Posted by Mark Silva at 8:28 am CST
President Bush has little public support for the "surge'' of U.S. troops in Iraq that he is expected to announce with a prime-time televised address from the Map Room of the White House on Wednesday evening, according to a Gallup Poll showing strong opposition.
Among those surveyed by Gallup, 61 percent oppose the idea of deploying additional troops -- and as few as 12 percent and as many as 36 support the idea, depending on how it is phrased. Support for Bush's expected move lies primarily among his Republican supporters.
"The American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq,'' Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport reports today.
Support for the surge that Bush is expected to announce -- 36 percent in this survey -- is similar to the job-approval that Bush draws in the latest Gallup Poll, 37 percent. That is up two points from the last Gallup survey in December. The margin of error is plus or minus three points.
A poll that Gallup conducted for USA Today on Friday through Sunday found that only 12 percent of those surveyed supported a troop increase under a series of four alternatives that the pollsters have been posing in polls for some time now. Yet the newest poll included a question about the expected "surge'' that Bush is expected to announce, and Gallup found that 36 percent support this idea – while 61 percent oppose it.
"As you may know,'' pollsters asked, "the Bush administration is considering a temporary but significant increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Would you favor or oppose this?" This question was intended to cover several points: This will be an administration policy, the surge is temporary, and it is intended to have a specific purpose, restoring security to Iraq.
For some time now. Gallup has been asking Americans about their support for withdrawing from Iraq or sending more troops. In the latest survey, the simple question of sending more troops drew the support of only 12 percent of those surveyed. This would indicate that support for the president's expected announcement ranges from 12 to 36 percent, Newport reports today.
"It is possible, of course, that support may rise even higher than 36 percent after the president's speech,'' Newport reports. "If, for example, he does a particularly effective job of laying out the rationale for a surge and if the media coverage the next morning is particularly positive. Still, the weekend data suggest that it will be a difficult challenge for the president to move the support numbers for a surge above the majority point, making it likely that his proposed course of action will be opposed by a majority of (Americans).''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm begining to think the media is howling at the moon. When did y'all begin to think Mr. Bush cares what you think?
Posted by: bill r. | January 9, 2007 8:54 AM
["The American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq," Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport reports today.] Why does the American public hate America? The President says that we will lose if we withdraw, and that the only way to win is if we stay. The American people obviously want America to fail.
Posted by: nffcnnr | January 9, 2007 9:09 AM
Well we know John D JD and Paulo support bring in more troops. But America sure don't
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 9, 2007 9:24 AM
My, my, my look at all those defeatocrats that hate America. A clear majority of Americans wants America to lose, waving white flags and serving head chopping terrorists cookies and milk, right John D.?
Posted by: jethro | January 9, 2007 9:27 AM
I'm in favor of a surge in troops. In fact, I think the troops should stay there indefinitely until the job is done. There's no point in bringing them back and sending them back time and again. And the more troops there are, the less hours they will each have to patrol, etc..
The coming and going has to be as tramatic as the being away from home. Since we know this is going to go on until a future president decides to bring the troops home for good, might as well put all of our troops in the desert.
Posted by: Mel | January 9, 2007 9:41 AM
["The American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq," Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport reports today.] Why does the American public hate America? The President says that we will lose if we withdraw, and that the only way to win is if we stay. The American people obviously want America to fail.
Posted by: nffcnnr | Jan 9, 2007 9:09:05 AM
Give me a call....I got some oceanfront property in Kansas.
Posted by: bill r. | January 9, 2007 9:43 AM
Jethro,
As had been said a thousand times -- to be against this administration's policies in Iraq does not make one a bad American or anti-American.
We're thankful for the fought-for right to speak up when our leadership goes astray, and we never take that right for granted. But if ever there was an occasion where the military acronym SNAFU was spelled out in full, Iraq is it.
Now granny wants to take a switch to you by the fancy eatin' table.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | January 9, 2007 9:59 AM
"I'm in favor of a surge in troops. In fact, I think the troops should stay there indefinitely until the job is done. "
So you're in favor of re-instituting the draft, Mel? That's the only way we could support abd enlarged open ended commitment to Iraq.
