DOCSLIB.ORG

Fresh Start Or Stay the Course? It's a Dead Heat; So Is the Race

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fresh Start Or Stay the Course? It's a Dead Heat; So Is the Race ABC NEWS POLL: CAMPAIGN TRACKING #6 - 10/22/00 EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 6:30 p.m. Monday, Oct. 23, 2000 Fresh Start or Stay the Course? It's a Dead Heat; So is the Race Al Gore has clawed his way back to a dead heat in the presidential race as voters ponder the choice before them: Go for a fresh start, or keep the current course. That question, central to this campaign, divides opinion evenly – 44 percent of likely voters say the country needs a fresh beginning, 46 percent say it should stay on track. Votes largely follow, producing a 47-47 percent tie between Gore and George W. Bush. That continues a slight improvement for Gore, who's inched up from a low of 43 percent support last week. It's been this way since the Democratic convention: Every time one of these candidates seems to start a move, the other battles back. Overall the race has been – and remains – nothing but close. Bush's support since Labor Day has hovered between 46 and 48 percent; Gore's, 43 to 48 percent. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan remain in the low single digits. Indeed the race today is exactly where it was right after Labor Day. 60 50 Bush 40 Gore 30 The 2000 Election ABC News and ABC News/Washington Post Polls Results are among likely voters 20 10 Nader Buchanan 0 g t ay Oc M Jun July Au Sept Gore Bush Nader Buchanan 10/22 47% 47 3 1 10/20 45 48 3 1 10/19 43 48 3 1 10/15 44 48 4 1 10/9 45 48 3 * 10/1 48 46 3 1 9/6 47 47 3 * (Full trend below) The race has shown only small movements on a night-to-night basis. These results are based on Friday through Sunday interviews, but adding Thursday and even Wednesday night interviews makes no significant difference – a point on each candidate. THE SEXES – Gore's had a bit more wiggle in his support because women – who are critical to his efforts – have been more changeable than men. Gore led by 18 points among women after the first debate; that contracted to a single point by last week, but now has moved back to a 12-point Gore lead. Bush has held a steadier lead among men, now 14 points. This too has varied, but less sharply, from +20 just after Labor Day to a low of +11 at one point last week. Vote preferences among... Women Men 10/22 Gore +12 Bush +14 10/19 Gore +1 Bush +13 10/9 Gore +9 Bush +17 10/1 Gore +18 Bush +13 The race is tight, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll stay tight. Twelve percent of likely voters are lightly committed or changeable, saying they don’t feel strongly about their preference and may switch allegiance (or remain outright undecided). That's more than enough to make the difference, if either candidate could find the formula to attract them. START – Bush has positioned himself as the "fresh start" candidate, and most voters accept the premise. But is it a fresh start that they want? This survey posed the choice: Which is more important, a fresh start, or keeping the country on its current course? As noted, the result is an even split, and vote choices largely correspond. Among those looking for a fresh start, 72 percent favor Bush; among those who want to stay the course, 74 percent are with Gore. The hazard for Bush in framing the race this way is that there's a still-sizable group of "Clinton-fatigued" voters – people who like Bill Clinton's policies but don’t like him personally – and these voters prefer the "current course" over a "fresh start" by better than 2-1. If they see Gore as providing the performance without the objectionable behavior, this equation could ultimately work to his advantage rather than Bush's. Vote preference Want... All Gore Bush A fresh start 44% 21% 72 The current course 46 74 18 CLINTON – Any way you slice it, Clinton's presence still looms large. Sixty-two percent of independents like his policies, but roughly as many dislike him personally, leaving Gore the tricky business of associating himself with the policies but not the person. Similarly, nearly half of likely voters – and 46 percent of independents – say they're upset or angry with Clinton on a personal level. Again, like the fresh start vs current course, it's a question on which the country divides evenly, helping to make the race so close. Response to Vote preference Clinton's behavior... All Gore Bush Upset or angry 48% 24% 71 Not that concerned 51 69 22 UNION – Voters from union households could prove a critical group, especially if it's a low turnout election, and Gore is winning them by a 2-1 margin. Sixty percent support Gore, 29 percent Bush – about the same as Clinton's union support in 1996 and 1992. Of course what matters is not just whom they support – but how well they turn out. Support in union households Gore Bush 10/22 60% 29 Clinton Dole Perot 1996 59 30 9 Clinton Bush Perot 1992 55 24 21 METHODOLOGY - This poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 20-22, 2000 among a random national sample of 1,074 likely voters. The results have a three-point error margin. ABC News and The Washington Post are sharing data collection for this tracking poll, then independently applying their own models to arrive at likely voter estimates. Field work by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa. Analysis by Gary Langer. ABC News polls can be found at ABCNEWS.com on the Internet, at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/PollVault/PollVault.html Here are the full results (* is less than 0.5 percent.). (Call for full trend.) 