If this news is true, I find it shocking that US media hasn't reported it. I did several different google searchs and could only find mention of it on a few blogs, Alternet, and The Nation . Perhaps the news is being suppressed, or perhaps because it's the Al Sadr movement that sponsored the petition MSM media is reluctant to report on it without further confirmation.
So now there are majorities supporting withdrawal throughout US and Iraqi society:
a majority of Americans support setting a deadline for withdrawal
a majority of US Congresspeople voted to start withdrawing by Oct 1
a majority of Iraqi lawmakers now reject occupation
quote:Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2007.
More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The U.S. media ignored the story.
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.
It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).
Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.
Here's two general's criticism of President Bush's Iraq strategy:
quote: “The president vetoed our troops and the American people… “His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration,” says retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste.[former commander of the First Infantry Division]
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton [in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004] said, “This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America’s Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever [it is] apparent [that] only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war — alone, without their president’s support.”
[ May 10, 2007, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I find it shocking that US media hasn't reported it.
I don't find it very shocking. Of course, I was also never very surprised by the fact that die-hard pro-war fellas would always say that the media was portraying an unrealistically negative view of the war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:without note in the U.S. media,
From the Post: "Al-Rubaie said he personally handed the Iraqi bill to speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani on Wednesday." So it's in the morning edition of the Post the day after it happened.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If this news is true
Truth is hard to come by in Iraq, these are from the article Dagonee linked
quote: The bill would require the Iraqi government to seek approval from parliament before it requests an extension of the U.N. mandate for foreign forces to be in Iraq, al-Rubaie said. It also calls for a timetable for the troop withdrawal and a freeze on the size of the foreign forces.
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously in November to extend the mandate of the U.S.-led forces until the end of 2007. The resolution, however, said the council "will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the government of Iraq."
quote: Deputy Speaker Khaled al-Attiyah told The Associated Press said the draft legislation had not been officially submitted to the speaker, but was currently being reviewed by the house's legal department, apparently the final step before it can be submitted.
quote: Ali al-Adeeb, a senior Shiite lawmaker and an aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, questioned the wisdom of asking foreign forces to leave when Iraqi forces were not ready to take full responsibility for security in the country.
"Their withdrawal will not benefit anyone if our forces are not ready," said al-Adeeb, who said he did not back the bill. "There must be a commitment from foreign parties to train our forces."
quote: Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said he had backed the draft only on the condition that the withdrawal timetable be linked to a schedule for training and equipping Iraq's security forces.
"But the sponsors of the legislation did not include our observations in the draft. This is deception," he said.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wonder if it's time to inform the public that what they *want* may not be in their best interest.
I get the feeling that we need to rethink our mission there; and that we need to fix many broken things. But I've never understood why leaving is even being discussed at this point.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I wonder what would happen if we simply left.
One has to ask the question, would the Iraqis vote for us to leave if they weren't safe due to our military presence?
I can't answer that question, but if the established government demands that we leave, we have to respect their wishes, for good or for ill.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I've never understood why leaving is even being discussed at this point.
Because many people see the Cost/Benefit of us staying being much worse than the Cost/Benefit of us leaving in certain ways (e.g. redeployment to other bases in the region).
Also, it is being used as a club to attempt to force some sort of responsiblity on the Bush administration so that they actually start doing things that have any reasonable chance of success.
---
I thnk, one of the biggest reasons is that, as things now stand, with unfettered Bush administration control, many people see almost no chance of things improving significantly and a good chance that things are going to keep getting worse.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wonder if it's time to inform the public that what they *want* may not be in their best interest.
Um. For real? So, you want to go for imperialism instead of instituting democracy after all?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wonder if it's time to inform the public that what they *want* may not be in their best interest.
Um. For real? So, you want to go for imperialism instead of instituting democracy after all?
I interpreted that as a call to make the actual case for staying to the Iraqi people - which would necessarily require articulating the goals, benefits, and a reasonably complete picture of how those will be accomplished.
quote:I can't answer that question, but if the established government demands that we leave, we have to respect their wishes, for good or for ill.
Absolutely. If an "official" request - whatever that means in Iraqi government - is made, we must leave or we will be in the wrong.
Unofficial communications should be factored into our decision, but do not create in and of themselves the immediate moral imperative to get out.
For example, in the U.S., an official request might be a law (majority of congress plus presidential signature or 2/3 of each house), while an unofficial request might be a non-binding resolution. There are circumstances where other things might be official in the U.S., depending on the circumstances. For example, the President can make official requests concerning purely foreign policy matters; it's not clear if those requests would be illegal even if Congress had passed a contrary law over his veto.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:without note in the U.S. media,
From the Post: "Al-Rubaie said he personally handed the Iraqi bill to speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani on Wednesday." So it's in the morning edition of the Post the day after it happened.
