The Washington Post, Only one in seven Americans agrees with President Bush's assertion that the conflict in Iraq is the most important fight in the war on terrorism, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Since Sept. 7, when Bush addressed the nation to build support for the war in Iraq, he and his aides have described Iraq as “the central front” in the war on terrorism. “We will fight this war against terror until it is won,” Bush said recently in one typical speech. “We are fighting on many fronts. Iraq is now the central front.”
But the poll found that, although 61 percent of the respondents believe Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, just 14 percent think it is the “most important” part.
This doubt — shared by some experts in military strategy — poses a potential problem for Bush, because it indicates that a large majority of Americans disagrees with his main argument for justifying the continuing occupation of Iraq, which has proven costlier and bloodier than was generally predicted before the war. Experts in public opinion say it may explain why support for Bush's policies on Iraq has sagged.
As Bush faces public skepticism about the importance of the Iraq war to national security, he is also hearing similar doubts from some lawmakers in his own party. Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) yesterday criticized the administration's thinking about Iraq as “one of the most misguided assumptions in the history of United States strategic thinking” and said the occupation could increase the threats to American security.
Leach, a veteran lawmaker who once worked for Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, said in a conference call with Iowa reporters that the administration expects a presence of six or seven years in Iraq rather than the “decisive” withdrawal he favors. He said the long-term occupation will create “more problems around the world and, potentially, in the United States as well.”
The public's decoupling of Iraq from the war on terrorism is ominous for Bush, because the high marks he has received for fighting terrorism have helped to hold together support for the actions in Iraq, several polling analysts suggested. In April, 77 percent of Americans believed the war in Iraq was part of the war against terrorism, but this number slipped to 66 percent in September and to 61 percent last week, when the latest poll was conducted. At the same time, Americans' approval of the situation in Iraq has dropped to 47 percent from 50 percent in September and 75 percent in April.
Bush's rating in the fight against terrorism remains higher, at 63 percent. But this has slipped from 70 percent in September and 79 percent in April, as fewer Americans believe the war in Iraq has made them safer.
“These are very important changing perceptions,” said Andrew Kohut, who directs the nonpartisan Pew Research Center polls. “What's going on is potentially threatening to support for the war, because it's no longer being seen as something we did to protect ourselves.”
Kohut said Americans view the “central front” in the war on terrorism as much closer to home than Iraq. “When you say war on terrorism, they think about the things protecting us, like the Department of Homeland Security and screening at the airports.”
The administration launched its effort to portray Iraq as the “central front” in Bush's speech to the nation two months ago. That same day, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice called Iraq the “central battle” against terrorism and said victory there would mean al Qaeda “will have been dealt a mortal blow.” Administration officials continue to make the argument: Vice President Cheney said on Friday that “Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, and we are rolling back the terrorist threat at the very heart of its power.”
An outside expert who supports the invasion of Iraq said Bush is justified in making the link. “Iraq is the central front,” said Tom Donnelly, a defense specialist with the American Enterprise Institute. “Withdrawal from Iraq is not an option; defeat there would have global consequences for American credibility.”
Others have made the argument that whether or not one supports the invasion of Iraq, the huge U.S. presence there has made Iraq key to the anti-terrorism effort. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, made that point at a July lunch at the al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and a group of journalists. “The truth of the matter is that . . . the global war on terrorism is a phenomenon without borders, and the heart of the problem is in this particular region, and the heart of the region happens to be Iraq,” said Abizaid, who is an expert on the region and fluent in Arabic.
But a number of defense experts reject the president's notion of the role of Iraq in the campaign against terrorism. “I think the 'central front' idea is just crazy,” said Michael Vickers, a former CIA officer who is now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. On Sept. 11, 2001, he said, “we weren't hit from Iraq.” Also, he said that while he thinks “we have to prevail in Iraq . . . I can imagine winning the global war on terrorism without winning Iraq, just like you could win the Cold War without winning in Vietnam.”
So far, the public seems to lean in that direction. Independent pollster John Zogby said that, in making Iraq the “central front” against terrorism, Bush “has been taking what has been a policy problem and turned it into a public relations problem, and it doesn't look like people are buying that.”
