BBC, ABC, Iraqis, and Americans See Success In Iraq

#

I’ve had some time to delve through the ABC/BBC/ARD/NHK survey. I’ve come to the conclusion that it tends to promote a greater optimism that Iraqis’ have for their future. However, if you probe deeper it reveals an significant point: namely that this optimism NOT carry over into a significant support for a continued U.S. occupation in Iraq. Why? Read below:

The poll does indicate that Iraqis feel significantly better about security… 54% now say that things in their life are going well, compared to 39% in both February 2007 and August 2007, only 18% expect things to be worse a year from now (39% in August, 32% in February). 39% say that security in their area is bad. 46% say that security has improved in their area and 36% say it has improved in the country in the last six months. For perspective, keep in mind that despite the perceived improvement, 63% still say that they do not feel safe in their neighborhoods and 56% say that things are going badly for Iraq as a whole, which is down from 78% in August and 66% in February but still quite high.

So, in a sense, one can see security has improved– but it is still _quite bad_ on whole for a majority of Iraqis. And looking closely at the survey you start to see how hight these kinds of negatives are for the US occupation continue throughout the survey– even tho’ a very small majority want to US to stay until security is established.

The interesting thing is that although there has been an improvement in security the results do not get translated into more positive feelings about the American presence: Only 20% have any confidence in our occupation; meaning, that despite all our money, blood, good will and effort, the US forces remain the single organization in the survey in which Iraqis have the least amount of confidence in.

In Q.14 regarding confidence, the Iraqi Army gets 65% of their confidence, the Police 67%, local leaders 47%, Awakening Councils 56%, national government 48%, local militias 22% and coming in at the lowest of all the categories, US occupation forces at 20%– basically tied with the militias!

That’s really bad! (Also, note how high the Awakening Councils are in this survey.)

How do they view the US in Iraq? 70% say that the US forces have done a bad job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq – down from 76% a year ago. 72% oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, down from 78% a year ago.

46% say the removal of American forces would improve Iraqi security and 23% say things would stay pretty much the same, compared to only 29% who say a US withdrawal would make things worse. I find this to be important and missed by the those that want to retain the Iraq occupation: Hawks always argue that a pullout would result in chaos, but note here that that position is shared by only 29% of Iraqis!

And perhaps just as important: has the improved security created conditions for political reconciliation– which was the goal of the surge? Yes say only 21%. 43% things are worse, while 36% say it is the same.

How long should we remain in Iraq:

38% say leave immediately: 35% say stay until security is restored, 14% say stay until Iraqi government is stronger, and 10% say stay until Iraqi security forces can operate correctly. Certainly, this is a different conclusion form the ORB where over 70% want us to leave.

Why is there such a vast difference here?

I think it comes down to the poll not providing demographic or regional variation in answers, even though there are parts where the report spells this out. Another aspect is on page 10 we find “Sunnis Arabs account for 30 percent of all Iraqis in this survey, Shiites 51 percent and Kurds (who are Sunnis, but not Sunni Arabs) nearly all the rest.” This survey is heavily tilted toward Sunni Arabs. And if we are to take into account the Sunni’s recasting their view of the US in the “Awakening” program we can speculate that this may be the portion of those subjects that ’tilted’ the survey towards wanting the US to remain until particular goals are achieved– it seems reasonable.

In conclusion, the big story here and the other ORB survey (that has twice the survey population) is the vastly significant majorities, while smaller, are still there in regard to a lack of confidence Iraqis have in us.

The obvious conclusion is the BBC, ABC survey adjusted for its Sunni ’tilt’ (and backed up with its own internal high negatives, and the conclusions by the ORB survey) supports a troop withdrawal.

Me thinks you miss the point of my above post, Doug. Most specifically how Arab nations feel about accepting help from the US.

No Arab nation wants to be beholding to western troops for their security. However the authorities – i.e. those in elected positions privvy to the slowly increasing status of their own internal security – begrudingly admit that a premature withdrawal of the troops can lead to the downfall of their fledgling government. Of course they’d rather we weren’t there. However they also know if we aren’t, their chances of fighting the violent elements bent on destroying their new nation are slim. Thus they reluctantly accept the help of the west.

Of course they prefer to put their faith in their own capabilities of self defense, as this poll shows. They are a proud nation, and resent being dependent upon the west. But they are also realistic, and know it may take more time for them to be able to stand on their own.

It has been said often enough that the day the Iraq govt asks the US to leave, we are gone. That, if you notice, has not happened. In fact, quite the opposite occurred when Jalabbi asked the troops to stay for two more years, a few months ago in Nov of 2007 (article in UK Telegraph)

Another argument is that the US should not be involved in Iraq’s “civil war”. The naysayers ask just who should we support? I counter that it’s simple… we should be supporting the majority of Iraqis who risked their lives to choose an elected govt and formulate a constitution… not those trying to thwart their path. If LA gangs were trying to usurp the US govt, would the naysayers support the thugs using violent rebellion against the voters wishes?

You prefer to believe the citizens of Iraq are ungrateful? Maliki’s speech to Congress the summer of 2006 says differently. They know that without the US coalition removing Saddam, they would never have the chance at for a country sans despot.

