Brolly, Frank Rich's comments seem to be fairly wishful thinking, based on a superficial comparison with LBJ. Does a falling approval rating matter that much to a second-term President? Especially one convinced of the "justness" of his cause? After all, Blair took us to war with around 60% of the population against it, and then managed to stay in power for a historic third term. In a properly functioning democracy losing the support of the public would be a disaster. In the US? If current policy is losing the support of the media, as Rich suggests, then the Bush administration has the choice of changing policy, or going on a PR offensive - which do you think they'll choose? In fact, the article answers for you: Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, have of late tried to rebrand the war in Iraq as what the defense secretary calls "a global struggle against violent extremism." Media opinion and actual policy are two different things. The writer is in danger of making the same error here as those who suggest the media lost the Vietnam war. Again, Blair's "success" despite a hostile public demonstrates the security of a sitting politician, despite public opinion. It's also pretty clear that the coalition is preparing to withdraw from Iraq. MIlitarily that is, not politically or economically. This was always on the cards, and probably would've happened a long time ago if the situation hadn't deteriorated as badly as it had done. Troops will stay just as long as it takes to provide a certain amount of stability for western interests, then leave the Iraqis to it. How successful they'll be, and when exactly this withdrawal of troops will happen, depend far more on events in Iraq than on the mood of the American public. My guess is that the writer is a Democrat, or fellow traveller. Admitting that the future course of events is largely outside US control would mean admitting the futility of his own party or system. Which is never good for the ego.

Brolly, Call me cynical, but I doubt those who are pro-invasion and occupation will worry too much about what the majority of US citizens think (unless it's in their favour). For a detailed look at US attitudes towards the invasion, I'd recommend this site: Pollingreport The reason I slightly took against the article is because it seems to suggest that negative public opinion and media coverage can affect the occupation. Which, as I said, is like claiming the media lost the Vietnam war. As reflects the criminal mishandling of the whole sorry adventure, there has been adverse media coverage from some sectors since day one. Hence the administration's desperate attempts to control "the message" recently, through acts such as planting pro-Bush reports in the news. The US public are indeed increasingly turning against the occupation, and that has had some effects on policy (the big deal made of the elections for instance). But, we should be careful about over-estimating this. Changes in public opinion are often met with changes in presentation, not policy. Unless public opposition was staggeringly high (say 80%+), then perhaps it could force a drastic change in policy. It seems to me that his attempts to take on Social Security proved far more damaging to Bush's popularity. Which has had a knock-on effect with all his other policies, including Iraq. As for the Republican party, I've been waiting for them to start kicking up a fuss for ages. I think the problem is, though there's a lot of wariness over the invasion, it's still labelled by some as unpatriotic to oppose it. Criticising the occupation is seen as opposing the troops as much as it is opposing President Bush. Which is political suicide. Basically, the general public are going to have to be far more negative towards the whole thing before it has any real effect on the current administration, or the occupation.

Neocynic, Politicians live by the polls. It seems that I am slightly more cynical (no pun intended) about politics than you. It seems to me that the current way things work you decide policy first, then work on convincing the public. Bush et al have their plans for Iraq, which I believe they will stick with. Events in Iraq may change that, the opinion of the US public will have little effect. It may force cosmetic changes, but little else. Besides, it's difficult to see if Bush's increasing unpopularity over Iraq is spreading to the rest of the Republican party. Though you may have information to contrary. Interestingly, a narrow majority of the US public still support Bush's handling of the War on Terror in general, despite Iraq. As I said, I'm waiting for the Republican Party to start kicking up a fuss, I just haven't seen any real sign of it yet. As to my allusion to a "properly functioning" democracy, I had in mind one where the people led the politicians, not the other way round. Rich mentions that the media are becoming increasingly critical of Bush: The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News Bill O'Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O'Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.'s. (On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for.) It is suggested in the article that both the loss of media and public support will determine policy in Iraq, and I disagree with that. It'll influence it, certainly, but only slightly. Bush has commited himself to the occupation, to pull out now would be to admit he was wrong, something it's genetically impossible for a politician to do. As for public opinion, it had better support policy or the politicians who support that policy will find themselves without support at the next election. Assuming that there's a credible alternative. Didn't Kerry say he'd have done the same thing as Bush? Hence my comment about a properly functioning democracy: one were you should get a real choice. My point about Blair was that the alternatives were worse. The recent election here in the UK was a case of voting for the lesser evil. As for when US troops leave, as any student of US politics could tell you, it is a function not of the Iraqi but the American electoral agenda, as indeed is the entire "War On Terror" propaganda campaign. Come summer, 2006, troops will leave in anticipation of the midterms. Well, I've never met a student of US politics, so that's my excuse. Once a government commits to a certain course of action it's increasingly difficult to change direction. No matter what the public thinks. Given the amount of investment in Iraq it's hard to see the occupying forces simply abandoning it. I believe that the majority of troops will leave in the next few years, but that the US will still be a considerable presence in the country for a long time after. As for civil war... Perhaps you're right. But I don't think it's inevitable. As I said, the US (and others) have invested too much in the country to simply let it fall to pieces. Besides, once the US "leaves", most of the insurgency groups will lack a common enemy, and more than likely turn on each other. Iraq's going to be a violent, chaotic place for the next few decades, no doubt about it. But it may escape civil war. Your bizarre antiquated language (eg. "fellow traveller"?) suggests you are elderly. Are you one of those McCarthyites who time has hopefully left behind? You criticise my knowlegde of politics, then fail to spot a political reference. The term was coined by WH Auden (a socialist) to distinguish himself and others from the left in the Soviet Union. Since then it has been applied to any group that hold similar but not identical beliefs to another political group. McCarthyite!!! First of all I'm way too young. Secondly, I vote for the Green Party. Thirdly, I strongly believe in freedom of speech and expression. Fourthly, I'm extremely anti-conservative. Fifthly, what the hell in my post came across as McCarthyite!!! I merely suggested that democracy in the west is largely flawed, and often unrepresentative of the general public. Unless you're suggesting that the extreme right-wing cabal that currently inhabits the White House is representative of the US in general?

Ron327, I have nothing against Rich, I just think that negative public opinion will have less effect on Iraq policy than others do. Hence my criticism of his article. The comment about him being a Democrat was a cheap bit of psychoanalysis that I didn't expect people to take so seriously. Based on your summary, I'll certainly be seeking out other articles by him, despite my misgivings over the one Brolly linked to. The confusion over my use of the term "fellow traveller" could be another case of two countries separated by a common language. I merely meant that Rich sounded like he was either a Democrat, or a supporter (neither bad in my book). I probably used the term as I'd read another article that day about Auden. Apologies for any confusion/annoyance/indigestion caused.