|
From the Public Opinion Strategies Poll released today.
As I see it, here are the key data points and they, in their own way, show the cunning of the Murtha slow bleed strategy.
Question #5 And, which of the following would do most to hurt America's reputation as a world power...
To pull our troops out of Iraq immediately 59%
or
To leave our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to restore order 35%
Question #9 I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
57% Agree
41% Disagree
Question #12 Victory in Iraq, that is creating a young but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home, is no longer possible for the U.S.
53% Disagree
43% Agree
Question #15 I don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.
25% Agree
74% Disagree
Neil Newhouse, despite botching KS-3 a few years back, is on the right track to asking the correct questions.
If I had the cross tabs, I could tell for certain what all of this means, but I will hazard an educated guess anyway.
Question #15 is the one that separates the Liberals from everyone else.
A whopping 25% support the Hillary/Murtha/Pelosi/Edwards/Obama position.
I bet a good deal of those 25% vote in Democrat primaries.
Through this we see the reasoning behind the slow bleed strategy.
Because as #12 shows us, a majority still believe the war can be won and an even larger majority in #9 think the mission should be carried out.
And if the mission is aborted, we see in #5 that 59% think it will be a negative for the United States.
Which brings us back to the last time I put my political consultant hat on.
One of the key points Lawrence Haas brought up in his discussion of the electoral Post Vietnam Syndrome was how quickly the voting public turned against the Carter over the declining stature of the U.S.
Therefore, it is incumbent on any Congressional opponent of the war who wants to win future elections to move slowly, cautiously, and to cover his tracks lest he be blamed.
Thus we see how incredibly poll tested the slow bleed strategy is.
The American public is willing to agree that the troops should have time home the front, be trained properly, have the best equipment and should not have to fight if the Iraqis themselves are unwilling to fight.
Individually, each proposal sounds pretty good.
Who could object to a one-year layoff from deployments? Or a maximum of two or three deployments? That would be supporting the troops, right?
Who could object to more training and more equipment? That would be supporting the troops, right?
And why should we fight if the Iraqis are not willing to?
The Murtha strategy, or the strategy of his puppet masters, is politically brilliant--a series of small moves that will hamstring the war; a series of small moves, acceptable to the American public, that will guarantee the fight cannot continue or be won.
The Democrats, by taking the anti-war position, must satisfy their base, lest what happened to the Republicans in 2006 happen to them.
But, they cannot anger the masses with an outright withdrawal and the resolution is not enough to satisfy the 24% that makes up their base of donors and workers.
And so Murtha speaks to them, to mollify them.
But by doing so, he tips his hand and shows the Victory Caucus the way.
Just as the AFL-CIO Gingrich/medicare "wither on the vine" ad was effective for saving Clinton, a Murtha slow bleed ad will stanch the flow.
A debate that exposes Murtha's series of small moves for what they really are, a debate that makes the choice between defeat or victory in Iraq will come down on the side of victory.
Thus I stand by original bumper sticker slogan:
Support The troops, Let Them Win.
(updated with a few grammer corrections and additional material)
Support independent filmmaking from Iraq: BUY A DVD
|
