Revisiting Iraq's Salience

The latest Washington Post poll does give some support to those who think the significance of the Iraq issue is in decline. Still, it's pretty scant support. This poll still has Iraq essentially tied with "economy/jobs" as the most important issue in the public's mind. I think what we see here is that if the economy keeps getting worse, that really might push Iraq off the front burner.

Still, according to the Post Iraq has way more salience as an issue than does immigration, even though the press have been pestering candidates with non-stop immigration questions and downplaying the war.

Meanwhile, re-reading Beinart and Brooks I think I have a clearer sense of what they're trying to do. Both peg the declining fortunes of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (though in her case, I'm not really convinced her fortunes actually are declining) to this alleged decline in public concern about Iraq. One might more parsimoniously attribute the declining fortunes of each party's most hawkish candidate to either coincidence or else to the declining public appeal of hawkish policies, but that wouldn't do. Instead, the hawks suffer because people don't care as much about national security. Because caring about national security is identical to being hawkish. Very Serious Stuff.

Comments

They are just trying to make the war go away. This has nothing to do with the declining fortunes of Giuliani--Sex on the City has made people aware of his adulterous ways. And he's looking a little nutty.

Clinton's decline is no more real than her inevitability. The bouncing around of national poll numbers is meaningless at this point, as are all Iowa polls. What happens in Iowa will have more impact on NH than anything else, and what happens in Iowa is completely up in the air.

And I still say that the Republicans most fear Edwards. Not that it matters all that much, because voters are going to vote on 1) Iraq, 2) the recession 3) health care. And the republicans are losing, big time, on all three issues.

Posted by jayackroyd | December 12, 2007 9:05 AM

The two issues are related. The abject incompetence of the Republicans in Iraq reflects on their economic performance and vice versa.

The public has long since realized that both policies are being driven by self-deception and wishful thinking.

Clinton and Obama should make the links more exlicit 'They didn't greet us with flowers in Iraq and the Tax Fairy didn't let us reduce taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. Were these faith based initiatives cynical lies, wishful thinking or both?'

Posted by PHB | December 12, 2007 9:12 AM

Dude, you may think people are seeing these tiffs, but really, we're not. 'Struth. Please use a different graphic format.

Posted by BruceR | December 12, 2007 9:30 AM

Bruce is right. I've tried it in IE and Firefox - neither show the graphic.

Posted by SDM | December 12, 2007 9:52 AM

As the economy continues to deteriorate it will be mentioned as a key issue by more of the public. But this won't make Iraq less of an issue because the hundreds of billions being spent there, to no obvious benefit of the American population will become more of an issue. A deteriorating economy is in no way good news for the hawks on either side.

Posted by NYT | December 12, 2007 10:05 AM

If you handed Brooks or Beinart a poll in which Americans were asked what the most important things in their lives are, no doubt these two whiz kids would point out that ‘the poll’s results show that Americans don’t care about food, water, shelter, and social interactions as much as they care about the economy, health care, and moral values.’

At this point, Iraq is still important but most people have made up their minds as to the legitimacy, legality, and likelihood of success of the occupation. If we have made up our minds, and we are adequately aware of the candidates’ positions on the subject, then it only follows that we will list other issues as the 'most important of the day' and ask candidates about those issues when given an opportunity to do so.

Posted by tinisoli | December 12, 2007 10:15 AM

Yeah! Down with tiffs!

Also, I think you need to update the Ezra link in your blogroll. Just sayin.

Posted by NCProsecutor | December 12, 2007 10:18 AM

tinisoli nails it. And, what kind of metrics are these? "Concerned about Iraq" could mean a lot of things.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 12, 2007 10:22 AM

Could you just call Beinart what he is, a war-mongering hack? I know you might run into some of these people in DC and that might be awkward, but I personally find a little name-calling (if it's accurate) refreshing. Just saying.

Posted by scott | December 12, 2007 10:34 AM

Yup, same here - no Tiffs displayed.

Posted by Barry | December 12, 2007 10:36 AM

Patrick Cockburn, one of the London Independent's longtime Iraq correspondents, has an interesting essay on his view of recent "surge" related commentary and how it fits in context. (Excerpt, follow links for full article.)

