The matter's closed for many voters

RALEIGH -- May witnessed the lowest monthly level of U.S. casualties in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and the toll for June was also comparatively low. Although military officers and Defense Department officials have cautiously noted that reverses are still likely to occur, the White House has not proven so prudent. Vice President Dick Cheney recently noted that the U.S. is "succeeding brilliantly" in Iraq, and President Bush declared that "the only way America can lose the war on terror is if we defeat ourselves."

Some pundits and academic commentators have argued that likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain will be the beneficiary of media reports of military gains in Iraq. According to Pew Foundation polling data, more people now agree that the military effort in Iraq is "going better" and that we are "making progress" at defeating the insurgents.

However, this viewpoint conveniently ignores the fact that core opinions about whether the war was a mistake and whether we should bring the troops home are not moving in a favorable direction. Indeed, retrospective opinions about the decision to go to war are actually more negative than they were a year ago.

l l l

THE MISMATCH BETWEEN VIEWS ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ and core opinions regarding the war is partly due to psychological biases that prevent the rational updating of attitudes.

In an ideal world, the public would slowly adjust its view of the war by skeptically accommodating new information with pre-existing beliefs. Public views on Iraq would not turn on a dime but eventually would succumb to a preponderance of evidence that the war is not lost (if current positive trends continue into the future).

Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, extensive psychological research has shown that most people are resistant to dis-confirming evidence regarding strongly held beliefs. Further, research in behavioral economics reveals that individuals form compartmentalized "mental accounts" for categorizing and evaluating events and outcomes.

For many Americans, the Iraq account is closed (and labeled "bad war") and only a major positive shock or series of shocks could convince them that Iraq is a "good war" worth winning.

Our own research reveals that information about military victories in Iraq and elite arguments that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" tend to have a limited impact on public opinion. At this point in the conflict, positive news and elite statements do not so much persuade, but rather reinforce pre-existing beliefs among those already inclined to support the war.

Other researchers have argued that "success matters" and that recent positive news coverage will redound to McCain's benefit. Our research demonstrates that success may change perceptions of progress and military effectiveness, but will not change core opinions on the war among those who question the logic of continued American involvement. Success matters, but "success at what?" seems to matter more. As a majority of the public has soured on the goals of the American intervention, the debate about "metrics of success" has essentially become irrelevant.

l l l

IF ANYTHING, LOWER CASUALTIES AND TACTICAL SUCCESS HAVE REDUCED THE INTENSITY of negative opinion and public attentiveness to news from the battlefield. (Polls show that Iraq is no longer the top concern of likely voters and that more Americans were interested in news about the recent Texas polygamy case than in news about Iraq.)

A partial benefit for McCain may come from the fact that Iraq will no longer be the highly salient liability it once was, but success on the ground in Iraq will not turn the war into an asset for his campaign (as was recently suggested by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer). For many Americans, Iraq is no longer about securing victory, but rather about managing an acceptable (and not necessarily honorable) exit.

(William A. Boettcher III is an associate professor, and Michael D. Cobb an assistant professor, in the School of Public and International Affairs at N.C. State University.)