[Futurework] Indecision fatigue

[Karen Watters Cole]

What do you think?  This is my commentary on the new poll data presented below.  KWC Americans are naturally affected by the sight of men and women in their workplaces and neighborhoods responding to their call of duty.  The use of Reservists and Guards assures that many Americans not otherwise associated with the volunteer military know someone who is there or going.  There is a groundswell of good intentions not to repeat the same mistakes of Vietnam when GI’s were mistreated and ignored for their service, regardless of one’s opinion on the politics of a pre-emptive war in Iraq. We are bombarded with a buffet of military history, patriotic symbols, marketing, history channel and move references to brave and loyal service to one’s country.  Few want to disrespect the victorious service of our military in the recent past even when going out of their way to recall the military mistakes of the past.  Public calls alleging an unpatriotic “lack of support to our troops” are a false charge, IMHO, to silence political dissenters, as I have seen no evidence that the public associates the military individually as bad.  In fact, we may be overconfident about our capability and undervaluing the danger, hard work and sacrifice that our troops face.  We’ll see what happens if and when we see collateral damage and hear of the suffering of families at home.  However, there are stories in my local news, as I’m sure there are in yours, of co-workers and churches helping out the financially-strapped and/or single-parent households where one parent has been shipped overseas.  Small patriotic rallies to demonstrate support for the troops abound in local communities.   Despite of the deep political debate and healthy dissent, there is a certain American impatience about being displayed as the bad guys.  Some other rational pundits have expressed pouting rhetoric about the arrogance of allies who have the impudence to exercise their own judgments.  Those who suspect American motives first before suspecting The Other are few.  There is a cultural heritage to protect and maintain here.  In Texas, there is a proud saying “Don’t Mess with Texas” which refers to the Alamo, where brave Americans were slaughtered by the Mexican army, and the story as it is most often told describes the famous “drawing a line in the sand” with a sword over which they were asked to step if they were committed to the battle ahead or not.  NonTexans may not be aware that revenge was exacted for the bloody defeat at the Alamo at the Battle of San Jacinto, off what is now the Houston ship channel, where the sleeping Mexican Army was slaughtered after a drunken all-nighter.  My point is, there is an impatience to get the job done if it must be done, regardless of who joins us, and we have taken that long, lonely road before, so aptly symbolized by the camera view of our President striding alone on the red carpet out of the East Room of the White House Thursday night after his 2nd press conference.  “Don’t Mess with the USA” suggests that we don’t like being made fun of, naturally, and we might have to at minimum give the world a mighty display of what we can do before we refrain from unleashing our full forces, just in case anybody gets any ugly ideas about challenging us on another front, like N Korea, for example. Underlying a lot of the anxiety about the prospect of war is what and how much terrorism we can expect on our doorstep with or without a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.  As this poll indicates, the mood is still fluid and people’s fears are strong motivation.  All governments know how to capitalize on that aspect of human nature.  There seems to be some indecision fatigue here.  We should be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, and by that I mean both politically and in terms of risk at home.     Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds By Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, NYT, 031103 Americans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.   The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago.  And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.   But a majority of respondents, 52 percent, say inspectors should be given more time to search for evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons on the ground in Iraq.  Still, that number has dropped over the past month, and there has been an increase in the number of Americans who say the United States has done enough to find a diplomatic solution in Iraq.   Taken together, the Times/CBS News findings suggest that President Bush has made progress, at least at home, in portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace while rallying support for a war over rising objections in the international community.  They also signal that the nation may be moving toward the traditional wartime rallying around the president that the White House — and Mr. Bush's Democratic opponents — have anticipated.   At the same time, there was evidence that many Americans remain perplexed about what Mr. Bush is doing and why he is doing it.  While Mr. Bush says his main goal is disarming Iraq, Americans are more likely to say he is motivated by a desire to oust Mr. Hussein from power.  A majority of Americans say the White House has failed to tell them what they need to know about the justification for a pre-emptive attack.   Respondents were nearly evenly divided when asked if Mr. Bush was being guided by the memory of his father's dealings with Mr. Hussein in prosecuting what would be the nation's second war against Iraq in 12 years.  Nearly half said Mr. Bush was driven by the personal desire to accomplish what his father did not when he cut off his invasion of Iraq in 1991 without ousting Mr. Hussein.  Younger men in the poll were more apt to see a familial motivation for the president.   