When the new winning strategy was instituted in Iraq last year it had many effects. Primarily it turned al-Qaeda in Iraq on its heels and helped to foster a growing relationship between the Sunnis and the Shia. It quieted that country down to allow moving forward on infrastructure improvements and the political landscape. That quieting of the country also forced the MSM to stop drumming up support for the Cut n Run crowd because there is only so many ways to spin a story when there is nothing to report. When the MSM stopped spinning, miraculously the public started to get some confidence that yes, we can win this thing:
American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.
According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.
The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.
The Politico believes this new development could help the Republicans:
The uptick in public support is a promising sign for Republican candidates who have been bludgeoned over the Bush administration’s war policies. But no candidate stands to gain more than McCain.
“How could Democrats possibly hand McCain a better issue than to let him run on his record of advocating a robust U.S. presence in Iraq with all the positive battlefield news that is filtering out of that country?” asked Michael O’Hanlon, a national security adviser at the Brookings Institution who has been at the center of the Iraq debate since the war’s outset.
“Thinking about where we were at the time of the congressional elections, it’s ironic that the Iraq issue could actually be the one that most favors the Republican and most other issues — including most foreign policy issues — could most favor the Democrats,” O’Hanlon added. “Yet Democrats keep wanting to fight the Iraq debate.”
Ed Morrissey noticed that the Democrats already have this figured out as evidenced by their passing of the recent Iraq appropriations bill with nary a peep of protest.
It’s no coincidence that it’s the first time in two years they haven’t tried to hold it hostage for a retreat.
It’s amazing what can happen when the constant negative drumbeat is turned down huh? Outlooks improve and support goes up.
Here is the rub tho. The MSM loves themselves some Obama. Obama wants to run from Iraq. So does anyone really believe the volume level of negativity will not be forced onto the front pages as the general approaches? As Jules Crittenden describes it, it’s the “yeah but” syndrome:
What Kuhn doesn’t note is that over the past week, with several violent incidents, the “Yeah, But” narrative is being fired up again. Yeah, violence is still way down. But despite the military’s insistence of dramatic progress, some bombs just went off. High successful military campaigns and the turning of the Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda took months to gain any recognition. Al-Qaeda, by all accounts still very much on the ropes, gets off a handful of attacks, and the terrorism amplifier kicks in:
AP: Iraqis Fear Return to Violent Days. If you’ve been following the AP, you know that each bomb blast in recent weeks has been accompanied by lengthy listings of incidents and several paragraphs of military insistence that violence remains anywhere from 60 percent or more below last year
I predict we will see more of the “yeah buts” in the months ahead as the general gets closer. Obama supporters want us out of Iraq…consequences be damned. He can’t use that talking point if Iraq is going swimmingly so something has to give.
The latest yeah but is this one from WaPo upset that people don’t know exactly how many soldiers have died.
I’m telling ya, they have to find something to spin….and they will find something.
See author page
The last time the public felt this good about Iraq was in the summer of 2006, just before the Republicans were swept out of Congress.
But I think that 2008 will be more decided on the economy, and most Americans are not optimistic about that sector of their lives.
You’re right John, but I wonder how the division in the Democratic Party will play out especially with Clinton/Obama both promising to continue the war. Will that division over Florida/MI, over superdelegates choosing the nominee, over the mudslinging, over the racism, and more…will that drive 1/2 the party to apathy and stay home rather than tow the party line? Will it bring crossovers to the mainstream (if not liberal) McCain? And if Clinton/Obama continue their promise to end the war in the same vein as to appease the DNC base, then how’s that gonna help in a general where 53% see success rather than defeat; ie advocating an unconditional retreat in the face of the enemy while the nation sees success as possible, and doing so in the face of a man who epitomizes commander-in-chief…that’s a hard sell.
I submit that the DNC division is going to hurt, and it’s only gonna take a little hurt to turn the election from 53:47 to 47:53.
Once again, for the Republicans to win, Al Qaeda must lose. For the Democrats to win, it must win. And for some strange reason McCain choses to repudiate Steve Kings’ comments about Obama?
Scott, I apologize for my ingnorance, but when did Obamamama say he’d continue the war? I’ve heard him say he’ll pull the troops out, reach out to Iran, etc.
No need to apologize. He and Sen Clinton and Sen Edwards had a debate with Gov Richardson. In it, they were pressed yet again to detail their plan for Iraq (not an unwarranted request at all given the flat out lie that Democrats ran to power on in 2006; the so-called “New Direction in Iraq” plan that never existed). Anyway, Sen Obama said he’d keep troops in Iraq until 2013 depending on conditions on the ground. That last part, “conditions on the ground” is the caveat that every Presidential candidate has used in describing their Iraq plans.
However, recently, one of Sen Obama’s advisors called Sen Clinton “a monster” and was forced to quit as a result. She then told the BBC that the Obama campaign has no plan at all for Iraq because it was too hard for them to see a year in the future; no plan at all, nothing, nada, zip.
I can give quotes, dates, and links if you’d like. 🙂
As John Ryan points out, phony “we can’t win” defeatism in Iraq didn’t work. Democrats will now engage in phony defeatism of the economy.
Are they ever optimistic about anything?
http://news.aol.com/?feature=20080313103109990001
Of course one item in the survey is that American awareness of what is happening in Iraq is down. I guess we now have the Conservative dream: The less Americans know, the more Conservatives like it.
Actually, its conservatives who want MORE coverage of the good things in Iraq. After all, “conservatives” want success in Iraq.
Steve,
MILBLOGS which are overwhelmingly conservative, have been and are still doing the job the MSN refuses to do and getting the truth out. Just because it is not what you or the left wants to hear and not as flashy as Hollywood, is not my problem.
As for the “dreams”, you are projecting the left onto conservatives again.
So far Steve, it looks like only you in this blog is unaware of what is going on in Iraq.
If it is the conservatives who want Americans to know less, then why are the extreme biased Democrats in the news media reporting less on Iraq and more on the disfunctioned families of Pop Stars?
Of course we’re winning. We have the best damn military in the world! Now, if we could just keep the damn polititions the hell out of military matters we could get our guys and gals home a whole lot sooner.