Dag, thanks for the link to the Post. But the dateline on that article is Thursday, May 10, 2007; 1:06 PM. So it's available 2 days after the fact online, or 3 days in the print edition.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's only one day after the fact - the bill was turned in on Wednesday.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The legislative petition was complete Tuesday. It was given to the speaker Wednesday.
I agree an official request from the Iraqi government would require us to leave, and a simple majority doesn't rise to that level. For one thing, as the Post article says, the number of legislators may be a shaky and temporary majority.
But given the list I wrote in my initial post, it's becoming plainer that the day is approaching when we will have to leave. I think it will come within the year.
The alternet article has an interesting take on the nationalist/separatist divide in Iraq. I have long thought that Iraq's partioning is inevitable, but the strong support for a unified Iraq may change my opinion.
quote:I wonder if it's time to inform the public that what they *want* may not be in their best interest.
Actually, I think many Iraqis have made a very difficult calculation that coalition forces should leave despite the huge risk of subsequent worsening violence.
quote: Eight out of ten Shias in Baghdad (80%) say they want foreign forces to leave within a year (72% of Shias in the rest of the country), according to a poll conducted by World Public Opinion in September. None of the Shias polled in Baghdad want U.S.-led troops to be reduced only “as the security situation improves,” a sharp decline from January, when 57 percent of the Shias polled by WPO in the capital city preferred an open-ended U.S presence.
This brings Baghdad Shias in line with the rest of the country. Seven out of ten Iraqis overall—including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)—say they want the United States to leave within a year.
Nonetheless, the number of Shias in Baghdad who fear an upsurge in violence if U.S. troops withdraw within too short a time span has risen a dramatic 52 points since the beginning of the year. Six out of ten Shias in Iraq’s capital city (59%) believe that sect-on-sect killings would rise in the event of a speedy U.S. withdrawal. This view contrasts with that of Shias in the rest of Iraq, where a majority (64%) thinks such violence would decline if U.S. troops departed in six months.
Sounds like a good time to vacation in Iraq.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The irony of the complaints coming from Bush and Republicans about extended recesses threatens to crush my brain under the weight of the irony.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The irony of people opposed to the war in Iraq to begin caring about polls like this in increasing amounts is amusing to me too, Lyrhawn.
Didn't hear much chatter about what the Iraqi government (or the Iraqi people, or the US people, or the American government for that matter) wanted when they were in favor of a continued American presence.
Either this sort of polling is important, or it isn't. It shouldn't be crucial when it's favorable, and backburner material when it's not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Either this sort of polling is important, or it isn't. It shouldn't be crucial when it's favorable, and backburner material when it's not.
That sounds extremely simplistic to me. It sounds like you are making the opinion of the Iraqis the only factor. The reality of this situation can be much more complex than that.
To me, it is entirely possible to have major problems with our invasion of Iraq even though a majority of Iraqis at that time were okay with it. These reasons could then be supported or intensified by a majority of the Iraqis wanting us gone.
Hey, you could even have believed that the Bush administration was going to screw it up and that we were going end up with the Iraqis wanting us to leave. In fact, I said on this site that I expected that to happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:It sounds like you are making the opinion of the Iraqis the only factor.
While you could infer that I was saying that Iraqi opinion (public and gov't) should be the only fact, all I actually said was that it shouldn't be crucial when it's favorable and unimportant when it's not.
In other words, if Iraqi public opinion wasn't up in your (general, not specific) top list of Reasons to Get Out of Iraq a couple of years ago, it seems to me that it shouldn't be there now.
quote:To me, it is entirely possible to have major problems with our invasion of Iraq even though a majority of Iraqis at that time were okay with it. These reasons could then be supported or intensified by a majority of the Iraqis wanting us gone.
I don't understand why that's a reasonable line of argument, Mr. Squicky. If it wasn't important a few years ago back when a majority of Iraqis didn't want us gone, then any support or intensification of support should be minimal now, to say the least, right?
Otherwise, isn't it just cherry-picking?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The legitimacy of the Iraqi government as a credible, democratic institution representative of the Iraqi people and holding the power to bring about change in the country it claims to rule seems to be on a long-standing downward curve with no end in sight.
If Iraqi lawmakers are beginning to call for a withdrawl, it's not a sine qua non. It's just the latest in a string of bad news.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't understand why that's a reasonable line of argument, Mr. Squicky. If it wasn't important a few years ago back when a majority of Iraqis didn't want us gone, then any support or intensification of support should be minimal now, to say the least, right?
Otherwise, isn't it just cherry-picking?
