An Astonishing Iraq Poll

[dr_mabeuse]

I just happened to be watching Chris Matthews' Hardball at the gym and he mentioned a poll that was taken by some American polling outfit (it's the big one. It starts with a 'Z') in Iraq. They found:

80% of Iraqis think the US should leave Iraq immediately, and

45% believe that violence against American troops is "justified."

I find this kind of astonishing. Can anyone find this poll or confirm it?

If these numbers are true, what does it say about our attempts to bring democracy to Iraq?

 

[TheEarl]

I just happened to be watching Chris Matthews' Hardball at the gym and he mentioned a poll that was taken by some American polling outfit (it's the big one. It starts with a 'Z') in Iraq. They found:

80% of Iraqis think the US should leave Iraq immediately, and

45% believe that violence against American troops is "justified."

I find this kind of astonishing. Can anyone find this poll or confirm it?

If these numbers are true, what does it say about our attempts to bring democracy to Iraq?

That the approach of "They'll welcome us with open arms and garlands of flowers" should've been researched a little bit better before we started.

I wouldn't doubt those figures, although I haven't heard them elsewhere. However, it's no longer a case of what the Iraqi people want. We've started meddling, so we have to carry on through and try and get a decent result out of it. Half a meddle is far worse than no meddle at all.

The Earl

 

[LadyJeanne]

I think this is the poll referenced:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html


"The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it."

What does it say about our attempts to liberate Iraq? Depends on who you ask.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Wow. Thanks LJ. That must be it.

Still, astonishing.

Here's a bit more from the article:
------------
Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.
--------------

Wow again.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

And I wonder what a poll in Vietnam would have showed us this far into the war?

Deja-vu, anyone?

I am annoyed not to have an excuse to go out and burn my bra, though...

 

[cantdog]

In 2003, opinion polls showed growing opposition to the United States in Arab states generally. A December poll by the Pew Research center found that 75% of Jordanians held an unfavorable view ofthe US, as did 69% of Egyptians and 59% of Lebanese.

Stratfor's George Friedman, in "The Region After Iraq":

The United States is, of course, well aware that its increased presence in the region will result in greater hostility and increased paramilitary activity against US forces there. However, the US view is that this rising cost is acceptable so long as Washington is able to redefine the behaviour of countries neighbouring Iraq. In the long run, the Bush administration believes, geopolitical power will improve US security interests in spite of growing threats. To be more precise, the United States sees Islamic hostility at a certain level as a given, and does not regard an increase in that hostility as materially affecting its interests.

"Bringing democracy" was never the point. You have to be realistic, look at the big picture. What we've lost so far has been a miniscule price to pay for the lovely reality we can now achieve of having a string of bases atop all that oil.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am not astonished, at all.

 

[thebullet]

I heard an interview with some Lt. General (sorry, can't remember his name); the former head of NSA (National Security Agency). He said that we should pull out now. The interviewer said, "But that would cause chaos in Iraq!" He replied, "There is chaos there now. If we wait 10 years and then pull out, there will be chaos there then."

He said that the attempt to bring 'democracy' to Iraq is foolish and pointless. The country and its people have no idea how to do such a thing, have no background in democratic institutions. According to him, there are only two types of successfull governments conceivable in Iraq. The first is to reinstate Sadaam, or a Sadaam clone. The other option is to allow an Islamic Republic to come into being. In both instances, we would suceed in ousting Al Qaeda from Iraq, because neither of those governments would allow them to survive. For now, the Bathists find it convenient to work hand in glove with Al Qaeda to annoy the Americans.

 

[cantdog]

Phyllis Bennis, in the Summer 2000 issue of Middle East Report, notes that, before the 1991 Gulf War "the majority of Iraqi civilians enjoyed an almost First-World-level standard of living, with education and health-care systems that remained free, accessible to every Iraqi and among the highest quality in the developing world."

In the first Gulf War, US air power especially carried out an intensive and thorough destruction of all water-treatment and sanitary facilities, electrical systems, and so on. We followed that with the decade of sanctions, causing incredible suffering. We went to war on them again, effectively, in 1998, with the constant bombing runs in the 'no-fly zones.'

The sanctions and the infrastructure damage, the war-- it's all a very ordinary destabilization strategy. We have used it both by the Pentagon and by the CIA many times in the past.

