Poll: Iraqis Want the U.S. Out
Coinciding with the Iraq Study Group’s report, a recent survey conducted by the The Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies shows that Iraqis want the Troops to leave
December 7th, 2006 by Deanna Taylor 
Deanna Taylor
December 7th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I am not surprised by any of the numbers.
1. Security was better under Saddam, because if someone attempted to violate Saddam’s security, he dispatched his angels of death or torture, a strong deterrent.
2. 9 out of 10 people in Baghdad, where Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies is based, probably have something to fear were they to say they feel safe with American soldiers around. After, is that really a pollster on the other end of the phone line?
3. This could be a feeling that can also be explained by my item number two, or it could be a hope that Sunni and Shia will stop attacking each other when America leaves–a tenuous bet at best, unless…we bring back Saddam to restore security.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
When people complain about lack of security in Iraq these days, it’s because they miss the days when they could walk down the street or go for a drive without risking their lives. One article I read recently began with the sad observation that Baghdad’s many childrens’ playgrounds are now overgrown from disuse. A situation like that goes beyond politics and spin. For us at home in the USA, it’s unimaginably horrifying.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I can’t think of a more horrible catastrophe. We should all be embarrassed and ashamed of our country.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will go down in history as the two most evil men of the 21st century in the company of Hitler and Stalin, with a back seat to neither.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Richard and Cliff,
I’m not sure you caught my point. You are correct that during the time of Saddam they could “walk down the street or go for a drive without risking their lives”, because of the “security” apparatus of Saddam Hussein. The social breakdown Iraqis have now, though, is a direct result of having first lived under despotism that provided “security”.
A major difference between then and now is that America has moral Rules of Engagement, which cause us great embarrassment when they are violated, while Saddam’s Rules of Engagement matched whatever his whim was that particular day. If the United States were to fill as many mass graves as Saddam Hussein did (God forbid), you can guarantee that there would be as much “security” now as there was then.
Just like any other country coming out of such living conditions, achieving liberty will not be easy for Iraq.
Read the post I linked to above and tell me if you really think that it would be better for Iraq to go back to living under Saddam.
Cliff, it is a horrible catastrophe. But not for the reasons you suggest. It is a horrible catastrophe because the average Iraqi knows now that the bulk of the American populace has abandoned them in their quest for freedom. And the terrorist insurgents know this, too. That’s why they try all the harder to get America out so that they can return Iraq to the “security” that was “enjoyed” under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Frank, it is a horrible catastrophe because so many of them are already DEAD. It a catastrophy because we have set in motion the privatization of thier precious commodity OIL.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Caveat,
I’m a bit tired of hearing about the oil hoo-haw. Please look at all facets of the issue instead of speculating about something that likely isn’t factual.
The reason many Iraqis are already dead is due to the society that they have lived under. Any society that transitions away from despotism will have such upheavals, as the despotic element tries to retain or regain its former power, and as the victim class attempts to exact revenge–REGARDLESS of whether the United States army is there. Russia is still suffering from its past to a degree, and they’ve had “democracy” for nearly 20 years.
Your comment about so many dead seems to imply one of two things (1) That the United States is responsible for the deaths, or (2) That life would be better for the Iraqis if Saddam came back to power. Or is it something else?
You didn’t read my blog post (link above) either. I’m beginning to think that you have your mind made up and don’t care to learn the other side of the story. By the way, if you can give me some facts about your allegations that it’s all about oil, I’d be glad to learn them.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Frank, I hope you’re not implying that Islam and/or Arab culture has no moral rules to violate. Saddam isn’t the only yardstick. I lived for two years in Yemen, which has very little crime simply because most people are law-abiding. Iraqis have a right to be appalled at what we have done to their country and their society. Nothing like the post-invasion looting, kidnappings, and random violence has ever been seen in their lifetimes. There are plenty of good people who can’t afford to flee the country and they are the victims.
By way of comparison, I’d like you to tell me if you think President Bush and his administration abide by any moral rules of engagement, and if so where the come from: he has thrown away the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights. Certainly nothing he does is governed by the Ten Commandments.
And I would suggest there is no “quest for freedom” going on in Iraq if there ever was– security has to come first, and the growth of not only the militias but the Iraqi insurgency are evidence of a frantic quest for security. People can’t get protection from the Coalition forces, who control only their own bases or whatever ground they occupy at the moment. The rudimentary Iraqi government doesn’t even command many of its “own” forces, which are under Coalition command.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I feel very strongly about this, that we have to rise above what we think about George Bush, and think about what the Iraqis really think and feel when they are not under pressure from the terrorist insurgency.
