Poll Finds Many Fear Bush Has No Clear Plan for Iraq

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-iraqpoll21nov21,1,7443843.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Americans of every stripe are worried that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could turn into a quagmire, and most are unconvinced that President Bush has a clear plan to handle the problem, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.

But voters' concerns about the war do not necessarily translate into support for Bush's Democratic rivals in the 2004 presidential campaign, the poll found. Despite their misgivings, a narrow majority of respondents said they still trust Bush to make the right decisions on Iraq, and a solid majority gave him high marks for his conduct of the war on terrorism.

Overall, most Americans appear deeply unhappy about Iraq and uncertain that Bush's strategy is succeeding -- but they also are willing to give him more time to try.

"My biggest fear is: Is this thing going to end up being like Vietnam?" said Alan Geleske, 50, of Michigan City, Ind., one of 1,345 adults questioned in the nationwide poll. "It doesn't seem like there are any clear-cut objectives ... and the casualty list is growing. It's a concern. I have a son and a son-in-law in the Army."

On the other hand, Geleske said, "I haven't seen any Democratic candidate I can get behind ... and I do admire what Bush did when 9/11 occurred." He said he hasn't decided how he will vote next year; "it's too early."

Cowering on Air Force One trying to keep his miserable self out of harm's way, instead of returning right away to D.C.?

"and I do admire what Bush did when 9/11 occurred."

What does he think Bush did that was so worthy of admiration?

It's a total *myth* that he did anything good after (and *especially* before) 9.11.

Even after months of information about how Bush* lied and cheated he still believes Bush* is credible and trustworthy, but he would have believed that Bush* was uncredible and untrustworthy if only a Democratic politician had said so on 9/12/2001.

BTW, on 9/11 Bush*'s approval ratings were below 50%. You don't think they got that low because the Dems were talking him up, do you?

Very impressive. Oh, and he declared war against a strategy. Meaning the war will never end and he can have us afraid forever.

After all, who can say the War on Terror is over? Ever?

A President who really loves us would legalize drugs two minutes after taking the oath and destroy the financial underpinning of terror. Of course, he'd be assassinated but it would be a very patriotic thing to do.

Two years ago: "Wur goan gettim! Wur goan smoke 'im out!"

Today: Osama who?

> "and I do admire what Bush did when 9/11 occurred."
>
> What does he think Bush did that was so worthy of admiration?

He said "We were attacked by a bunch of Saudi's who were taking orders from an Afghani jihadist. Therefore, we must attack Iraq!"

Ya gotta admit, Bush certainly capitalized on the opportunity for a powergrab. Some people would consider that admirable, I suppose.

It seems like a lot of voters don't either. But then with all that right wing propaganda which doesn't match reality I can see why people are confused.

are they on??? I guess terrorism only occurs on US soil....Maybe today's bombings in Turkey will make them wake up? Nah... BBC World is the only place to see what actually is going on....

Please, I need a drink....

is the answer to terror. lashing out, striking back... the sheeple believe that iraq had something to do with the events of september 11, 2001. they want blood, and bush gave them blood. it's hard to deal with emotional, polarizing freaks like bushco. it'll be a "long hard slog" as someone once said.

i think that we have one advantage... Democrats all over the nation want their revenge for the false inauguration of an unelected fraud, and they want their revenge for the idiocy that led to the events of september 11, 2001, and they want their revenge for the endless string of coverups, lies, stonewallling, and deception that's been forced down their throats for 3 years. revenge can be good, when it's just. and it will be just. very just.

> Maybe today's bombings in Turkey will make them wake up?

Sadly, the only turkey most Americans are taking note of is the ones they're planning to put in their shopping cart this weekend for next Thursday.

Why would you expect American television media to pay any attention to some event in some faraway country? There are MUCH more important things going on! Dammit, can't you see we're busy watching Michael Jackson being marched out in handcuffs?!