From 1950 to 1953 we used it against the elected government of Mossadeq in Iran, bankrolling the coup by the Shah.

In 1954 against the democratically elected government of Arbenz, the same thing, leading to a sponsored military coup in Guatemala.

From 1970 to 1973, we bent every effort against a democratically elected government of El Salvador.

And the same against Allende in Chile, which effort ended in the coming to power of Pinochet.

Destabilize and then push, using military force where necessary. They did not, I believe, ever intend a responsive democracy in Iraq. They have always preferred a dictator. This is very sensible, in a client state.

You can go to a strongman and ask for something to be done, and he can do it. A democratic leader has to think about whether or not the electorate will allow it, has to worry about what the opposition party will make of it, and all that sort of thing. Many democratic leaders will decide to govern in accordance with the needs of their people, and attempt to regulate pollution by toxic wastes or make laws about safety in workplaces! Sometimes they get nationalistic and decide the wealth from their resources ought to be of some help to their own people! No, it's always better to have a dictator if you can find a compliant one.

Building an empire is not for the squeamish. To have an omelet, you break eggs. Deal with it.

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog wrote:
They did not, I believe, ever intend a responsive democracy in Iraq.

Are you saying that our government lied to us? I'm shocked! Shocked!

 

[cantdog]

Well, you gotta have an election once in a while. But you sure don't want a responsive or nationalistic leader.

I think you guys ought to get with the program.

 

[impressive]

I think this is the poll referenced:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html


"The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.

The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it."

What does it say about our attempts to liberate Iraq? Depends on who you ask.

I would've answered the same.

 

[shereads]

If these numbers are true, what does it say about our attempts to bring democracy to Iraq?

I don't think we should draw any conclusions from those numbers until we've brought democracy to some other countries, for comparison. The control group should include at least one country where we can depose a dictator we didn't sponsor.

 

[human_male]

I know a lot of good is being done and that's why most of the troops are there, because they really want to make a difference... but just ask yourself how you'd feel about a foriegn army in your country that had killed god knows how many tens of thousands of your people.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Most people, will not be happy with the fact anothr country demonstrated how easily they could have their asses kicked.

Most people prefer the devil they know to the fdevil they do not.

Most people will always picked a home grown devil over a foerign one.

In any invasion, no matter how scupuously you maintainf fire discipline, civilians will be killed. Those who survive them will not forget who it was that killed their kin.

Add in, an ethinic mix that is at best heterogenous, an ethic minority that wishes to create it's own nation, a religious minority afraid of the majority, age old rivalries of clan and tribe, a neighbor who holds a long standing grudge, and a failure on our part to restore and improve basic services.

It would be a surprise if there was just one insurgency, rather, it would make sense for a whole bunch of little insurgencies. Mad over different things.

They are an ungrateful lot. bit expecting a population you just stomped, crushed and humiliated to be happy about it is a bit like dumping your long time girlfriend to propose to her sister and expecting her to be maid of honor.

 

[thebullet]

Most people, will not be happy with the fact anothr country demonstrated how easily they could have their asses kicked.

Most people prefer the devil they know to the fdevil they do not.

Most people will always picked a home grown devil over a foerign one.

In any invasion, no matter how scupuously you maintainf fire discipline, civilians will be killed. Those who survive them will not forget who it was that killed their kin.

All true. Our troops are in a no-win situation there. They are conquorers and occupiers. And if they have to wait there until there is a successful democracy running things, they will be there till hell freezes over. Or until Iraq's oil runs out... Now wait a minute, maybe we're on to something here.

I mean, if we were attacked by Granada for the purposes of deposing our heinous government, most Americans would be like: "Okay, okay, GW is gone, now. Get the fuck back to Granada."

Maybe that's not a real good analogy.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

All true. Our troops are in a no-win situation there. They are conquorers and occupiers. And if they have to wait there until there is a successful democracy running things, they will be there till hell freezes over. Or until Iraq's oil runs out... Now wait a minute, maybe we're on to something here.

I mean, if we were attacked by Granada for the purposes of deposing our heinous government, most Americans would be like: "Okay, okay, GW is gone, now. Get the fuck back to Granada."

Maybe that's not a real good analogy.

