From World War II to Trump's bombing of Iran, only a handful of historical conflicts produced clear jumps in presidential approval. The Iran strikes look like the latest case of a non-bump
I got a chuckle out of your description of #3. Maybe Trump’s “flood the zone” mentality is working against his Epstein distraction. How can we possibly pay attention to Iran when we have to pay attention to all of his other crap? I’m amazed he hasn’t lost interest and wandered off. I guess Bibi won’t let him. Not to mention the “Armageddon” element of our military.
Your point #4 with regard to the response of the international community was significantly different between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan was truly a "coalition of the willing" after 9/11 due to the Taliban's support of Al-Qaeda. While not all nations supported it, none really contested the US on it.
Iraq was very different. It was more a "coalition of the coerced". While Iraq was fine with the 9/11 attack in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way, there was no real indication that Iraq was involved in 9/11 the way Afghanistan had been. Hence more public pushback (though still very popular at the beginning).
I've always thought that it was easy to convince W to invade Iraq given that they had conspired to try to kill his father (HW) years earlier. Much like Obama worked on healthcare reform after watching his mother spend her last days fighting insurance companies.
I knew some of the Cheney people in Washington before W. was even elected and they were beating the Iraq war drums even then, and it had nothing to do with threats to H.W.
Excellent analysis. I watched your YouTube presentation yesterday, but I find it helpful to be able to read it through again on the next day, as I can miss the finer points when I'm not actively taking notes.
Another factor for Kosovo was the fact that it was about ethnic cleansing, particularly of Muslims. Our country on average has a bias there. I remember it pretty well and was thrilled we were doing something not just for oil or against the communist bogie man.
The facts presented clearly illustrate the extent of our polarization. Sadly, that polarization blinds us to the realities and serious consequences of this war.
I'm a little confused. Why aren't you showing approval ratings for the Vietnam War when our involvement was significant, from the mid-60s through the mid-70s? That was when we had many casualties, when it was all over the news, when we had a growing antiwar movement, etc.
That's a good idea, but the purpose of this article is more narrow than that, just to assess the "rally around the flag" effect at the start of conflicts. I also made the same chart I made above for Ike in 1955, but for Johnson in 1964, and it was a flat line.
Vietnam was a weird war. It was so diffuse and gradual and I don’t think it permeated anyone’s psyche until TV became more ubiquitous and came to people’s homes at dinner time. I didn’t realize it was Eisenhower and even Truman’s war until I got older. Prior I always thought it was Johnson’s war.
Yes, I understand that we had involvement in countries all over the world under Truman and Eisenhower. But our military involvement in Vietnam didn't start ramping up to significant numbers of troops until late in JFK's time, and then after Tonkin under LBJ our commitment of troops became very large. So while the start of our War there could be viewed as a range of times (perhaps after the French were defeated?) I don't think of it as significant until the 60s. Otherwise you could point to a half dozen other countries where we had "advisors" in the 50s.
Truly superb and enlightening analysis.
I got a chuckle out of your description of #3. Maybe Trump’s “flood the zone” mentality is working against his Epstein distraction. How can we possibly pay attention to Iran when we have to pay attention to all of his other crap? I’m amazed he hasn’t lost interest and wandered off. I guess Bibi won’t let him. Not to mention the “Armageddon” element of our military.
Your point #4 with regard to the response of the international community was significantly different between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan was truly a "coalition of the willing" after 9/11 due to the Taliban's support of Al-Qaeda. While not all nations supported it, none really contested the US on it.
Iraq was very different. It was more a "coalition of the coerced". While Iraq was fine with the 9/11 attack in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way, there was no real indication that Iraq was involved in 9/11 the way Afghanistan had been. Hence more public pushback (though still very popular at the beginning).
I've always thought that it was easy to convince W to invade Iraq given that they had conspired to try to kill his father (HW) years earlier. Much like Obama worked on healthcare reform after watching his mother spend her last days fighting insurance companies.
I knew some of the Cheney people in Washington before W. was even elected and they were beating the Iraq war drums even then, and it had nothing to do with threats to H.W.
Excellent analysis. I watched your YouTube presentation yesterday, but I find it helpful to be able to read it through again on the next day, as I can miss the finer points when I'm not actively taking notes.
This was a wonderful article...my wife and I watched it on utube....excellent data and history...keep it up! -Fred Rhynhart
This makes the decision by Gallup to stop asking presidential job approval all the more painful
You don’t comment on recent polls suggesting a minor uptick in support for the war, mostly in the form of people shifting from “opposed” to “unsure.”
Depends on the quality of the polling, I guess.
Can you share a few?
Another factor for Kosovo was the fact that it was about ethnic cleansing, particularly of Muslims. Our country on average has a bias there. I remember it pretty well and was thrilled we were doing something not just for oil or against the communist bogie man.
terrific post: excellent evidence, well-articulated interpretation
The facts presented clearly illustrate the extent of our polarization. Sadly, that polarization blinds us to the realities and serious consequences of this war.
I'm a little confused. Why aren't you showing approval ratings for the Vietnam War when our involvement was significant, from the mid-60s through the mid-70s? That was when we had many casualties, when it was all over the news, when we had a growing antiwar movement, etc.
That's a good idea, but the purpose of this article is more narrow than that, just to assess the "rally around the flag" effect at the start of conflicts. I also made the same chart I made above for Ike in 1955, but for Johnson in 1964, and it was a flat line.
EDIT: I added this chart to the piece.
Vietnam was a weird war. It was so diffuse and gradual and I don’t think it permeated anyone’s psyche until TV became more ubiquitous and came to people’s homes at dinner time. I didn’t realize it was Eisenhower and even Truman’s war until I got older. Prior I always thought it was Johnson’s war.
Yes, I understand that we had involvement in countries all over the world under Truman and Eisenhower. But our military involvement in Vietnam didn't start ramping up to significant numbers of troops until late in JFK's time, and then after Tonkin under LBJ our commitment of troops became very large. So while the start of our War there could be viewed as a range of times (perhaps after the French were defeated?) I don't think of it as significant until the 60s. Otherwise you could point to a half dozen other countries where we had "advisors" in the 50s.