I often hear the “withdraw now” argument, followed immediately by the suggestion that our presence is the cause of the violence. No one truly has a crystal ball to say what would happen upon immediate abandonment of Iraq with change of POTUS. But history (such as the massacres following our desertion of Vietnam) shows us prior paths with those more able to overrun a weakend country. The risk of a failed Iraq demands we stay until the Iraqis themselves… meaning the govt privvy to their country’s progress and not the polls… tell us to go. If they ask us to leave, their failure lies on their heads. If we choose to leave, and ignore the govt’s request for us to stay, it is just a repeat of US abandonment (i.e. Afghanistan vs Soviet Union, Vietnam, etc)

President Jalabbi says stay two more years. Assuming you read news that doesn’t necessarily agree with your POV, the post above supplies the Nov 2007 article link, Doug. Comprehend this… Iraq is a struggling democracy, with it’s President requesting US help for two more years.

Unlike the DNC, who prefers to run our country based on the direction the wind blows in polls (results of which can usually be predicted by the media headlines for the past two weeks…), neither our current POTUS or Iraq’s President base national security decisions on poll results of citizens who not privvy to internal intel and data.

You may be bent on believing that a miniscule sampling of Iraqis definitively reflects what the entire nation believes. I counter suggest the lack of confidence reflected in these polls is driven by constant cut and run language permeating our Congress, western media, and US polls. And quite frankly, you know no more of the pulse of that nation than I do, so spare me your absolutes of being in the right.

Pocket this… if the Iraqis strongly believe they are better off with the US coalition forces gone, they need only have their elected officials issue that formal request to our CIC, and we’re history. See ya later, buh bye. Then their fate lies in the results of their choices. THEIR choices. Not American poll choices. That’s a withdrawal we can all live with, as it was Iraqi freedom of choice.

Until that request to withdraw comes formally from the govt, our last word on record from the Iraq President is that they request we *stay* for two more years. And it behooves the US to honor the elected officials request for support – most especially a country fighting for it’s very survival against the global Islamic jihad movement.

In an interview with Cheney by ABC’s Martha Raddatz finds Cheney’s “principle”:

Raddatz: ‘Tell me what you said to the Iraqi leadership and how far you’re willing to push them.’

V.P.: ‘On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. … That’s been a major success.’

Raddatz: ‘Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.’

Cheney, smiling: ‘So?’

Raddatz: ‘So? You don’t care what the American people think?’

Cheney: ‘No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public-opinion polls. … There has, in fact, been fundamental change and transformation and improvement for the better. … That’s a huge accomplishment.’

True. One should lead from principle, not polls. However, in this case there is no history of principle to be found in Cheney’s story on the war.

If you’re goign to base your military strategic positions on any elected official’s “fallen principles”, Doug… regardless of party affiliation – then all I can say is “good luck”. For any you hold up on a political pedestal, there’s ample dirty dealings and narcissisic ambitions to be slung back in your face. Let’s face it. You can whine about an inept and corrupt Iraq Parliament all you want. But our own Congress can’t stand on much higher moral ground themselves.

I fear you concentrate solely on specific details, sound byte phrases, and single battle results to formulate your military strategy opinions, – ignoring the wider picture of an enemy that deals behind the scenes with the of ME govts and elemets. The global Islamic jihad movement plants a base of operation in any country that gives them a modicum of welcome. or turns a blind eye. They will sign many a truce in order to regroup, restrategize, and break that truce at will. Tribal leaders/Pakistani Taliban/AQ/Pakistani military – their a history rich with just such failed agreements.

Cheney is correct that neither our CIC, nor the Iraq President, VPs and Parliament should be deciding the path to their national security based on poll results. He was no doubt smiling at the incredible stupidity of the question, suggestings that American poll results dictate the Pentagon and CIC. When I’m not at the end of my wits on a news day, and busy screaming at the screen at such a display of media idiocy, I smile, too.

The single important fact that cannot be ignored today, INRE our involvement with Iraq, is simple, and irrefutable. There is an Arab democracy struggling to make it thru their infant years. They are battling an enemy comprised of internal and foreign dissidents, bent on overthrowing what the majority of citizens voted in for their future.

And that country’s elected officials are requesting help from the US and coalition. Period. End of story.

You can debate the pros and cons of liberating Iraq all day long, and neither side will acquiesce. But know this. History will be written, and rewritten, based upon Iraq’s progress as a new democracy in the region. If they make it, become an ally in intel and friend of the western world for trade and relations… (the defiinition of “success” that eludes so many of you anti-free-Iraq types)… then history will judge the Iraq liberation as the right move.

However, if you’re determined for Iraq to fail, you clamor for the new CIC to ignore their requests for aid, withdraw and leave them to fend for themselves while you sit back in your Lazy-boy and cross your fingers. And why? Merely to gain political control of the nation with an election, and destroy the legacy of a POTUS you don’t like.

Positions such as these towards Iraq by citizens and the DNC candidates cause me to I seriously question their humanity.

It’s absurd to advocate that the US must mend relations with the “int’l community”, then ignore a struggling state asking for help. Interesting idea of interstate “friendship” you have there. And perhaps the perfect example of just *why* the national security for both countries is not goverened by poll results.

Civilian voters and poll respondents tend to be short sighted, ill informed, and unaware of the regional future consequences. And why? Because, like you, they refuse to read anything more than headlines.