3. The candidates in November's presidential election are (Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman, the Democrats,) (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans), (Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke of the Green Party) and (Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster of the Reform Party). If the election were being held today, who would you vote for - (Gore), (Bush), (Nader) or (Buchanan)? Net Leaned Vote, Likely Voters: None Other Wouldn't No Gore Bush Buchanan Nader (vol.) (vol.) vote (vol.) op. 10/22/00 47 47 1 3 * * * 2 10/21/00 45 48 1 3 * * * 2 10/20/00 45 48 1 3 * * * 2 10/19/00 43 48 1 3 1 * 1 3 10/18/00 44 48 1 3 1 * 1 3 10/17/00 43 48 1 3 1 * 1 3 10/15/00 44 48 1 4 1 * * 3 10/9/00 45 48 * 3 * 1 * 2 10/1/00 48 46 1 3 1 * * 2 9/6/00 47 47 * 3 1 1 0 2 8/20/00 48 44 2 3 1 * * 1 8/10/00 42 50 2 5 * * * 1 8/6/00 37 52 3 5 * 0 * 2 7/29/00 37 52 2 7 1 1 * 1 7/23/00 38 46 6 8 1 * 1 1 6/11/00 43 48 3 3 1 * * 2 5/10/00 38 48 5 5 2 0 * 2 4. Do you support (Gore/Bush/Buchanan/Nader) strongly, or not strongly? -----------Gore---------- -----------Bush----------- Strngly Not No opin. Strngly Not No opin. Likely Voters: 10/22/00 77 21 2 81 16 2 10/21/00 76 22 2 84 15 1 10/20/00 77 21 2 85 14 1 10/19/00 80 18 1 84 15 1 10/18/00 81 17 2 82 16 1 10/17/00 81 18 1 82 16 1 5. Will you definitely vote for (Gore/Bush/Nader/Buchanan) in November, or is there a chance you could change your mind and vote for someone else? Is there a good chance you'll change your mind or would you say it's pretty unlikely? 10/22/00 Likely Voters: ------Change mind------ Definitely vote Good chance Unlikely No opinion Gore 80 7 11 1 Bush 86 5 8 1 6. If the only candidates were (Gore) and (Bush), who would you vote for? Net Leaned Vote, Likely Voters: Neither Other Wouldn't No Gore Bush (vol.) (vol.) vote (vol.) opin. 10/22/00 49 48 1 1 1 1 10/21/00 48 49 * 0 1 2 10/20/00 47 49 1 0 1 2 10/19/00 45 50 1 0 2 2 10/18/00 46 49 1 0 2 2 10/9/00 46 50 1 * 1 1 7. What do you think is more important - providing the country with a fresh start, or keeping the country on its current course? Fresh start Current course No opinion Likely Voters: 10/22/00 44 46 9 8. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Bill Clinton as a person? Favorable Unfavorable No opinion Likely Voters: 10/22/00 33 60 7 10/21/00 33 62 6 10/20/00 32 63 5 Registered Voters: 10/1/00 37 58 5 9/6/00 35 62 3 8/20/00 35 61 3 8/10/00 34 62 4 12/15/99 32 65 3 General Population: 1/26/00 34 61 5 12/15/99 36 62 2 9/2/99 38 59 3 3/14/99 30 67 4 3/4/99 40 54 6 12/15/98 41 56 3 11/1/98 42 54 4 11/1/98 LV 37 60 3 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The President's News Conference April 13, 2004
    580 Apr. 13 / Administration of George W. Bush, 2004 with our neighbors to advance the Declara- Iraqi Shi’a. He’s been indicted by Iraqi au- tion’s goals to safeguard our citizens as we thorities for the murder of a prominent Shi’a build for a future that is peaceful, just, and cleric. prosperous. Although these instigations of violence Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, come from different factions, they share President of the United States of America, common goals. They want to run us out of by virtue of the authority vested in me by Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the the Constitution and laws of the United Iraqi people. The violence we have seen is States, do hereby proclaim April 14, 2004, a power grab by these extreme and ruthless as Pan American Day and April 11 through elements. It’s not a civil war. It’s not a pop- April 17, 2004, as Pan American Week. I ular uprising. urge the Governors of the 50 States, the Gov- Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most ernor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dic- and the officials of other areas under the flag tatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met of the United States of America to honor to discuss their political future and in all the these observances with appropriate cere- proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, monies and activities. Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set They want strong protections for individual my hand this thirteenth day of April, in the rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Face the Nation