The situation is only no win because we lack the sbutlety and patience to do CI the one way and lack the ruthlessness and ppolitical will to do it the other.

CI warfare demands you either do it right or not at all. Half measures, in either direction, guarentee high casualties and failure.

that is as immutable a law of wageing warfare as the observation God is susually on the side with the biggest battalions.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The situation is only no win because we lack the sbutlety and patience to do CI the one way and lack the ruthlessness and ppolitical will to do it the other.

CI warfare demands you either do it right or not at all. Half measures, in either direction, guarentee high casualties and failure.

that is as immutable a law of wageing warfare as the observation God is susually on the side with the biggest battalions.

Just how do you do CI against a population 80% of whom hates you and half of whom wishes you dead? Who are you fighting for? The 20 per cent?

That sounds like extermination, not counter intelligence.

This is exactly how it was in South Viet Nam. The people we were trying to help didn't want us there, and in fact were the very enemy we were fighting against, so we'd help them during the day, and then they'd come and try and kill us at night. It was hopeless. There was nothing to win anymore.

I heard some BBC reporter on the radio talking about the deaths of the 10 marines in Falujah. He was there a while ago, and he says you can't imagine what it's like on patrol. The marines give out candy to the kids, and the adults--those who don't run off in fear--stand around and stare pure hatred at the soldiers. He says any one of them could pull out a gun and start firing, and some of them often do.

Think about it--you think the Iraqis don't know the IED's and roadside bombs are there? You think the kids in the street aren't complicit in American deaths? You've got a bunch of insurgents out there at night burying artillery shells and setting fuses, and you think no one sees them? Why don't they report them?

 

[NoJo]

I just happened to be watching Chris Matthews' Hardball at the gym and he mentioned a poll that was taken by some American polling outfit (it's the big one. It starts with a 'Z') in Iraq. They found:

80% of Iraqis think the US should leave Iraq immediately, and

45% believe that violence against American troops is "justified."

I find this kind of astonishing. Can anyone find this poll or confirm it?

If these numbers are true, what does it say about our attempts to bring democracy to Iraq?

It's not important what the Iraqis think. They don't understand the situation.

 

[thebullet]

It's not important what the Iraqis think. They don't understand the situation.

You've got that right, Joe. We haven't taken Iraqi opinions into account up until now. Why should we suddenly care now?

 

[elsol]

I will vote for an immediate pullout...

If every single one of you promise not to say PEEP when the bloodbath begins there.

No ... "We're partly to blame".

No... "Something has to be done."

NADA...

We pullout and leave the Iraquis holding the bag. When the cops come knocking on our door, you guys are behind the couch with me.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just how do you do CI against a population 80% of whom hates you and half of whom wishes you dead? Who are you fighting for? The 20 per cent?

That sounds like extermination, not counter intelligence.

This is exactly how it was in South Viet Nam. The people we were trying to help didn't want us there, and in fact were the very enemy we were fighting against, so we'd help them during the day, and then they'd come and try and kill us at night. It was hopeless. There was nothing to win anymore.

I heard some BBC reporter on the radio talking about the deaths of the 10 marines in Falujah. He was there a while ago, and he says you can't imagine what it's like on patrol. The marines give out candy to the kids, and the adults--those who don't run off in fear--stand around and stare pure hatred at the soldiers. He says any one of them could pull out a gun and start firing, and some of them often do.

Think about it--you think the Iraqis don't know the IED's and roadside bombs are there? You think the kids in the street aren't complicit in American deaths? You've got a bunch of insurgents out there at night burying artillery shells and setting fuses, and you think no one sees them? Why don't they report them?

You can do Ci Sucessfully in two ways doc. The first, requres patience, commitment and restraint. Basically, you disprese your troops among the population, having them learn the language and customs of the locals. They operate semi independantly and will eventually learn to distinguish between the populace at large and the insurgents. Hand in glove with this, you pump money into the area, but instead of lofty goals like freedom and democaracy, you produce tangible results. Good schools, new hospitals, uninterrupted and expanded basic services like running water, electricty and sewage, law enforcement that keeps crime low. In basic, you give the population tangible, real and above all PERSONAL advantages they did not have under the old regime. In time, you will rob the insurgents of the one thing they cannot operate without, the tacit or overt support of the population.

