Iraq War: Bad read on antiwar sentiment

It's articles like this one from a couple of weeks ago, long on assumptions and short on analysis, that help give people goofy ideas about antiwar movements past and present.

Public divisions remain deep and fixed over war by Liz Marlantes Christian Science Monitor 12/03/04.

Yet so far, American attitudes toward the war appear to have barely budged, suggesting that the same basic divisions that emerged over Iraq during the presidential campaign could in fact hold for some time to come. According to the most recent Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans believe the US did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, while 47 percent think it did - numbers that have hardly moved at all since the beginning of October.

Polls about foreign policy require more analysis than your stock "who will you vote for?" poll, or those on issues that can be followed over decades, like abortion, crime or unemployment.  Conventional analysis of those polls is often pitifully bad.  But on an issue like this, it doesn't tell you much to say that 47% think it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq.  How does that compare attitudes at comparable points in other wars like Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War?  Of the 51% who approve of sending the troops, how many think we've stayed too long already?  Of the 47% who think it was a mistake, how many are saying we need to stay there indefinitely?

And particularly given the jingoism of the last three years, a careful poll (or analysis of a poll) about attitudes toward the war will take into account that people might feel a particular need to sound respectable in their opinion.  This is one of those where it probably takes indirect questions like, "How do you think other people view the war?" to really get at attitudes accurately.

Yet to many experts, the stability of public opinion in recent weeks has been striking - suggesting Americans have hunkered down into two hardened camps, with those opposing the war unlikely to be won over, and those favoring it allowing President Bush a fair amount of leeway in continuing his policies, at least for a while.

This is a strange view.  Support for the war has dropped rapidly.  We also know from the extensive polling around the election that a significant portion of independent voters think of the Iraq War as being somehow a meaningful part of the "war on terrorism" and/or a response to 9/11.  Without looking at breakdowns like voter affiliation, region, families of soldiers, attitudes toward the war if a draft is figured in, it's hard to say what any of this means.  It just seems silly to me to say that "stability" of public opinion on the war has been "striking."  And virtually meaningless.  The attitude of parents with teenage sons would be a far more meaningful measure of how much "stability" there is in support for Bush's War in Iraq.

Certainly, overall support for the war has dropped dramatically since the invasion, falling some 20 or 30 points, according to various surveys. Currently, Dr. Mueller notes, it's roughly comparable to support for the war in Vietnam at the time of the Tet Offensive. But while public opinion on Iraq could grow more negative in coming months, depending on how events unfold, there are also factors holding it up - and differentiating this war from previous foreign incursions. [my emphasis]

Ah, now we get to a comparison with the Vietnam War.  Support for the Iraq War is now "roughly comparable to support for the war in Vietnam at the time of the Tet Offensive."  That would be the Tet Offensive of early 1968, when support for the war took a decisive turn toward doing something to get Americans out.  And it's impossible to tell from the way it's reported whether that was before the Tet Offensive or after.

In many ways, Iraq was the dominant issue in the campaign - with the two candidates sparring repeatedly over the war, and the fact that Bush prevailed serving as something of a mandate to continue his policies there.

The first part is true, that it was the dominant issue in the campaign.  The second (the "mandate") is far  more questionable. 

Bush's victory "bought him a much larger window than Kerry would have had," had he won the election, Professor Feaver says. Had Kerry prevailed, he probably would have faced immediate pressure from antiwar supporters to begin pulling US troops out, even though polls show a slim majority of Americans favor leaving troops in Iraq until a stable government is established.

Actually, Bush won while telling everyone how great things were going there.  It may well turn out that he has less of a "window" than Kerry would have had.  And now we hear that a "slim majority" favors leaving troops in Iraq "until a stable government is established."  Since someone who took Republican claims (and Fox News reporting) at face value might well think that such a point will come with the promised elections at the end of January, this doesn't look like stable support or a "mandate" to me.

One of the biggest differences between Iraq and past wars like Vietnam, however, is that many Americans don't see it as an isolated conflict - but as part of the larger war on terrorism, a connection Bush sought to emphasize throughout the campaign. Polls have consistently shown high public support for Bush's leadership in the war on terror, a factor that may have helped prop up support for him on Iraq as well, though his ratings on that conflict are significantly lower.

Is this serious?  One would think that anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the history of the Vietnam War would know that it was seen as a part of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union and/or the Chinese.  But, apparently, one would be wrong.

According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, Americans approve of Bush's handling of terrorism by a sizable margin, with 59 percent approving and 37 percent disapproving. But the numbers are almost reversed on Iraq, with 40 percent approving and 55 percent disapproving. When asked if Iraq is part of the war on terror, 43 percent of Americans said it was either a major or minor part, while 51 percent said it was not.

Now that we've heard all these conclusions, we finally get some more relevant polling data.  (I'm quoting these in the order of the article.)

So let me get this straight: 55%, that would be significantly more than half the country, 55% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the Iraq War.  And 51% said that the Iraq War was no part of the war on terror, while 43% said it was "either a major or minor part."  To even get the 43% figure, you have to include an unspecified number who said the Iraq War was only a minor part of the so-called war on terror.  The other 6% presumably had no opinion on that connection, so it's safe to say that they didn't express any belief in Iraq as part of the war on terror, either.

You know, this just really does not sound like stable support or a mandate to me!

Marlantes concludes:

Americans also regard the war on terror as a long-term struggle, which may foster greater patience for the situation in Iraq as well.

Well, except for the 51% that already see the Iraq War as not being part of the war on terror.  And the 6% who expressed no opinion at all on that connection.  And whatever portion of the 43% who said that the Iraq War was only a "minor" part of the war on terror.  Other than that,what - 60%-to-70% of the population? - that should produce a lot of patience for the Iraq War.

Again, the headline on this article is, "Public division remain deep and fixed over war."  How even a headline-writer managed to conclude even from the limited data presented in the article that it showed public opinion "fixed" over the Iraq War is beyond me.