    © 2004 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION. " CBS News FACE THE NATION Sunday, May 2, 2004 GUESTS: Representative RANDY CUNNINGHAM, (R-CA) Former Senator MAX CLELAND, (D-GA) THOMAS FRIEDMAN The New York Times General RICHARD MYERS Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff MODERATOR: BOB SCHIEFFER - CBS News This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with FACE THE NATION - CBS NEWS 202-457-4481 BURRELLE'S INFORMATION SERVICES / 202-419-1859 / 800-456-2877 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, May 2, 2004 1 BOB SCHIEFFER, host: Today on FACE THE NATION, an American hostage in Iraq escapes, and the probe into military abuses widens. Thomas Hamill escaped his captors in Iraq today and was returned safely to US forces. In the meantime, the probe of prisoner abuse by American forces in Iraq has widened. How far does this thing go? How many Americans were involved and how will they be dealt with? These are the questions for General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Then we'll talk with two Vietnam vets, former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia and Congressman Randy Cunningham, Republican of California. In our FACE THE NATION 50th anniversary Flashback, we'll hear once more from Mohammad Ali. Then I'll have a final word on dealing with the prison abuse story in the traditional American way. But first the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, on FACE THE NATION.
    [Show full text]
  • War-Made-Easy-Transcript.Pdf
    T R A N S C R I P T War Made Easy HOW PRESIDENTS & PUNDITS KEEP SPINNING US TO DEATH FEATURING NORMAN SOLOMON NARRATED BY SEAN PENN _______________________________________________________________________ GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR: Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world, and that God will preserve it always. These proceedings are closed. 1940s NEWSREEL VOICEOVER: The final United Nations victory has been won. The war is over. Peace is here. A crowd of two million review the greatest parade of arms ever witnessed. This is the news that electrified the world. Unconditional surrender. A new world of peace. GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR: Today the guns are silent … The skies no longer rain death … The entire world lies quietly at peace. VOICES OF NEWS REPORTERS: On the way American infantrymen once again hit the road toward Korea’s capital city of Seoul. On the way American infantry men … And US Marines were ordered into the Dominican Republic as a rebel force collapses … Meanwhile US Marines have also taken center stage in South Vietnam … This is what the war in Vietnam is all about ... The first wave of Marines landed in Grenada … encounter some twelve hundred US Marines would land in Grenada for several days along with … Most of the Libyans were terrified with last night’s heavy bombing raid … President Bush’s decision to neutralize Panama’s General Manuel Noriega … Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror is over… This is the beginning of the war in Iraq … SEAN PENN: Since World War II we have seen a dramatic escalation in United States military actions around the globe, ranging from missile strikes and rapid troop deployments, to all out wars and occupations.
    [Show full text]
  • President Reagan's Economic Legacy: the Great Expansion
    President Reagan’s Economic Legacy: The Great Expansion October 2000 Joint Economic Committee Staff Report Office of the Chairman, Connie Mack President Reagan’s Economic Legacy: The Great Expansion The Reagan Legacy: A Personal View by Senator Connie Mack....... 1 I. The Conditions for Strong Economic Growth ................................ 11 A. Property Rights and Political Stability............................................................. 12 B. Price Stability ................................................................................................... 12 C. Competitive Markets ........................................................................................ 13 D. Openness to International Trade and Investment............................................. 14 E. Limited Government......................................................................................... 14 II. The Prelude to Reagan: The U.S. Economy in the 1970s ............. 17 A. High Inflation ................................................................................................... 17 B. A High and Rising Tax Burden........................................................................ 18 C. Energy Shortages and Regulatory Failures ...................................................... 18 III. The Reagan Program...................................................................... 20 A. Price Stability................................................................................................... 20 B. Tax Cuts ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Man: the Leadership of Ronald Reagan