Posted by: Tony | January 9, 2007 10:03 AM
Look I am so tired of Republicans claiming we support the Troops and Veterans. If you do go here and see who does and does not
http://www.vawatchdog.org
This site tell both sides
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 9, 2007 10:37 AM
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Posted by: MinorRipper | January 9, 2007 10:49 AM
I thought George said we've already won the war. Isn't that what 'Mission Accomplished' means? It's way past time to bring everyone home--and I mean the Halliburton guys too.
Posted by: Cheryl | January 9, 2007 10:57 AM
Well, surprise, surprise. I hope they didn't spend too much money on that poll.
George Bush doesn't care what the American people think, anyway. Didn't he say once that only his wife and dog support him and he doesn't care?
Posted by: Andrea | January 9, 2007 11:22 AM
If only the Wingnut Party was as good at governing as they are at swiftboating Barack Obama......oh... that's right,then we WOULDN'T be in Iraq at all.........
Posted by: John E. | January 9, 2007 11:55 AM
President Bush doesn't go by polls, he's said that over and over. Except when he opposed the 9/11 Commission, then flip flopped when he saw the polls. Or when he opposed the Department of Homeland Security, then flip flopped when he saw the polls. So if he were running for re-election, I'm sure a flip flop on troops would come.
Posted by: Paul | January 9, 2007 12:12 PM
OK, no surge of troops. Well, what then? "An effective strategy," "phased redeployment" and "a renewed diplomatic approach" sound nice but lack substance. Let's have the specifics, Speaker Pelosi.
http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0021
Posted by: no name | January 9, 2007 12:47 PM
No Name - nice job cherry picking quotes. Let's read the whole paragraph, shall we?
"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror"
That's pretty specific, considering Pelosi isn't Commander in Chief. A lot more specific than Bush usually is, in fact.
Posted by: Tony | January 9, 2007 1:02 PM
Tony, that's not enough. For all the bellyaching the Democrats have been doing these last couple of years I expect a detailed plan. Where is it? Why hasn't it been communicated to the public? I am tired of the rhetoric, I want details. The Dems have control now so there's no reason to delay.
Posted by: no name | January 9, 2007 1:17 PM
Tony, that's not enough. For all the bellyaching the Democrats have been doing these last couple of years I expect a detailed plan. Where is it? Why hasn't it been communicated to the public? I am tired of the rhetoric, I want details. The Dems have control now so there's no reason to delay.
Posted by: no name | Jan 9, 2007 1:17:39 PM
Aren't you just a bit anxious? You're still waiting for Bush's "new" plan and this is his baby.....
Posted by: bill r. | January 9, 2007 1:38 PM
no name,
The Democrats control the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch in the United States is in charge of Foreign Policy and the military. Your 5th grade civics refresher is no over.
Posted by: jethro | January 9, 2007 1:41 PM
No name-
The Democrats do not control the military. Bush as Commander in Chief does. The Democrats cannot issue detailed orders to the military. That's basic U.S. civics.
That said, the Democrats have voiced what they think the overall goals, missions, and strategy that should be implemented in Iraq, which is more than we've heard from the "Decider".
Posted by: Tony | January 9, 2007 1:44 PM
So you Right wingers want to keep getting men and women killed and wounded in Iraq. The President will tell us his plan . But you keep talking but kids are dying is any of your family there?
Posted by: Dale Peters | January 9, 2007 2:00 PM
Dale, The President won't tell us a plan. He'll tell us:
1) how important it is to defeat the "terrrists".
2) that the world is different after 9/11. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
3) that we can't quit, because if we do then we won't win. Quitters never win and winners never quit. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Heck, he might even go back to his cheerleader days - "We got spirit, yes we do. We got spirit, how 'bout you?"
But he won't have an actual plan.
Posted by: Tom O | January 9, 2007 4:45 PM
When does Judith Miller resurface with her flak vest and pom-poms to lead the cheers from the newly embedded journalist?
Posted by: dt | January 10, 2007 1:08 AM