Here, for example, is a quote from Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Barham Salih:
“The difficulties of the day, though they are very tough and very painful, pale in comparison to the tyranny that we had to endure under Saddam Hussein,”
December 7th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Richard,
What did WE do to their society? I ask you the same question that I asked caveat–do you think all the deaths are the responsibility of the United States?
In answer to your comment about Yemen–no other country in the Middle East has yet come out of a dictatorship. Iraq is the first in our time.
You say “nothing like the post-invasion looting, kidnappings, and random violence has ever been seen in their lifetimes.” Dr. Barham Salih, I’m sure, would disagree (see his quote directly above).
In answer to your comment about quest for freedom. I was there when they voted. I saw it. I talked with the people. They want freedom.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Richard,
I missed answering one question of yours. I am not implying that Islam hasn’t morals to violate. I clearly an referring to Saddam. That is why so many of the Iraqi populace are so relieved to be rid of him. I have, actually, a great respect for Islam, based on my studies, and the Iraqi friends with whom I discussed its similarities with Mormonism.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Frank, you forgot to mention that Barhim Salih is a Kurdish politician who left Iraq in 1979 and didn’t return until Saddam’s regime lost control of Kurdistan. His goal, which makes perfect sense to me, is self-determination for Kurdistan– where today the Iraqi flag is never flown. But I wouldn’t quote him on the subject of the insurgency, that’s taking place in Arab Iraq. Indeed, Dr. Salih and his constituents are under a lot less pressure from insurgents than the Arabs are.
Per Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule I would say yes, the death and destruction in Iraq since March 2003 can be blamed on the USA.
The Republic of Yemen, for your information, has a democratic constitution, an elected president, and an elected 301-seat House of Representatives. The president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, hasn’t lot any elections– but I can tell you that he is a popular leader and a good ally of the USA. The deliberations of the legislature are covered on live TV.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Richard,
I didn’t know that about Yemen. I’m glad they’re democratic.
A major reason that the Kurds don’t have the same problems with terrorists is because they enjoy their freedom and the Peshmerga don’t take crap from anybody.
We do need to let the Iraqis stand on their own two feet, but Baghdad and Anbar are having a lot more trouble than the other provinces getting a handle on the violence.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I’m going to echo the reply I made on your blog re: the 2005 Iraqi election.
I’m afraid the Iraqi elections don’t mean what most Americans have been led to believe. Iraqis voted to end the occupation of their country. The increasing violence since then has happened primarily because the occupation continues.
Please check out this long but detailed first-hand report: “Anatomy of a Civil War: Iraq’s descent into chaos”.
Sample quote:
“Following the success of Shia parties in the January 2005 elections, Muqtada’s representatives in the Iraqi National Assembly demanded a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, a demand also made by Sunni rejectionists, who refused to participate in the new government or rein in the resistance until the Americans committed to leaving Iraq. The vote on the initiative fell short of the needed majority, but Muqtada’s championing of a nationalist and anti-American agenda shared by Sunni leaders suggested a fragile alliance.”
This was before the civil war broke out, however to this day the one thing almost all Arab Iraqis agree about is that they want an end to the occupation.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Frank, I just have to challenge your casual assertion that “Baghdad and Anbar are having a lot more trouble than the other provinces getting a handle on the violence.” Those two areas have at least a third of the entire population of Iraq, and Baghdad is clearly the strategic center of gravity. By the way Iraq’s second city, Basra, has been taken over by murderous thugs. But Baghdad is the decisive battle. More Iraqi troops are needed there, however several battalions mutinied and deserted en masse when ordered to move to the capital and replacement units cannot be found.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
You’re correct. My previous statement was too casual.
I wondered, when I clicked Submit,whether I should have said that.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Richard and Frank, thanks for the clairifing discussion. The Oil HooHaa, and wanting to prove that ones’ penis is larger than ones fathers’ are plenty of reason for a psychopath to ‘misbehave’. Yes there are alot of contextual issues that I leave out, that is because I don’t want the complexification of the ‘whole’ to undermine the WRONGNESS of the admins wonderful adventure, oil or not oil. (Shock and Awe was such stimulating TV). Frank, I dare you to suggest that OIL wasn’t a very large, ALL CAP pretext. I mean, SUV sales at the time were on the rise, don’t cha know? You see it’s all about protecting ‘us-the-people’ from the terrorists. There’s also the’ Profiting from War HooHaa’… Google Dick Cheney, for a good time.
As for Iraq democracy, I won’t be surprized on the day we read that Diebold voting machines have been selected to count the Iraqi vote.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Caveat,
There you go again, with your stimulating avoidance of debate. Not only did you not give me resources to back your oil claim (which I promise I will read if you supply them), but you introduce other bald assertions about SUVs, male sexual organs, and Diebold voting machines.