:eyes:

In the classical military strategy of Sun Tzu, strategy is defined as assessing your enemy's strength and weaknesses, and applying your strength to his weakness whenever possible. The outlines it creates are in the modern sense, tactical considerations. However in fairness to the classical strategists, there were other philosophical texts that created a culture that added a more strategic point of view in military affairs. The modern military strategy as created by Carl von Clausewitz, creates a new view of military strategy where military conflict is viewed as an extension of policy by other means. The goal of any policy of course is to an end-state that a particular government wants.

An example is that Vietnam failed because of two reasons: one the whole premise by which the war was to be fought was flawed, and two, there was non-existent planning as to what the end-state should be. The idea of the "end-state" is another way of saying of how a government wants another society to exist.

Niccolo Machiavelli expands on this idea, or to be more accurate, Clausewitz expanded on Machiavelli since he came before. Machiavelli says that when a state conquers another, there is a typical process by which the people can become accustomed to their new ruler. That process can be sped up when the people of the two nations share the same language and have a similar culture, or when they are next to one another. In the case of Vietnam and now Afghanistan and Iraq, we are not doing a very good job of building cultural bridges that will make for a smooth transition. Our inability to plan for an end-state in Vietnam that could build cultural ties ended up developing a strong disenfranchisment with the Vietnamese people. The same kind of disenfranchisment is also happening in Iraq.

Not once have we heard Bush talk about the humanitarian effort, about showing mercy and compassion to our enemies, or finding out what's needed to win the hearts and minds of not only Iraqis, but also arab muslims. America is well known for two areas of strength, our moral strength and our military strength. Unfortunately our relying too heavily on our military strength erodes our moral strength. The initial action of invading Iraq is viewed by the majority of the world, and of Iraqis, as being illegitimate. However we could've restored our legitimacy by winning the hearts and minds of people by helping them build their nation again, by showing mercy and compassion so that our enemies will think twice about attacking us. Instead Bush is relying even more heavily on military strength. What we have now can best be summed up by Hannibal's address to the Romans, "you have made a desert and now you call this peace."

I know that I don't stand alone when I say that I don't think Bush is the right person to restore our legitimacy. His personal style is too authoritarian and too heavily reliant on using bombs as a tool for persuasion. Hopefully the next Democratic president will have a better diplomatic policy and will be able to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis because that's the only way that America can withdraw from Iraq gracefully and save face. Otherwise, it will be a long struggle where we'll end up destroying them or suffer a major blow to our national identity.

:hi:

Bush's lack of understanding isn't limited to just the points you mentioned. He really doesn't know how to steer the boat. The Republicans claimed that he'd have good people around him, but he doesn't. He's surrounded himself with people who encourage his stupidity and laugh at his jokes anyhow. Sun Tzu? Clausewitz? Hannibal? The people in the Bush White House are nearly as clueless as he is.

Ugh! How much I despise Republicans for doing this to our country.

but refuses to steer....

No plan for peace? what else is new

His solution to everything is a wealthy-fare taxcut. I'm still waiting for him to announce taxcuts for the Iraqi's.

Meanwhile, down the road - with no plan except to cut and run - the outcome would be for Iraq to disintergrate into civil war between the various religious/ethnic groups and for Saddam to return

The Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanistan - so don't be surprised if they return too

Shame Bush and the rest of his chickenhawk buddies missed their chance to serve in Nam...maybe they'd be a lot less macho today (making up for lost time?) in their approach to world terror. Or maybe there is just too much money and power to be made by these uber-criminals by plunging the world into endless war.

I often wonder if we had carpet bombed VietNam with $20.00 bills in the mid 60's if we might have jump started capitalism and avoided the whole terrible waste of American blood shed over there.

Actually, Bush and his PNAC chickenhawks have hurt this nation by commiting us to an unwinnable war. Sure we can kick any nation's ass in a traditional war with our military technology. But we've bogged ourselves into a no-win war of occupation that drains our Treasury and ruins our international reputation...for what purpose?