    1 Freedom Man: The Leadership of Ronald Reagan Lou Cannon In his seminal book on leadership, Warren G. Bennis wrote that the successful leader must have a guiding vision of the mission to be accomplished and the strength to persist in the face of failure or setbacks. Bennis had business leaders in mind, but his words apply with equal force to political or military leader- ship.1 By these standards Ronald Reagan succeeded in the leadership he provid- ed as president of the United States from 1981 to 1989. Despite some gaps in his leadership, Reagan was a transformational president. As Margaret Thatcher observed, Reagan “achieved the most difficult of all political tasks: changing attitudes and perceptions about what is possible. From the strong fortress of his convictions, he set out to enlarge freedom the world over at a time when freedom was in retreat—and he succeeded.”2 Much is demanded of American presidents. “No one can examine the char- acter of the American presidency without being impressed by its many-sided- ness,” wrote British historian Harold Laski in 1940 when his country’s existence was threatened by the Nazis and anxious for assistance from U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. “The range of the president’s functions is enormous,” Laski wrote. “He is ceremonial head of state. He is a vital source of legislative sugges- tion. He is the final source of all executive decision. He is the authoritative ex- Lou Cannon, “Freedom Man: The Leadership of Ronald Reagan,” Essay, Enduring Legacy Project, John A. Adams ’71 Center for Military History & Strategic Analysis, Virginia Military Institute, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Policy of the Bush Administration: Terrorism and The
    Political Science Publications Political Science 2009 The orF eign Policy of the Bush Administration: Terrorism and the Promotion of Democracy James M. McCormick Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/pols_pubs Part of the American Politics Commons, and the International Relations Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ pols_pubs/45. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The orF eign Policy of the Bush Administration: Terrorism and the Promotion of Democracy Abstract During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush announced that he would pursue a "distinctly American internationalism" in foreign policy (Bush i999a), largely in contrast to the liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration. He initially sought to have a foreign policy that placed greater emphasis on American national interests than on global interests. The 9/11 tta acks quickly changed both the content of the administration's foreign policy and the process by which American foreign policy was made. As a result, the administration pursued a foreign policy that was universal in scope and that viewed virtually all international actions as affecting American interests. The efforts to build a "coalition of the willing" to find nda defeat "terrorists and tyrants" on a worldwide scale illustrated the universal nature of this policy, but the difficulties that the invasion and occupation of Iraq created also demonstrated the limitation of this policy approach..
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Non-State Actors in World Politics
    Violent Non-State Actors in World Politics Edited by Klejda Mulaj HURST & COMPANY, LONDON 10 Al Qaeda From the Near to the Far Enemy and Back (1988-2008) Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou All hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, it seems as though the one argument that the Arabs are incapable of understanding isforce, - Hannah Arendt' By the mid-to-late 2000s, Al Qaeda had essentially completed the mission it set out to achieve twenty years earlier. For all practical purposes and against all odds, the subsequent phases that have been discerned in the conflict with its foes were in effect just additional opportunities for the group's existing global gains; it has outlived the George W, Bush administration, has engi- neered further political decrepitude in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and threatens to conduct potential new attacks on Western targets, The conven- tional wisdom, rehearsed from 2004 on, held that it was the transformation of Al Qaeda that had been the key reason for its survival and resurgence. Close examination of the group's history reveals that the strength of Al Qaeda lies, in point of fact, not so much in its post-September 11 mutation-a logical evasive step which many other terrorist or insurgent groups had enacted • 'Peace or Armistice in the Near East', Review of Politics, January 1950, p. 56. 207 VIOLENT NON-STATE ACTORS IN WORLD POLITICS AL QAEDA: FROM THE NEAR TO THE FAR ENEMY AND BACK previously-but more in its inherent adaptability and its faculty to innovate and setting it in motion dramatically under the local leadership of Abu Musab constantly.
