By Steve Rhodes
Another day, another Tribune poll mishandled by its own writers. (See The [Thursday] Papers.)
This time, it’s a story whose headline “Global Policy A Hit At Home” is contradicted by the poll’s actual findings.
For example, on the question touted as one of the poll’s keys, just 33 percent of those polled approve of President Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Forty-two percent chose another option: Withdraw troops immediately. Which is just what this weekend’s protestors are calling for.
In another question more than two-thirds of those polled – both Chicago and suburban voters – said the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan had been at least “somewhat successful.”
Somewhat successful is not exactly a warm endorsement – especially given the options of choosing “not too successful” or “not successful at all” (chosen by a combined 27 percent).
The larger problem is that the question doesn’t address the specific policy of the current president, who sent 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan in 2009.
I wonder if what the results would be if folks were asked now whether they think that was a good idea.
In fact, in March a CBS News/New York Times poll found that “Support For War In Afghanistan Hits All-Time Low.”
That poll also found that “just 27 percent of Americans think the war there has been mostly a success for the U.S., while 59 percent say it has not been.”
Are the results in a local poll reflective of more administration support in the president’s hometown? The Tribune seems to think so.
“Public opinion in the Chicago metropolitan region – where Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans – does not reflect opinion nationwide,” the paper notes.
But as we’ve seen, that’s not necessarily the case. And given that it’s Republicans – not Democrats – who are more likely to support the president’s war policy, it’s hard to fathom that somehow hometown pride is making up the difference among the 1,180 voters throughout the six-county area who were polled.
*
On what the Tribune calls the “second major foreign policy issue facing the administration – Iran and it’s nuclear program,” slight more than 40 percent of those polled thought Obama’s approach was “about right.”
So fewer than half. The remaining split – too much, too little – was basically partisan.
That’s consistent with national polls.
“Americans are split on President Obama’s handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve and 39 percent disapprove,” the CBS/New York Times poll found. “Nineteen percent say they don’t know. Sixty-five percent of Republicans disapprove, and 63 percent of Democrats approve. Independents are divided, with 42 percent approving and 36 percent disapproving.”
You Shouldn’t Need Permission
“The entire United States of America should be a designated protest zone,” John Kass writes for the Tribune.
What Do They Want?
“It’s easy to dismiss the protesters as opportunists – anarchists looking for a stage,” the Sun-Times editorial page says. “But that would be a mistake.”
Bravo.
When you cut through the noise, key themes emerge, themes that should counterbalance the official message world leaders will transmit from the NATO Summit this weekend. These more thoughtful protesters, sometimes overzealous, sometimes too quick to link NATO to every global problem, must be part of the conversation.
And the louder and more focused they are, the more likely they are to make an impact.
Here are some of the more credible themes:
* Out of Afghanistan: NATO is committed to staying in Afghanistan through 2014, with a largely noncombat presence through 2024. Many protesters want an expedited, complete withdrawal (as do some European countries). “Seventy percent of Americans want an end to the war in Afghanistan,” Michael Lynn of Chicago Area Peace Action told us. “We represent them.”
* Spend military dollars at home: A related theme is a call to redirect military spending for domestic priorities. “Instead of funding death and destruction on the other side of the globe, our tax dollars should support services in our community,” said Jackie Spreadbury, of Occupy Chicago. “Our actions will raise to the international stage local battles around housing, education, and health care. We will resist NATO, the military arm of the 1 percent.”
* Several groups, including the American Friends Service Committee, are hosting a counter-summit this weekend “to try to envision a “NATO-free world,” Lynn said. The group paints NATO as an overly militarized, empire-building enterprise that has outlived its useful purpose.
* End drone attacks: As the U.S. increasingly relies on remote-controlled drones to kill suspected terrorists, questions have been raised about the practice. There are calls to end it or, at the very least, to release the legal memos authorizing such strikes.
* “Robin Hood tax”: On Friday, a rally led by National Nurses United will promote a “Robin Hood tax,” a small surcharge on each trade of stocks, derivatives or other financial instruments to generate revenue for things such as affordable health care and schools. RoseAnn DeMoro, director of the group, explained the rationale in a recent op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times: “The big banks, investment firms and other financial institutions, which ruined the economy with trillion-dollar trades on people’s homes and pensions and similar reckless gambling, should pay for the recovery.”
Discussing the basic existence of NATO and its core mission is hardly radical – and spans the political spectrum.
Sun-Times columnist Steve Huntley writes that “perhaps the fundamental question is this: Will NATO continue to be a big deal for much longer?”
Good question.
On the summit agenda is Obama’s goal of securing commitments from U.S. allies in NATO and elsewhere, like Japan, to help pay the estimated $4 billion a year to fund the Afghan army after the coalition troop withdrawal,” Huntley writes. “But with Europe in the throes of the euro crisis and trying to figure out how to save the economies of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and maybe others, there’s not likely to be much left to pay for soldiers in a far-away land where success is elusive. Don’t be surprised if U.S. taxpayers aren’t stuck with the lion’s share of the bill.
That question flows to the next issue, the modernization and future of NATO.
Last year’s long campaign to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi in Libya exposed Europe to be essentially a paper tiger. Though European nations took the lead in initiating the fight and its planes flew most missions after the opening weeks, it quickly became apparent that our allies couldn’t muster the equipment, munitions, intelligence and support necessary for success without the United States doing the heavy lifting. America funds up to one-quarter of the NATO budget, but that doesn’t include operations like Libya or the Afghan war.
That imbalance reflects another reality. The NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan is called the International Security Assistance Force. Not to slight the casualties of other nations, but Americans have so shouldered the combat burden that some U.S. military officers caustically said ISAF stands for “I saw Americans fighting.”
Word.
Translation, Please
So Higgins is saying what, exactly?
–
Previously:
* NATO Notebook I
–
Comments welcome.
Posted on May 18, 2012