Clinton understood the limits of military power in the post Cold War world. He used his skills in diplomacy and kept the powder dry....that made us strong. He treated terrorists as criminals and made them smaller and less powerful. Dimson's approach (opposite, of course, from Clinton's) will have precisely different results.

Bush will take this country down, if we don't take him down in 2004.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

His plan is to let Halliburton Oil become the world's largest oil producer, and a few other american corporations create extreme wealth from the war in Iraq.

The only thing that is unclear are his alibis for the war. Everything else is planned to a 'T'.

We hear different stories: Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, Saddam had WMD's, we need to free the Iraqi people, we need to install democracy in Iraq, we need to kill the resistance fighters in Iraq, we need to create a stable Middle East, we need to move American troops out of Saudi Arabia because it was breeding more Al-Qaida recruits, etc etc.

Can you blame Americans for being confused?

Hi, Ectopian :toast: Welcome to the Democratic Underground. May you find a home for your gripes, and many other like-minded individuals! Awesome post, by the way.

There are some people I just don't trust with a blueprint. If there's no plan, at least the dumbasses can bumble around and maybe something will work out by sheer luck. But years of corporate network engineering experience have proven to me that nothing is as dangerous as a plan devised and implimented by morons.

If you're running on the "Iraq sucks but we're stuck" platform of the leading contenders, you're unlikely to capitalize on growing public resentment of this despicable war.

If, however, you step out in front with a bold plan for withdrawal and immediate hand-over to the UN, you can turn the post-invasion blues into votes.

This is merely realpolitik, and we should have no illusions about the higher moral ground - for while the moral argument certainly motivates some of us, it won't sell with highly-propagandized voters. Americans supported the war. They wanted their bloodlust sated. That has been done, and now the price is proving too high and uncomfortable realizations are dawning. Gas prices did not decline sufficiently relative to the cost of life and limb; had gas come cheap, Bush's numbers might be considerably higher right now.

Time to outflank Bush on practical - not moral - terms. Competency and responsibility should be the themes. Make the White House look ill-prepared, disorganized, and over-zealous (not exactly a hard assignment!), and you could have a winner. And not least, Iraq could have Iraq back - as it deserves.

The 'exit strategy' is a matter of great concern, to only to US citizens, but to people from all over theworld.

Could be a nice issue to discuss at theworldvotes.org. Have a look and subscribe to participate in these Internet elections.

I never understood why Johnson and Nixon acted like it was somehow impossible to withdraw from Vietnam. And I don't understand why Bush and his supporters think it's not possible to withdraw from Vietnam.

Want an exit strategy? My exit strategy in a nutshell: Pack up and go home.

How's THAT for an exit strategy?

Attention, Shrubbie! Here's what you do:

(1) Notify the United Nations that we will no longer take casualties--or cause them--in Iraq, and that all handling of Iraq is heretofore an U.N. issue, not a U.S. issue.

(2) Upon issuing that message, follow it directly with another message to all high-ranking officers, with orders to return all troops to their posts, and begin packing to return home. (All property which was brought in by our forces must be gathered and packed for return. All property which was found in Iraq must be left in Iraq.)

(3) As soon as each unit has packed, put them and the equipment on transport planes and ships, and bring 'em home to their familes and friends.

But a simple answer like that is unacceptable. As long as they can maintain the illusion that exiting Iraq is either impossibly complicated, or unacceptably embarassing, they can keep a lot of people fooled pretty much all the time.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The 24/7 repetition of "Bush God, Democrats Baaaa-aad" has worked perfectly, as evidenced by this statement:

"On the other hand, Geleske said, 'I haven't seen any Democratic candidate I can get behind ... and I do admire what Bush did when 9/11 occurred.' "

These are precisely the two points that the Mighty Wurlitzer has been hammering home since 9/11. Congratulations to the ABCCBSNBCCNNFochs hydra on a flawless performance--ya nest a whores!

:argh:
dbt

It's called Operation Hokey-Pokey

"...you put the troops in
...you pull the troops out
...you put the troops in and spin it all around
...you do the hokey-pokey and lie through your teeth..."