Patrick Cockburn: Only one thing unites Iraq: hatred of the US

The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies
Published: 11 December 2007

As British forces come to the end of their role in Iraq, what sort of country do they leave behind? Has the United States turned the tide in Baghdad? Does the fall in violence mean that the country is stabilising after more than four years of war? Or are we seeing only a temporary pause in the fighting?

American commentators are generally making the same mistake that they have made since the invasion of Iraq was first contemplated five years ago. They look at Iraq in over-simple terms and exaggerate the extent to which the US is making the political weather and is in control of events there.

The US is the most powerful single force in Iraq but by no means the only one. The shape of Iraqi politics has changed over the past year, though for reasons that have little to do with "the surge" – the 30,000 US troop reinforcements – and much to do with the battle for supremacy between the Sunni and Shia Muslim communities.

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq turned against al Qa'ida partly because it tried to monopolise power but primarily because it brought their community close to catastrophe. The Sunni war against US occupation had gone surprisingly well for them since it began in 2003. It was a second war, the one against the Shia majority led by al-Qa'ida, which the Sunni were losing, with disastrous results for themselves. "The Sunni people now think they cannot fight two wars – against the occupation and the government – at the same time," a Sunni friend in Baghdad told me last week. "We must be more realistic and accept the occupation for the moment."

This is why much of the non-al-Qa'ida Sunni insurgency has effectively changed sides. An important reason why al-Qa'ida has lost ground so swiftly is a split within its own ranks. The US military – the State Department has been very much marginalised in decision-making in Baghdad – does not want to emphasise that many of the Sunni fighters now on the US payroll, who are misleadingly called "concerned citizens", until recently belonged to al Qa'ida and have the blood of a great many Iraqi civilians and American soldiers on their hands...

...The creation of a US-backed Sunni militia both strengthens and weakens the Iraqi government. It is strengthened in so far as the Sunni insurrection is less effective and weakened because it does not control this new force.

If the Sunni guerrillas were one source of violence in 2006 the other was the Mehdi Army, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist cleric. This has been stood down because he wants to purge it of elements he does not control, and wishes to avoid a military confrontation with his rivals within the Shia community if they are backed by the US army. But the Mehdi Army would certainly fight if the Shia community came under attack or the Americans pressured it too hard.

American politicians continually throw up their hands in disgust that Iraqis cannot reconcile or agree on how to share power. But equally destabilising is the presence of a large US army in Iraq and the uncertainty about what role the US will play in future. However much Iraqis may fight among themselves, a central political fact in Iraq remains the unpopularity of the US-led occupation outside Kurdistan. This has grown year by year since the fall of Saddam Hussein. A detailed opinion poll carried out by ABC News, BBC and NTV of Japan in August found that 57 per cent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces are acceptable.

Nothing is resolved in Iraq. Power is wholly fragmented. The Americans will discover, as the British learned to their cost in Basra, that they have few permanent allies in Iraq. It has become a land of warlords in which fragile ceasefires might last for months and might equally collapse tomorrow.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3241904.ece

On the other hand, the British government indicates a different direction, somewhat, for Afghanistan. Depending on the point of view, this is either a substantial shift in policy, or a minor policy evolution intended to appear as a stronger shift away from the Blair / Bush Jr. approaches.

Brown: 'It's time to talk to the Taliban'
Today, the Prime Minister will announce a major shift in strategy on Afghanistan. Could it mark the beginning of the end of a bloody six-year war? Or is it just spin?
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 12 December 2007

As the deadliest year in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion in 2001 comes to a close, Gordon Brown is ready to talk to the Taliban in a major shift in strategy that is likely to cause consternation among hardliners in the White House.

Six years after British troops were first deployed to oust the Taliban regime, the Prime Minister believes the time has come to open a dialogue in the hope of moving from military action to consensus-building among the tribal leaders. Since 1 January, more than 6,200 people have been killed in violence related to the insurgency, including 40 British soldiers. In total, 86 British troops have died. The latest casualty was Sergeant Lee Johnson, whose vehicle hit a mine before the fall of Taliban-held town of Musa Qala.

