War in Iraq: Wisdom of Crowds
As we approach the September reports on Iraq, the public debate over our military presence there has once again intensified. Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are ratcheting up the rhetoric about the best course of action, with the president using a pit stop in Iraq as a backdrop for his latest remarks. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats on the Hill are engaged in heated discussions -- both within and between their caucuses. Adding to the heat, several third party groups have begun advertising efforts to try and push elected officials one way or the other.
As the Beltway ramps up the debate, I believe it is a good and appropriate time to reflect on the opinions of the people those in our nation's capital serve -- the American public -- and specifically what they believe is the right direction in Iraq. I write this because I am a big believer in the "wisdom of crowds," which is to say that I put just more trust in the collective opinion of 300 million decent, honest and caring Americans than in the elites living in Washington, DC.
This is not to say politics and polls should determine substantive public policy especially regarding a war, but politics and polls should also not be used to thwart the will of the citizens of this country.
Having been a rather keen observer of the American public for more than 20 years and having helped elect and re-elect folks from the State House to the White House I wanted to share with you an analysis of where the public currently stands on the war in Iraq. I share these thoughts as neither a Republican nor a Democrat. While I did serve as Chief Strategist for President Bush in the 2004 campaign, I now consider myself an independent and feel it is a good time to offer what I hope you will find is a measured, reflective and objective analysis of where Democrats and Independents and a large portion of Republican voters stand on the Iraq war today.
1. In the public's mind, the Iraq War was a mistake, and continuing the status quo is simply continuing on with a mistake. As a result, most Americans now view the situation in Iraq as a "rearview" mirror issue -- meaning that the public believes it is time to focus on the process of ending our involvement and getting out quickly. They see American troops as targets in a place we aren't wanted, and they desire a plan which achieves responsible withdrawal in the quickest and safest way.
2. The public does not see withdrawal from Iraq as a signal America doesn't support the troops. In fact, the public sees removing the troops from harm's way and having them in a place where the mission is supported, welcomed and understood as the most proper way to support our troops.
3. The public is waiting for leaders from both political parties to stand up to the president and say enough is enough. They would like this situation resolved -- and soon -- and there is no other solution acceptable to them other than bringing the troops home. The public will support leaders who would use funding decisions as a way to encourage and push the president to resolve this situation quickly.
4. The war in Iraq is now seen exclusively as a foreign policy concern, and the American public no longer supports the initiative as part of national security. This is in stark contrast to the war's beginning -- at inception, the public perceived it as directly related to fighting terrorism, and thus it was seen as a domestic policy issue connected to homeland security. Not surprisingly, the public gave it broad support. Today, this is no longer the case -- the dynamic has changed and most of the public sees no "positive" relationship between the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
I hope this analysis helps bolster the leaders who are ready to stand up for the troops and for the vast majority of Americans in this country. Not only is truth on those leaders' side, but politics is as well. It is my opinion that the best leaders are those who trust the will of the public, even if that means changing direction or admitting a mistake. This is true leadership and the kind of leadership our nation has always desired.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If Bush hadn't had been a vacationing frat-boy, drunk on Daddy's success at getting him appointed to the White House we wouldn't have been in any of these many messes;
Iraq
the crappy Economy
Housing foreclosures
GOP Perverts in Public Restrooms
the destruction of New Orleans
the Scandals
etc;
I like the simplicity of the high school style scandals of Bill Clinton's days.
Republicans are always over their heads.
Mr. Dowd is completely right. Great work.
It bugs me to have this issue framed as stay vs. leave. The people who are suffering the most from our idiotic policies are the Iraqis themselves, and we will have to find a way to put this hornets' nest down gently.
Some more thoughts on the subject:
http://onlysayin.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-iraqi-fiasco-is-big-relief.html
Man--absoutely right on all points---why can't we get that kind of clear headed, dispassionate sort of thinking and speaking out of most of the talking heads, the media and everyone else??
I am going to print this out--memorize every bit of it and use that when I argue about the war with those who still, somehow, thiks things are just great.
