The NY Times has the results of their latest poll on attitudes about the Iraq war listed today.
Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War
To my mind every question is flawed. I give the details below of just the questions featured in the article.
1.
Looking ahead in Iraq, if you had to choose, which of these comes closest to your position: 1. The United States should withdraw all of its troops within the next year regardless of what happens in Iraq after the troops leave. OR 2. The United States should withdraw some troops but leave some troops to train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats. OR 3. The United States should keep the same number of troops in Iraq as are there now and continue to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq?
1 is biased because of the addition of "regardless of what happens"
2 is biased because of to "train Iraqi forces, conduct raids against terrorist groups and protect American diplomats"
3 is biased because of "to fight until there is a stable democracy in Iraq"
The biases are two fold. The first one, which is why the entire poll is invalid, is because the questions are all framed in terms of the "war" in Iraq. The "war" in Iraq ended a long time ago as far as the US troops are concerned. They are now an occupying force. As such their objectives are different. A "war" is designed to subdue an enemy force, an occupation is designed to control a civilian population.
Second, by attaching loaded phrases to each option the choices are themselves rendered tainted. Perhaps the responder thinks there are other factors that determine their attitude. Perhaps they think for answer 2 that the troops should stay to assist in the rebuilding effort. The Sea-bees used to do a lot of this during WWII.
2.
As you may know, the U.S. has sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?
A meaningless question. As we can see from just the past several days there is no agreement on the progress of the surge. If the data is in dispute then how can the general public be expected to make a determination. This question only reveals a person's own biases. Those who think the situation is going badly will disregard the upbeat assessments and vice versa.
3.
Which of these do you think is most likely? 1. Iraq will become a stable democracy in the next year or two, OR 2. Iraq will become a stable democracy, but it will take longer than a year or two, OR 3. Iraq will probably never become a stable democracy.
This is part of a well-used pattern of asking questions about the future. Of what value is the answer? People can't know the future, so why should we care about what they think might happen? It makes it look like they are probing people's attitudes, but the poll does nothing. If they asked instead what would you like to see happen then the question might have some value. Aspirations mean something, predictions about the future, don't.
4.
Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?
Why put in the "Regardless of how you usually vote" constraint. No one is going to follow it. It is exactly how you usually vote that will determine whether you trust the Democrats or Republicans more. If they meant to filter out the effect of how people voted in the last election, then this isn't the way to go about it. A more direct question such as "will you support the Democrats or Republicans over their plans for Iraq". Notice the use of "war" again in the question.
5.
When it comes to choosing a president, what is more important to you - someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, OR someone who supports an immediate withdrawal, OR someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?
Choice 1 - "Commits to winning". A loaded answer. Since we have already won the war, what is it that we are going to "win" now.
Choice 2 - "Immediate withdrawal". Also a loaded answer. Immediate withdrawal is not even feasible, so why ask if one favors it?
Choice 3 - "Flexible". Another loaded answer. Is flexible an alternative to "winning" or "immediate withdrawal"? What does flexible even mean? How about a choice like "measured withdrawal" or "invite the UN/NATO/EU to administer peacekeeping"? By limiting the range of answers the poll forces people to take positions they may not hold. "Would you rather be shot or hung?" is not the type of choice people want to make. What happened to "neither"?
6.
How important is it to you that the presidential candidate you vote for shares your view on the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq - is it very important, somewhat important, not very important or not at all important?
This one at least sounds reasonable. It doesn't ask hypotheticals, it doesn't ask about information that the responder doesn't have, and it does ask for an opinion. Everyone can have an opinion. It is still flawed because the views of the candidates on Iraq are not well defined. Most are hedging their bets. In addition it implies that attitudes now, when most people don't know much about the candidates, will still be relevant over a year from now. It also implies that the situation in Iraq will be the same then as now. A different situation will elicit different answers then. If the level of unrest has decreased people will no longer attach as much weight to the candidate's positions. So the question is meaningless. It captures opinions at a point in time when they don't matter.
7.
If you had to choose, who would you say you trust the most with successfully resolving the war in Iraq -- the Bush Administration, Congress, or U.S. military commanders in Iraq?
Once again the poll is framed as a "war". In a war those who "resolved the war" are always the military. Who else is there? If, instead the question was framed in terms of the actual situation as "who do you think will do the best job in solving the political situation in Iraq?" then at least the question would be less biased. The answers still would be as the options are "Bush admin", "Congress", or "Military Commanders". Perhaps the responder thinks that Bush can't do the job, but that the state department can, or perhaps he thinks that the UN ambassador can. The answer "Bush admin" doesn't permit any nuance. You get the whole ball of wax or nothing. We have seen that even with an inflexible person like Bush at the top it is possible to make diplomatic progress, just look at North Korea. Since Bush is detached there is space for other to take the initiative and present a done deal for his approval. Anything which takes the pressure off him, he is likely to support.
So, to summarize: a flawed poll which deliberately frames the questions in terms of a "war" which doesn't exist. This fits in with the latest propaganda effort by the admin when they speak of "winning", but never define what this means.
Is the Times interested in finding out people's attitudes or forming them? Is their role to make policy and further the propaganda effort? One wonders...
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 5 comments