The Cabinet yesterday approved a three-pronged plan that Mr Brown will outline for security to be provided by Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) and the Afghan national army, followed by economic and political development in Afghanistan.

But the intention to engage Taliban leaders in a constructive dialogue, which Mr Brown will make clear in a parliamentary statement today, will be by far the most controversial element of the plan. A senior Downing Street source confirmed the move last night and one Brown aide who accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Kabul, said: "We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them? Can we be talking to them?"...

...The dialogue strategy is the latest attempt by Mr Brown to distance himself from the military legacy of the Blair era and the hardline instincts of President George Bush. At the weekend, the Prime Minister made a surprise visit to Basra in southern Iraq and announced that the British handover of control of the region to local Iraqi forces would be completed within two weeks. British soldiers' combat role will then cease, as they move to an "overwatch" role, and retreat to Basra Air Station...

...Conservatives reacted with scepticism to the idea of talking to the Taliban. Gerald Howarth, a Tory defence spokesman, said: "Sometimes you do have to talk with the enemy, but Gordon Brown has got to be careful he is not placing too much emphasis on doing a deal with people who are unwilling or unable to deliver."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article3244696.ece

Posted by El Cid | December 12, 2007 10:50 AM

This poll still has Iraq essentially tied with "economy/jobs" as the most important issue in the public's mind. I think what we see here is that if the economy keeps getting worse, that really might push Iraq off the front burner.

Or maybe turn up the heat on the burner. If the economy moves into recession, don't you think a lot of Americans are going to want to punish those most responsible for flushing a trillion+ dollars down the toilet and saddling us with burdensome debt?

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 12, 2007 11:24 AM

The Iraq War has declined in importance only because of the stalemate in Washington. Most people are resigned to there being no change of course between now and Jan 2009. That hardly means it won't be a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Posted by kth | December 12, 2007 11:30 AM

I agree with those commenters who think Iraq and the economy are entangled. We know that Bush, next year, will be proposing the usual supplementals, which means another 200 billion to Iraq, whilst vetoing S-Chip and making other unpopular cuts. And in the background, there's the Fed, doing its best to socialize the risks of the wealthiest high fliers. Remember that the decisive turn in sentiment against continuing in Vietnam coincided with the Nixon recessions. Nixon, at least, could point to other foreign policy successes - notably, China and detente. But the Republicans were so clobbered in congress that the most liberal congress of the 20th century was probably the Democratic dominated congress of 72-76.

Of course, today's GOP has a secret weapon in today's feckless democratic leadership, which has bought into the conservative consultant world view. In that worldview, David Broder represents the calm centerpoint of American popular opinion. In other words, staying the course in Iraq and reforming social security are the two most ardent desires of the American people. And, of course, Bush is one of the most popular presidents in history - still given a solid 65 percent good to excellent job rating by the op ed-ers at the Washington Post. The D.C. imprisonment of the Dem mindset might still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by roger | December 12, 2007 11:38 AM

i can't see tiffs, either.
Here's the image, though.

Posted by Chris_ | December 12, 2007 1:16 PM

someone should tell matt to at least glance over his comments. this keeps happening: he puts up a graphic, it isn't visible to anyone but him, people talk about it in the comments, but our host doesn't ever notice and fix it.

it's really annoying. not only because of the missing graphic, but also because it seems that matthew isn't interested in feedback.

maybe i'm reading too much into this.

Posted by upyernoz | December 12, 2007 1:21 PM

"We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them? Can we be talking to them?"

If you don't know who or why you're fighting, I'd say you bloody well need to talk to them.

That it takes six years for these morons to figure that out pretty well demonstrates why they shouldn't be in power.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 9:28 PM

"it seems that matthew isn't interested in feedback."

You must be new here.

Matt learned this over at TPM where nobody but M.J. Rosenberg and Larry Johnson EVER bother to respond to comments or presumably even read them.

Matt wants to be among the elite who pass down opinions from above to the hoi polloi.

Unfortunately his typos and bad grammer and stupid stuff like these graphics get in the way of anybody taking him seriously.

Not to mention his inability to reason about a lot of things.

His ability to roll over when you throw him a bone, however, is impeccable. He's definitely Washington Post material.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 12, 2007 9:33 PM