The latest WaPo/ABC poll included some unexpected results.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the country split down the middle between those backing Sen. Barack Obama’s 16-month timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and those agreeing with Sen. John McCain’s position that events, not timetables, should dictate when forces come home. […]
On Iraq policy in general, Americans continue to side with Obama and McCain, his Republican rival, in roughly equal numbers, with 47 percent of those polled saying they trust McCain more to handle the war, and 45 percent having more faith in Obama. […]
Americans are divided on which candidate has a plan for success in the region. Exactly half of those polled said they backed Obama’s plan to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. But 49 percent sided with McCain’s position of opposing a specific timetable and letting events dictate when troops should be withdrawn. Among independents, who will be the key voting bloc in November, 53 percent oppose Obama’s timeline.
That’s not quite the expected breakdown, given other recent national polling on Iraq. Americans disapprove of the war, they disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war, they believe the war shouldn’t have been fought, they believe the human and financial costs haven’t been worth it, but asked about withdrawal, they’re split right down the middle?
Less than a month ago, CNN fielded a national poll on Iraq and found that Americans, by a huge margin, want the next president to “remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office.” A Pew Research Center poll, from around the same time, found that Americans prioritize bringing the troops home “as soon as possible,” rather than waiting for Iraq to be “stabilized.” Quinnipiac found that more than two-thirds of the country want the troops withdrawn immediately or within a year.
So, what gives? The problem may have something to do with the wording of the question: “Obama has proposed a timetable to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office. McCain has opposed a specific timetable and said events should dictate when troops are withdrawn. Which approach do you prefer – a timetable or no timetable?”
I think there are a few problems with the question. First, by attaching candidates’ names to the competing policies, partisans are more likely to be swayed. We’d get a better sense of what Americans actually prefer in terms of policy if the question left McCain’s and Obama’s names out of it.
Second, by including language in the question that McCain wants “events [to] dictate when troops are withdrawn,” the poll seems to be poisoning the well a bit. Participants aren’t told that Obama has said he wants to consider facts on the ground when deciding the tactics of his withdrawal strategy, that Iraqi officials have expressed support for a withdrawal timeline, and that McCain’s approach is entirely open-ended. In other words, the summaries of the candidates’ policies are incomplete.
What’s more, as Yglesias argued, the wording of the question also characterizes McCain’s position as the “moderate” one.
The implication here is that McCain is hewing to some kind of agnostic middle ground about troop departures, letting the schedule be dictated by events. In fact, what McCain is hewing to is the goal of a permanent military presence in Iraq, and thus a military and political strategy in Iraq geared toward making a permanent presence possible. Given that such a presence is broadly unpopular in Iraq, and also a specific source of inter-factional tension and also a large incentive for Iran to play a destructive rather than constructive role in Iraq, it’s a strategic objective that makes stability and substantial troop withdrawals essentially impossible for the foreseeable future.
The idea of a 16 month timetable sounds a bit arbitrary because it is a bit arbitrary — why not 15 months or 17 months? But a certain level of arbitrariness is inherent in the idea of setting a fixed schedule. And a fixed schedule for withdrawal is the only context in which it’s possible for US forces to accomplish something constructive during the remaining time, will let us reallocate resources away from this wasteful war, and with some luck will actually reduce the level of internal tensions in Iraq. There’s no choice between setting a timetable and taking a “wait and see” attitude, there’s a choice between putting down a marker (in the real world, more likely negotiated with the Iraqi government than inside a presidential campaign staff) of where the exits lie, and a costly and pointless open-ended engagement.
I think we’ll probably need quite a bit more data before coming to the conclusion that Americans are suddenly skeptical about a withdrawal policy.