    [Show full text]
  • War Republicans Stay the Course Lugar, Daniels Pence Not Fleeing Down from 36 Percent in March and Significantly Lower Than 43 Percent in January
    V 12, No 33 Thursday, April 20, 2006 War Republicans stay the course Lugar, Daniels Pence not fleeing down from 36 percent in March and significantly lower than 43 percent in January. In the latest Gallup poll this week, President Bush’s War in Iraq Bush’s approval was at 36 percent, and the generic congres- By BRIAN A. HOWEY in Indianapolis sional numbers stood at 52 percent Democratic and 42 per- Indiana’s top tier of the Republican establishment is cent Republican. refusing to cower in the face of a bloody and apparently Continued on page 3 unending war in Iraq and the deeply sagging poll numbers that come with it. Not Sen. Dick Lugar. Not Gov. Mitch Daniels. Not U.S. Reps. Mike Pence, Mike Sodrel and Chris Chocola, the latter two who might pay the price of staying the course with their jobs this fall. President Bush's job-approval rating slipped for the third consecutive month and remains near the lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Thirty-five percent of 1,008 U.S. adults surveyed in the telephone poll think Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, Gov. Mitch Daniels with President (left) briefed President Bush, Secretaries Rumsfeld and Rice and Vice President Cheney at the White House Wednesday. Above, on Easter Sunday, Daniels swears in Indiana National Guardsmen in Baghdad. Confessions of a 38 percenter By J. CAMERON CARTER Despite being a white male, I am a distinct minority these days: I am one of the roughly 38 percent of Americans who think President Bush is doing a reasonably good job of running the coun- try and discharging his constitutional responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan: an Enduring Threat
    AL-QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: AN ENDURING THREAT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 20, 2014 Serial No. 113–156 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 88–017PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:50 Jul 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\_TNT\052014\88017 SHIRL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reagan Legacy in the Age of Obama Steven F
    The Reagan Legacy in the Age of Obama Steven F. Hayward Juniata Presents Lecture October 26, 2010 Steve Hayward is the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow in Law and Economics at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. chose as my topic tonight some reflections on the legacy of Ronald Reagan in the age of Obama I because they are often compared by observers who are my age and can remember Reagan firsthand. It’s useful because Reagan—who I grew up with in California, as Governor, and later as President—has become a full-fledged historical figure. So much so that even some liberals, who used to dislike him, now like him—or like parts of him. Hence, the comparisons with our current president: a person of charm and ability, as we’ve seen. When I started writing about Reagan more than ten years ago, there weren’t very many books about Reagan; now there are lots of books about him. And there are going to be lots of books about President Obama, of course. One of the problems is trying to capture and convey the essence of these people as time moves so fast. I have been reflecting lately that the coming down of the Berlin Wall turned twenty-one this year. It’s old enough to drink! Of course, for all of you who were born since the Berlin Wall came down, the Berlin Wall might as well be Hadrian’s Wall; this is something in the misty receding past. It’s hard to remember that this was one of the central facts of life in Europe for two generations.
    [Show full text]
  • SMALL WARS JOURNAL Smallwarsjournal.Com
    SMALL WARS JOURNAL smallwarsjournal.com The Art of Declaring Victory and Going Home: Strategic Communication and the Management of Expectations Tony Corn Whether in three months, three years, or three decades, the U.S. will have to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan some day. At this particular juncture, the Washington commentariat should be less concerned with the precise timing of any withdrawal than with the exact manner in which – when the time comes - the U.S. can convincingly “declare victory and go home.” Contrary to a naïve belief, actions rarely speak for themselves. The choice of a communication strategy determines whether a military build-up is perceived as a temporary “surge,” or an open- ended “escalation,” and this initial perception, in turn, determines whether a future withdrawal will be perceived as “mission accomplished,” or “lack of resolve.” At its most sophisticated, strategic communication is the art of managing expectations of friends and foes alike in a timely fashion. If there is only one lesson of Vietnam that the Obama Administration should meditate at this point, it is that unexpected cascading effects can make the most seemingly-cautious incremental strategy unravel in no time. In 1968, it took only two months from the beginning of the Tet offensive (January 31) for a President Johnson, overtaken by events, to announce that he would not seek re-election (March 31). While it is hard to quarrel with those who argue today that America’s initial goals in Afghanistan have been met, it is still too early to heed calls to “declare victory and go home.” If nothing else, the continued presence of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquidating Military Commitments Viii
    PART III: LIQUIDATING MILITARY COmmITMENTS viii. Cutting Losses in Wars of Choice: Obstacles and Strategies Stephen Walt Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Relations John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Introduction Throughout history, great powers have fought “wars of choice,” often in areas far from their home territory. Britain and France waged colonial wars against each other and against local opponents during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a num- ber of conflicts in the developing world during the Cold War. Sometimes these great powers triumphed quickly and relatively easily, as the United States did when it invaded tiny Grenada in 1983. In other cases, however—the American war in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan—they eventually chose to “cut their losses” and disengage. In general, getting out of a war of choice is harder than great powers expect when they begin them. In a number of prominent cases—the Boer War, Vietnam (for both the United States and France), Algeria, Afghanistan (for Britain, the Soviet Union, and now the United States)—the conflict lasted longer than initially anticipated and the intervening great power continued to fight even after many leaders recognized that victory might be elusive.1 In many of these cases, it seems clear in hindsight that these states could have achieved similar results at far less cost had they managed to extricate themselves earlier. As Fred Ikle notes, “cutting one’s losses, although a common notion in everyday life, appears to be a particularly difficult decision for a government to reach in seeking to end a prolonged and unsuccessful war.”2 Or as Vice-President Hubert H.
    [Show full text]