a political standpoint, the fact that we never found WMD would have been entirely acceptable, if anyone outside of the Bush Administration and its followers ever had been sure there were WMD in the first place.

Second, if we felt the need to remove an evil dictator with WMD and intent to harm America, the correct target was Kim Jong Il. Everybody knows North Korea has nuclear weapons, and the only reason they used them on the US is that they don't have the capability to fire them that far. Plus, we'd have had the support of neighboring countries if we'd bombed North Korea, even without resorting to "either you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric.

Third, our "attempt to spread democracy and end Islamofacism" has served only to strengthen Islamofacism. Our presence in Iraq has energized militants in Iran and given them popular support that was slowly migrating to the moderate, pro-democracy elements in that society. And Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism under our watch, since our forced democracy hasn't taken hold. Lesson learned: you can't force democracy on anyone. Again, this would have been an entirely acceptable lesson to learn, if everyone outside of the Bush Administration hadn't been saying it from the beginning.

Finally, our invasion of Iraq came at the expense of some extremely valuable rebuilding work we were doing in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was ready for democracy and needed a little help, in the form of military force. But we decreased our force there quite prematurely so we could send troops into Iraq. This had two disastrous consequences. First of all, the Taliban is re-taking control there, which makes us look foolish, since we supposedly eradicated them. Second, our lack of ability to carry on two wars at once showed the world (and specifically, the Islamofacists) that we aren't as strong as they thought we were. It's always better to have everyone think you're stronger than you are.