I finished reading “Hubris” by Isikoff and Corn, and there are a lot of major issues that have merit in this discussion, such as misleading the public and Congress about WMDs, Iraq / Niger and the uranium issue, etc., but I don’t remember them talking about oil. Maybe Woodward’s book(s) talk(s) about that–I haven’t read them yet, but plan to.
I’m willing to grant that there may be something to the oil thing, considering that Congress recently avoided a vote on opening up the Gulf of Mexico, a move that would be a major stride toward energy independence, but I would like proof (or at least debate) rather than ad hominemization.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Frank, all you have to do is Google “Bush Iraq oil.” When you were there, didn’t the Iraqis tell you it was all about oil?
December 8th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Sorry if I don’t measure up to your debate opponent standards. I suppose if I, myself, don’t provide credible links, there will be no value to the arguments. Easily deniable. I’ll shrink down to an anti-Ken Bingham. Oh well. My training is in homebuilding, and agriculture, and though I have become pretty good at these pursuits, I still have a feeling that, as a citizen, it doesn’t matter if a person is particularly well versed in the ins and outs of providing links or even feeling as though I have ALL the information. Nobody does. I have read enough and have been involved in stopping wars, from inside the establishment and out for over 30 years. One element of citizenship is to pipe up in whatever forum we care to utilize.
I’m gonna pull another one out of my hat right now. Word is that you actually spent time in the subject nation. If that is the case, then you were very likely exposed to Depleted Uranium. Frank, for this unfortunate occurance, and on behalf of my misguided government, I apologize. I hope the exposure was minimal and of no lasting consequence. Peace, Cav. Emp.
December 8th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Frank, here’s something for you. Go to commondreams.org -todays edition (friday) has one entitled “It’s Still About Oil in Iraq”, from the L.A. Times writer, Antonia Juhasz. This is really a Quip, but it supports my readings, since before this war even began. There is a veritable plethora of articles that reflect similarly. I mean, what do you suppose the energy taskforce that Cheney headed and wouldn’t reveal any sense of who participated, was about? May you become informed. Thanks.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:05 am
Caveat,
You have a good point there. I read the article. I was not aware of the BearingPoint study, nor what seems the undue influence of foreign oil firms on Iraq.
While it is true that Iraq’s oil infrastructure is ancient and in dire need of upgrade, it is also true that the benefit of Iraq oil production and delivery should accrue to the Iraqi people rather than a bunch of parasitic foreign countries wanting to bleed Iraq dry and leave them to languish.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Those ‘foreign oil firms’ are the very oil firms that prop up this administration. Further, the Baker group is also deeply involved in accessing (a coloquialism meaning; stealing, even if tens or hundreds of thousands of people are killed or exposed to our weapons of mass destruction, see colateral damage) mid-east oil. He also played a big part in promoting Mr. Bush into the presidency and now is acting to fix the boykings intransigence, (without letting go of that precious commodity).
December 10th, 2006 at 8:00 am
“George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will go down in history as the two most evil men of the 21st century in the company of Hitler and Stalin, with a back seat to neither”.
…and we get to be their people, as far as the world is concerned, no amount of shame will make up for letting it(them) happen.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Caveat,
Coincidentally, I came across an interesting post on The View from 1776 entitled, “Maybe We’re Fighting the Wrong War”, that says we can’t say what we really think about the Saudis because we need their oil.
I’m beginning to see your point more clearly.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
We have known about peak oil for a long time. Carter had solar panels installed on the white house even. Here’s where my gripe w / the republicans mutated from disgust with the Nixon / Kissenger axis to a more general complaint. One of the first things Reagan did apon entering the Whitehouse was to have the solar equipment removed. This came shortly after the Reagan / Bush campaign moves to slow the release of the Iranian held American embassy hostages, until after the election, which proved successful for the Reagan / Bush team, and all thier guys, (Cheney, Rumsfield, and many, many others), now serving at the pleasure of Bush the lesser. (see October Surprise). 20 / 20 hindsite indicates that the ‘war’ that really needed to be fought and still needs fighting is on our addiction to, and overconsumption of fossil fuels. Our blessing and our curse. In any case, we’re nearly thirty years behind any track that the Carter administration, in thier wisdom charted out for us, because there were profit to be had by the Repub supporters and the Bush family in particular. This is a BIG story and my nutshelling of it only hints at all the wonderfully perverse details these people had to contrive and lie about, that thier greedy plans might bear fruit.
January 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Array