Let's forget the raw numbers, and just look at the trend. The trend is that more of the American public thinks Iraq is getting better. Um, what in hell would make one think that? The multiple suicide bombings? The numerous assassinations of Iraqi officials? The unabated attacks on the oil infrastructure? There's one trend in Iraq, and one trend only, that's getting better. Fewer Americans are getting killed. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing. But frankly, that's pretty tangential to the question of whether or not Iraq is making progress toward democracy. Iraqis themselves are less safe, and their main source of revenue is less secure. Really, this is a distillation of why we suck at foreign policy, and a poll-driven presidency like Bush's (remember, Karl Rove is the first political advisor ever to have such a prominent office within the White House) is gonna suck worse. Americans are shockingly self-absorbed for a nation that is taking on many of the trappings of an empire. Our ingrained isolationist habits, perhaps combined with lingering psychological damage from 9/11, has left us remarkably disengaged from the rest of the world. But the paradox, which the Bushies can't even begin to recognize let alone address, is that the American people demand to be safe (rightfully so) from outside threats, without not just knowledge of, but even concern with what those threats are. We don't care about the rest of the world, but we want to control the rest of the world. The whole neo-con program was to invade other nations and make them like us. That's simplified but I don't believe it's oversimplified. And stating it like that exposes the essential lunacy of the whole thing. It's embarassingly ignorant of the basic fact that other people are not Kantian means, but ends themselves. The Other has its own goals and aspirations and ideals, often (not always) different (if not in opposition) to our own. But the neocons don't know that. The American public thinks things are getting better in Iraq because the ONLY metric for us is American combat deaths. That self-absorption drives our foreign policy, but at the same time, given the state of things today, it ALSO sends us marching out into the world, where our delusions crash into reality. It ain't working.
How dare you mention philosophy, and talk of morality in a Politics forum? I agree with you, but many times your views will be put down by right wingers as those of a "heart-bleeding liberal".....Not that such claim makes any sense, or addresses any particular notion you mentioned, but in this age of modern TV/radio news media, it has been used very effectively (and often) is silencing opposition's/skeptical's views..... It would also help to have a VP who lies less blatantly, when supposedly trying to make our case...
We love and crave violence, in fact, it shows signs of progress, unless we are on the receiving end of it. We loved the shock and awe of the bombing of Baghdad, Bush's approval ratings spiked, and the truth is that if our own capital was bombed like Baghdad was, we would be distraught and demanding vengeance. Like you say, the fewer American deaths (and the greater number of foreign ones) are interpreted as signs of progress. We love violence, what other explanation is there for why NASCAR is so popular?
American optimism about Iraq may be misplaced, but it does make sense to me. The interim government at least gives the appears that there is some sort of exit strategy out there for the US. Will the Iraqis kindly kick us out ASAP?