Many Democrats and now some Republicans are calling for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But as President Bush made clear with his veto of a war-funding bill that included a timetable for withdrawal, a pullout isn't likely.
That, however, hasn't stopped critics from insisting that our soldiers come home and proclaiming ? as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did ? that "this war is lost."
For its part, the White House has warned that leaving Iraq before it has been stabilized would likely cause, as spokeswoman Dana Perino put it, the collapse of the "fragile young Iraqi democracy (and) the killing of countless innocent civilians."
It also would provide a "safe haven" from which al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could mount attacks against Americans and others it deems enemies of their ideology, the White House says.
On these points, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, Americans side with the White House.
A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."
In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president.
In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important.
To recapture public support, therefore, President Bush might consider casting the current and immediate-future phases of the war in terms of stabilization rather than victory or defeat. This stabilization aspect is key and must be accentuated.
Stabilization takes on added importance considering that the president does not favor a deadline. Such a deadline, he said recently, would be setting a deadline for failure. But a majority of Americans (54%) do not agree with him on this point. While most Republicans (62%) oppose a deadline, 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents prefer that one be set.
The deadline is attractive to some because it could ensure the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. Others believe a deadline can be used to pressure Iraqis to get their act together.
Staying in Iraq, however, is contingent on our ability to affect a positive outcome. Can we do it? If you ask the president, the answer is "yes," and his optimism that the U.S. will succeed in Iraq is shared by 56% of the public.
But that percentage is down from 58% in February, when we asked the same question, and 60% last December. Only 42% of Democrats and 49% of Independents think we'll succeed, next to 80% of Republicans.
Similarly, 61% of Americans believe victory in Iraq is "important," compared with 65% in February and 66% in December. Independents (61%) align with Republicans (84%) here vs. 44% of Democrats who don't think victory is important.
For years now, everyone's been talking about a "global war on terror," a phrase first popularized by President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. More recently, however, the appropriateness of this phrase has come under attack.
This was apparent during the recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates. When moderator Brian Williams asked, "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror," only four of the eight candidates ? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Christopher Dodd ? raised their hands. John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel kept their hands down.
Even one of our strongest allies, the United Kingdom, has decided to scrap the phrase. According to Hilary Benn of the governing Labour Party:
"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. It is the vast majority of the people in the world ? of all nationalities and faiths ? against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger."
Americans don't buy that, however. Two-thirds think we're fighting a global war on terror, including 52% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 65% of Independents.
Our poll also reveals a potential for backlash if Congress projects its authority on how the war is conducted. In fact, Americans are decidedly against Congress' meddling. Asked whom they'd like to see the president rely on more for advice on the conduct of war, fully 71% preferred field commanders and just 23% favored Congress.
What's more, any meddling may be perceived as motivated by political gain rather than by genuine concern. Sen. Clinton, for example, recently called for a repeal of the authorization the Congress gave the president to go to Iraq. But nearly three of five (59%) of those polled believe that any such proposal would send the wrong signal to our troops.
Mayur is the president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, IBD's polling partner.