You bet.
Posted on 12/11/2007 2:02:18 AM PST by Wiz
WASHINGTON - Growing numbers of people think the U.S. is making progress in Iraq and will eventually be able to claim some success there, a poll showed Tuesday in a sign the politics of the war could become more complicated for Democrats.
With diminishing U.S. and Iraqi casualties and the start of modest troop withdrawals, the public's mood seems to have brightened a bit, the Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed. That is a rarity in what has been a relentlessly unpopular war.
"I still have hopes the people in Iraq will appreciate us being there," said Daniel Laird, 30, a firefighter from Yuba City, Calif., who leans Republican and was questioned in the survey. "It just seems like we are making a difference."
Even so, majorities remain upset about the conflict and convinced the invasion was a mistake, and the issue still splits the country deeply along party lines.
About three-fourths of respondents describe themselves as worried about what's happening in Iraq and nearly six in 10 say they are angry — slight reductions since February, but still strong majorities harboring negative feelings on the eve of an election year. Most Democrats and independents — joined by sizable numbers of Republicans — say they are worried, tired, even angry.
People are most positive are about recent gains in security in Iraq.
The poll showed a nearly even division over whether President Bush's troop increase this year has helped stabilize the country, with 50 percent saying no and 47 percent yes. Just three months ago, only 36 percent said yes.
By 52 percent to 41 percent, most said the U.S. is making progress in Iraq. When AP-Ipsos last asked that question in September 2006 — a time when vicious sectarian attacks resembled a civil war — just 39 percent saw improvements under way.
While far greater proportions of Republicans than Democrats think progress is being made, even growing numbers of Democrats agree. The portion of Democrats saying the troop increase has helped stabilize the country has nearly doubled since September to 26 percent, and the number saying the U.S. is making progress has shown similar growth.
For many Democrats, though, the gains are seen as tentative.
"Yes, there's been progress, but I don't think it will be long-term," said Regina Pitts, 51, a Democrat from Fairview, Tenn. "We can't stay there forever and babysit."
By some measures, peoples' longer-range views of U.S. accomplishments are also becoming more optimistic.
Forty-two percent said they think history will consider the war mostly a success. While more — 55 percent — said they think it will be judged a failure, those numbers were rosier than in September when 59 percent said they felt that way.
Just one in five Democrats and four in 10 independents think the war will be a long-range success, well less than the three-fourths of Republicans who think so.
Overall, only 38 percent think the 2003 invasion was the right decision, including three-fourths of Republicans, a third of independents and one-seventh of Democrats — a negative perspective that has barely shifted all year.
Even so, the slowly improving views about progress raise the question of whether Iraq will give Democrats the slam-dunk political advantage in next year's presidential election that many in the party have long assumed it will.
Democratic voters are still strongly against the war and the party's presidential candidates compete for ways to criticize it. Such a tactic, though, might prove less effective when it is time to appeal to the more moderate voters who will participate in next year's general election.
So far, the public's improved mood has helped Bush — slightly.
Thirty-six percent now approve of the overall job he is doing — up four percentage points from last month, but still a poor showing for a president. Eight in 10 Republicans, three in 10 independents and one in 10 Democrats approve. His highest marks — 42 percent approval — are for handling foreign policy and terrorism.
Congress' approval remains mired at 25 percent — near its January low of 22 percent.
Bush sent 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year, with most focused on reducing violence in and around Baghdad. U.S. forces in the country exceed 160,000, though Pentagon officials have said that figure could decline to 135,000 next summer — about where it was before the troop increase.
Besides the beefed up U.S. presence, the leader of the Mahdi Army militia, Muqtada al-Sadr, has ordered his fighters to temporarily stand down. And thousands of Iraqis, chiefly Sunni Arabs, have become U.S. allies in the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.
As a result, violence has dropped considerably since June and there have been signs that Baghdad is becoming less chaotic. U.S. casualties have fallen from 101 in June to 37 in November, according to an AP count, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the country, says there has been a 60 percent decline in violence over the past half year.
Among Iraqi civilians, the number of deaths from war-related violence have dropped from 1,640 in June to 718 last month, according to the AP.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,009 adults conducted from Dec. 3-5. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
___
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
On the Net: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com
The remaining dumb liberals and Al Qaida supporters are losing support and deeply sad about the truth.
ping
3 things...
1. The military strategy in Iraq is tied to long-term diplomatic strategies for Iraq and the ME region.
2. The military strategy in Iraq is not tied to long-term diplomatic strategies for Iraq and the ME region.
3. The reality is somewhere between 1 and 2.
I sure hope it’s 1 and the success of the surge is only a small part of a much longer objective that can be achieved.
For all his flaws, Bush is showing leadership on this issue—he knows what’s the right thing to do, and he’s doing it, even though the nay-sayers have been piling on him for years. Which is why I’ll never join the backstabber “Republicans” who disrespect him with their “Jorge” crap and other such cowardly bull (even though I disagree on his illegal immigration policy).
Is it just me, or are these “polls” really more like pop quizzes on how well people are paying attention to the MSM?
These are tap polls trying to learn if anyone still watches the MSM
trap polls
The remaining dumb liberals and Al Qaida supporters are losing support and deeply sad about the truth.
The Democrat Majority Press included.
The ultra biased AP is choking on having ti report this at all and is doing all it can to make sure any good news is minimized. Finally check out the stark devide between Republicans and Democrats when asked these questions. In most cases the Republicans are positive on the war and it’s direction by a 3-1 margin while Democrats are negative by a similar or larger margin.
With the libs it isn’t about winning or keeping the country safe, if it in fact ever was, it is instead about “getting” George Bush and discrediting the military and our efforts in the WOT.
Count me among the people who agree with you about President Bush. I don’t understand or agree with the insults, why anyone would want to throw lame personal slams against him is impossible for me to comprehend. The slimy dimocrats and media have that more than handled.
BTTT
Victory cannot be hidden no matter how much liberals and their media try to hide it.
The perspective expressed in the news is, quite simply, that the news is important. And the news seems most important when it is most disasterous or most wonderful. V-J day was wonderful news, and got huge play - but the typical news which is most surprising and makes the biggest change is the bad news. It just naturally is easier to burn a house down than it is to build it.The consequence of that disparity is that whole cities can be built with less journalistic fanfare than accompanies a couple of airline crashes and a couple of warehouse fires. Journalism's claim of its own importance, and of its own objectivity, is its bias. That bias is toward the institution of control of economic activity by unqualified second guessers whom journalists call "objective journalists" or "liberal activists." And whose true name is "socialists."
Democrats, hoping things could still go bad.
What bothers me about the ‘relentless’ unpopularity of the war is a) the media’s role in promoting that unpopularity; and b) the ease with which those who are upset with Bush & Co. can complain about it, but offer no alternative to what might have been done. It’s as if they’re glad HE did it, but don’t want any repercussions to bound back to them. Having it both ways as is liberals’ wont.
One of the polls was 47% to 50%. If two percent change their views next month then are we to believe the liberation of Iraq and the subsequent support for its fledgling government are suddenly a "good idea" again? But they're not a "good idea" now?
Right on!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.