Outside editorial: The 54 percent who want troops back ASAP are right
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported this week that Americans are more upbeat about the war in Iraq than at any time in the last 14 months. Forty-eight percent of the 1,399 adults polled during Thanksgiving week said they believed the war was going "well" or "fairly well." That's an increase of 18 percentage points from February.
Sound off on the important issues at
Good news for President George W. Bush? Well, not so much. Only 30 percent of those polled approved of the way he's doing his job, somewhat fewer than in February.
What happened? As news from Iraq improved with the promising results of the American troop surge and greater emphasis on counter-insurgency tactics, the economic news got worse. The percentage of Americans who view Iraq as the most important problem facing the nation dropped from 42 percent in January to 32 percent this month. Meanwhile, the number of those who said the economy was the nation's most serious problem almost tripled from the January poll.
And even though more Americans now believe the war in Iraq is going well, the number of those wanting to bring U.S. troops home as soon as possible remained remarkably consistent. In January, 53 percent wanted the troops home ASAP. This month, the number was 54 percent.
Bush is not a man given to second thoughts - during his 2004 re-election campaign, he had difficulty thinking of anything he would have done differently in his first term. But sometimes at 9 or 9:30 in the evening, as he drifts off to sleep, he must wonder what might have happened in Iraq if he'd listened in 2003 to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik K. Shinseki and sent several hundred thousand American troops there from the beginning.
The troop surge that began in January brought the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 180,000. Combined with new tactics, the troops gave moderate Iraqis the breathing room they needed to decide to stop cooperating with extremists. The issue now is how long the respite will last, and - in the continuing absence of an effective Iraqi government - how much more will it cost, in lives and treasure, to maintain a semi-functional state.
On Nov. 26, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed to begin formal negotiations for a long-term U.S. commitment to Iraqi security. This is not a "treaty," the White House said - God forbid; a treaty would require ratification by the Senate. Rather, said Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the administration's "war czar," the agreement will serve as a common "music sheet" leading to a formal agreement.
"It signals a commitment," Gen. Lute said, "to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests." Among those issues, he said: "What U.S. troops are doing, how many troops are required to do that ... (permanent U.S. bases) ... all of these things are on the negotiating table."
The sheer chutzpah of this is breathtaking. Bush intends to negotiate a long-term deal to commit the United States to Iraq's security, even though he won't be in the White House to deal with it. And sheer chutzpah is what got us in trouble in Iraq in the first place.
Still, the tactic of acting as if things are hunky-dory in Iraq may be working. The candidates who would succeed Bush, Democrats and Republicans alike, have reduced the time they spend on the topic of Iraq, as if the problem somehow will take care of itself.
Yet the United States still is spending $3 billion a week there, and although violence has lessened, 34 U.S. troops have died there this month alone.
The news from Iraq may be better, but it's not good. The American people won't be fooled. That 54 percent in the Pew poll is right: It's time to start packing.