The second way to do it is the ruthless way. It's a vicious game of reprisal, terror and bloodshed. You let the Kurds police the Sunis and turn a blind eye when they take the opportunity to settle some old personal scores. Y9ou play faction vs. faction. You let today's favored faction fight as your proxys. If they wipe out a village, they probably got an insurgent or two in there. And so it goes, until the population at large is more afraid of you than the insurgents.

Either method can work.

Applying either of them in a half assed way won't.

This isn't advocacy on my part for either. It's simply saying the people in charge are so incompetant they don't recognize that CI warfare is a whole different ball game, with diferent rules, so they are making mistake after mistake and it's costing lives.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

While there may be 'two ways', material progress and security, or ruthless extermination, free-fire areas, 'secure villages/hamlets' etc, you should mention that genuine regional/religious divisions potentially undermine any of these. I'm not sure there's any example of a successful CI (Malaya, Philippines?) where divisions were so marked.

Perhaps a division of regions is the first step. E.g., secure the kurdish area as autonomous.

--
Just to put some numbers on the table, Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurdish.

However, Iraq is 95% Muslim, divided 60/40 Shi'ite and Sunni.

I infer that a majority of Iraqi Kurds are Sunni, despite the *ethnic* hostilities between the groups.

----

Clearly a Shi'ite state is in the making (unless everything falls apart). I think you will agree, however, that, leaving aside the Kurds, a Shiite state with 40% of its citizens (concentrated in certain areas) supporting an insurgency, is a situation that no 'counter insurgency' program is going to take care of.

 

[TheEarl]

While there may be 'two ways', material progress and security, or ruthless extermination, free-fire areas, 'secure villages/hamlets' etc, you should mention that genuine regional/religious divisions potentially undermine any of these. I'm not sure there's any example of a successful CI (Malaya, Philippines?) where divisions were so marked.

Perhaps a division of regions is the first step. E.g., secure the kurdish area as autonomous.

--
Just to put some numbers on the table, Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurdish.

However, Iraq is 95% Muslim, divided 60/40 Shi'ite and Sunni.

I infer that a majority of Iraqi kurds are sunni.

----

Clearly a Shi'ite state is in the making (unless everything falls apart). I think you will agree how, that, leaving aside the Kurds, a Shiite state with 40% of its citizens (concentrated in certain areas) supporting an insurgency, is a situation that no 'counter insurgency' program is going to take care of.
'counterterrorism

Pure: As an example of a successful CI, I'd like to put forward Northern Ireland. That's why I would be very much favour of the reconstruction and peace of Iraq being put under the control of a British soldier who's served in Northern Ireland and has experience of defusing racial feuds, being hated by all and sundry and keeping the peace in terrorist-bound areas.

As far as I can see, the only reason there's a Yank in charge, who's presumably never been in this kind of situation before, is American pride. Which is a stupid reason for costing lives.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

I will vote for an immediate pullout...

If every single one of you promise not to say PEEP when the bloodbath begins there.

No ... "We're partly to blame".

No... "Something has to be done."

NADA...

We pullout and leave the Iraquis holding the bag. When the cops come knocking on our door, you guys are behind the couch with me.

Sincerely,
ElSol

You got it. We did not come this far to pull out now. And anyway, there are permanent bases. We do not, though, need a democracy in place, stable or otherwise, for any purpose. A Saddam clone who won't get too big for his britches? Yes. And with a presence in the country (those bases) we ought to be able to keep him from getting too independent.

A Saddam clone will be ruthless enough to crush these people. He will not need al Q and they will not need Iraq. The al Q contingent will be concerned primarily, then, with the bases themselves, and maybe some oil pipeline sabotage. A good strong dictator can help you protect those things, as they do in Sa'udi Arabia.

The only practical alternative to a Saddam clone, that is, the only other outcome we can reasonably expect, is an Islamist state. Al Q would really lose interest in Iraq then, and any state, Islamist or whatever, has a leader. Islamist states will have assemblies, but they will be unlikely to really function as parliaments do. (They will be a pressure release valve-- people will blow off steam in them, but the leader should be able to act when we need him to.) We can almost certainly work with that.

If either of these things happens, we can let them have their water and their hospitals back, so long as the oil is handled in a way we want it handled.