If I may use a bathroom analogy here. It seems that Bush's intransigence on changing his Iraq policy is akin to Sen. Craig's bathroom exploitations but in a different sort of way. In Craig's case, as he was sitting on the toilet with his characteristic "wide stance", playing footsie with his next stall's neighbor, Bush was taking a crap on the mens room floor without any intent or effort to clean up his own mess. Instead, he refuses to deal with his mess, opting instead to let others (the Democrats) clean up after him.
Come on...just 'cause it ain't perfect doesn't mean it isn't a good war.
It's worse than too bad that we've ended up with such an arrogant dolt at a time when we need a communicative, sensible leader who at least knows the difference between Austria and Australia. He has left such a mess (and who knows what else he will do in the time he has left) that, as Sen. Joe Biden has said, his successor will have no margin for error.
AL QAEDA MATH = CIVIL WAR --- AL QAEDA'S NUMBERS ARE ONLY 3% TO 5% OF THE TOTAL SUNNI INSURGENCY!
Since Bush has repeatedly claimed we’re in Iraq to fight "Al Qaeda", the terrorists responsible for 9/11, why do we need 160,000 American soldiers to thwart a fighting force estimated to be no more than 3,000 at best?
Is "Al Qaeda's" fighting force of no more than 3000 so much better organized, armed and equipped that they've been able to successfully fend off 160,000 American soldiers after 4.5 years?
Is "Al Qaeda's" fighting force of no more than 3000 solely responsible for the nearly 4000 “American” deaths thus far?
How many “Americans” were killed by “Sunnis” or “Shiites” or “Kurds”? How many “Al Qaeda” fighters have been killed by “American” troops or by “Sunnis” or “Shiites” or “Kurds”?
Do dead “Al Qaeda” fighters immediately return to life to form an inexhaustible number of living dead fighters for “Americans”, “Sunnis”, “Shiites” and “Kurds” to kill again and again?
Are “Al Qaeda” fighters solely responsible for the killing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?
“Al Qaeda” isn’t the reason for the killing, destruction and chaos in Iraq. “George W. Bush” is! His dishonest motives, his incompetent planning, his irresponsible cronyism, his arming of sectarian, political and criminal factions, his enabling of ethnic cleansing and civil war, his ignorance, arrogance and immorality have resulted in a level of destruction and death that he is soley responsible for. Everything he has done in Iraq has been based on lies for reasons of political expediency. Intentionally or not, he is a mass-murderer.
George W. Bush is relying on the same math in Iraq that Karl Rove used when he guaranteed Republicans would hold their majorities in the House and Senate before the 2006 elections?
"[I]t is estimated that foreigners make up at least 70 percent of al Qaeda's 1,000 to several thousand fighters. Other estimates suggest al Qaeda's numbers around 850, about 3 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
Unless the oil treaty with the US is not signed
we shall be there forever regardless if a DEM
takes over. Don't be fooled we have but one party.
Very astute analysis. What is really curious is that many of the Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning with a platform to continue Bush's Mideast policies WHICH IN EFFECT A CONTINUATION OF A BUSH PRESIDENCY which is a failed presidency and what Bush is striving for. This is simply unacceptable.
I wonder how Bush would have handled the aftermath of the "Bay of Pigs" had it happened on his watch.
Not as well as JFK, me thinks.
If you look a little deeper, there is another aspect to the war that the American public is not yet dealing with. The Iraqis are in danger of losing control of their oil fields to the occupation, and they know it. They can't come out and directly express that concern while they are under occupation, but it is below the surface and it influences everything. I would like to hear an honest politican express the concern, how can Iraq protect their oil fields from the invaders? Once you come up with a solution, the rest will start to fall into place. As long as the question is suppressed, we are doomed to get nowhere.
You worked for George Bush in 2004, do you think for one mintute that he gives a tinkers dam about what the people in this country want?? The war was a mistake from the start. However Bush will never end it unless he is forced to by impeachment.
What a thoughtful, concise wrap-up of what most of us here at this site have been saying for at least a couple of years now.
Bring them home now. The nation wants it. The world applauds it.
But does Bush want it? No. He needs this war because without it, he's nothing.
Anyone that agrees with this article should vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. He has been consistently against this war and has often spoken out against it.
www.ronpaul2008.com
It's good Ron Paul is against the war, but his social policies philosophy would never allow me to vote for him.
So has Kucinich, and I like Kucinich a whole lot better.
Vote out all Republicans.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