There is clear concern among Americans that the United States is paying a price internationally for Mr. Bush's aggressive posture. The number of Americans who believe that their president enjoys the respect of world leaders has dropped to 45 percent from 67 percent in the space of a year.   And for all of Mr. Bush's focus on Iraq, there is growing evidence of concern among Americans about the dangers posed by North Korea. The number of Americans who disapprove of how Mr. Bush is handing the situation with North Korea jumped to 35 percent from 25 percent in a month.   The nationwide telephone poll of 1,010 adults was conducted from Friday night through Sunday night. It had a margin of sampling error of three percentage points.  The poll began the day after Mr. Bush pressed his views on Iraq in a nationally televised news conference from the East Room of the White House, and after Hans Blix, the chief inspector for chemical and biological weapons, delivered a report on Iraqi compliance to the United Nations on Friday.   The poll found that the economy continues to be a concern, with 35 percent of the respondents saying it is the most important problem facing the nation, compared with 23 percent who pointed to Iraq.  But with Mr. Bush continuing to enjoy a relatively high approval rating in this poll — 56 percent — it is clear that his presidency is being judged largely by his conduct of foreign affairs and the potential war.   By many measures, the poll found that the nation is behind Mr. Bush on Iraq. And for all the signs of dissent and protest around the nation, it would appear that support for war is on the rise.    In the poll, 44 percent of respondents said the United States should take military action against Iraq soon, compared with 36 percent just two weeks ago. Although a majority of respondents still support giving weapons inspectors more time, that number has decreased to 52 percent from 62 percent two weeks ago.   Over all, Americans support using military force to remove Mr. Hussein by 66 percent to 30 percent.  But that sentiment breaks down sharply along partisan lines that could have ramifications for next year's presidential election, depending on the outcome of a war.  The poll found that 86 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of independents supported military action to oust Mr. Hussein, while 51 percent of Democrats said they supported it.   "We should act now because by waiting we give them more time to prepare, and there will be loss of life," said John Nicholas, 53, a Republican who is a sales manager in Gentryville, Ind., in a follow-up interview. "Are we going to wait until we have another 9/11?"   Sue Kiesau, 58, a Republican from Neenah, Wis., said: "We have the evidence and I don't think having the troops over there twiddling their thumbs is good psychologically. We need to go in and do it, and we don't need U.N. approval to do it."   That just 51 percent of Democrats said they supported military action to remove Mr. Hussein is potentially worrisome, if not surprising, for the Democratic presidential contenders, many of whom have in recent days been pressed while campaigning in early Democratic primary states to speak out against Mr. Bush.   "As far as the United Nations goes, I feel it is the last hope of our humanity, our last hope of order," said Allan Gold, 81, of Lynbrook, N.Y., a Democrat. "I think they have to be in charge of our decisions. If the weapons inspectors have more time, they may uncover something dangerous."   And Lawrence Stanecker, 72, a Democrat from Goode, Va., said: "There are too many inconsistencies. We contained Saddam Hussein for 12 years. We contained the Soviet Union for lots of years during the cold war and we didn't go to war."   Mr. Stanecker, reflecting the reservations some expressed about Mr. Bush's motivation, suggested that the president was trying "to finish what his father didn't do in the Persian Gulf war and to retaliate for Saddam's assassination attempt on George Bush Sr.'s life."   The poll found concern about repercussions from Mr. Bush's policies.  For example, 43 percent said that ousting Mr. Hussein was not worth "the potential loss of American life and other costs," compared with 50 percent who said it was.  And by 49 percent to 29 percent, Americans said the White House had failed to develop a clear plan about how it would manage a postwar Iraq.     who have been demonstrating with increasing vigor across the nation in recent weeks.  At his news conference on Thursday, Mr. Bush said the protests would not affect his thinking on a war.   In a finding that could prove to be of concern to Congress if a war does not go well, 48 percent said the Senate and House of Representatives had not been aggressive enough in challenging Mr. Bush on his war policies.  Among Democrats, that figure was 66 percent.   The findings are nevertheless not a green light for Mr. Bush, who wants to set a deadline of March 17 for Mr. Hussein to comply with the United Nations. The poll found that 60 percent of respondents wanted the administration to take the views of allies into account.   "I think the United States shouldn't go it alone if the allies don't join us," said Catherine Renfroe, a Republican and retired elementary school teacher from Amarillo, Tex. "The inspectors are doing their job."   Although Mr. Bush's statements at his news conference last week appear to have increased the nation's support for a war, he apparently did not succeed with one argument: convincing more Americans that Mr. Hussein had a role in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.   The poll found that 45 percent of Americans said Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in the attacks, a number essentially unchanged from a month ago.   http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/politics/11POLL.html   Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002