By Benjamin I. Page
March 12, 2003It is FUTURE, retrospective opinion about the actual results of war (casualties among US soldiers and Iraqi civilians; $ costs; duration; turmoil in the region; terrorist attacks, etc) that may bite, as it did with Vietnam. And the ANTICIPATION of such future opinion by decision makers may affect current decisions. Hence I continue to think of Karl Rove, in charge of Bush's reelection, as a possible force for peace if he perceives that his boss is about to jump off a cliff.
The Tuesday 3/11 NYT piece, "Growing Number in U.S. Back War," is misleading on certain fundamental points (see below), but it did document some modest success for the relentless Bush PR campaign. The 10 point rise (to 58%) in judgments that the UN is doing a "poor job" on Iraq reflects Bush's incessant talk. So does the 8 point rise (to 44%) in the "take action...fairly soon" responses as vs waiting and giving the inspectors more time. The most discouraging finding is that 55% "approve of" (which, however, generally gets 5-6% more people than "favor") "the United States taking military action against Iraq if the U.N. Security Council votes against the [which?] U.S.-sponsored resolution." Though no trend data are given, this suggests substantial Bush success at UN bashing and puffing up the existence of imaginary playmates in a "coalition of the willing."
One misleading aspect of the Times story is the failure to emphasize the continued 52%-44% majority for giving the UN and inspectors more time. A more fundamental weakness is the unaccountable failure to ask questions about ALLIES in an Iraq adventure, which in the past has been seen as even more crucial than UN approval. Various surveys suggest that support for war shrinks to a very low level in the absence of substantial allied backing. Britain, at minimum, seems absolutely crucial.
It is for this reason that I continue to see Tony Blair (along with Rove) as pivotal for the possibility of a peaceful outcome. Blair, in desperate trouble at home, can be counted on to push the US very hard to back a UN ultimatum with a more or less reasonable deadline and more or less reasonable benchmarks that Iraq might be able to meet. (And, I expect, will meet if it is possible to do so.) Just how hard Blair pushes may depend on whether he wants a future political career or will be content to settle for a lucrative future with British Petroleum, which, in the event of war, appears slated to control the southern Iraqi oil around Basra.
Who knows what will happen? But this reasoning indicates why I (to the amusement or disbelief of most of my friends) continue to judge that the chances of war (by, say, April 30) are a bit less than .5: call it .45. This is far from reassuring. In fact it is very frightening. But let's hope that the chances for peace are at least that high.
More Information on NGOs
More Information on Protests Against War on Iraq
More Information on the Threat of US Military Action Against Iraq
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