Because it doesn't rest on whether or not the Iraqis want us there, but rather on the totality of the factors involved and their relative influence. The Iraqis wanting us there at one point may not have been, from someone's opinion, all that significant (in terms of how the war was likely going to go, not about the feelings of the Iraqis). Certainly it is better than them not wanting us there, but it wasn't going to fix the other serious problems. However, when a large majority of the populace really wants us gone, that is a significant negative factor on the potential success of what we are trying to achieve, possibly one that is near impossible to overcome.
It's the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition. The good-will of the Iraqi people may be regarded as a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Thus, when other conditions regarded as being necessary are absent or more accurately when there aren't enough other positive composite factors, them wanting us there doesn't have all that much effect on the long run prospects. However, from some perspectives, remove this good will and no matter what you do, you are doomed to fail.
Let's say that you are trying to build a house. You don't really know what you are doing, you haven't gotten the proper equipment, but you do have a good foundation. An observer can hardly be faulted for thinking that you are going to make a mess of the house, even with your good foundation. At that point, the foundation is of little importance to the overall outcome because the other faults overshadow it, making it so that you be unable to capitlize on it. However, when you destroy the soundness of this foundation, it becomes the most important factor. Even if you fixed the other things, you still wouldn't be able to build a house there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:The Iraqis wanting us there at one point may not have been, from someone's opinion, all that significant (in terms of how the war was likely going to go, not about the feelings of the Iraqis). Certainly it is better than them not wanting us there, but it wasn't going to fix the other serious problems. However, when a large majority of the populace really wants us gone, that is a significant negative factor on the potential success of what we are trying to achieve, possibly one that is near impossible to overcome.
These two statements seem to be contradictions to me, Mr. Squicky. If lack of popular support is a signifigant detriment, doesn't it necessarily follow that popular support would be a signifigant benefit? I don't understand how you can disagree with that idea.
quote:Let's say that you are trying to build a house. You don't really know what you are doing, you haven't gotten the proper equipment, but you do have a good foundation. An observer can hardly be faulted for thinking that you are going to make a mess of the house, even with your good foundation. At that point, the foundation is of little importance to the overall outcome because the other faults overshadow it, making it so that you be unable to capitlize on it. However, when you destroy the soundness of this foundation, it becomes the most important factor. Even if you fixed the other things, you still wouldn't be able to build a house there.
I see where you're going here, but I think you're minimizing (or maximizing, depending on your PoV) the importance of the 'foundation', so to speak. Let's take it as a given that you don't know what you're doing, and you lack the proper equipment. An observer can be faulted for assuming you're going to end up with something worse than a vacant lot when you started out.
I guess I just disagree on the 'little importance' part. I think that the 'foundation' we're talking about is much more critical than you do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh,
quote:If lack of popular support is a signifigant detriment, doesn't it necessarily follow that popular support would be a signifigant benefit?
No, of course it doesn't. Could you explain your reasoning? Because that sounds very foolish to me.
As I've said, it is not a simplistic situation, but rather one that needs to be understood in the total context.
It doesn't appear to me that you understand what I am saying at all. It's really, to me at least, not a difficult concept at all. Perhaps if you explain your thinking or if someone else can explain their impression of where I am coming from, it will help to resolve this.
---
edit: Actually, I came up with another way to approach it. The support of the Iraqi people was something you had to have for things to work. However, in order for things to work (and for you to retain their support), you had to do a lot of other things, many of which we failed at. Success depended both on having their support and in doing the other things in combination.
Having adequate food is very important for doing any sort of thing, like building a house, but eating three squares a day isn't going to get you any closer to getting that house done. It's important (crucial even) when it is missing, because you can't do the job without it, but there's a whole heck of a lot more you need to do other than just have it.
[ May 11, 2007, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I see where you're going here, but I think you're minimizing (or maximizing, depending on your PoV) the importance of the 'foundation', so to speak. Let's take it as a given that you don't know what you're doing, and you lack the proper equipment. An observer can be faulted for assuming you're going to end up with something worse than a vacant lot when you started out.
I guess I just disagree on the 'little importance' part. I think that the 'foundation' we're talking about is much more critical than you do.
Are we talking about construction or are we talking about Iraq? If we're talking about construction, then I don't think your criticism works. A novice screwing around with very powerful tools is very much at risk to damage the site that they are working on. If we're talking about Iraq, then it actually happened, just as people, like myself and others on this site, said it would. I don't see how you can fault people for making thoughtful predictions that came true.
If the support of the Iraqis was so critical to the overall success, why is the situation so screwed up now and why do they no longer want us there? Likewise, in the viewpoint I'm proposing, the Iraqi attitude, when it is negative, is extremely critical. It is almost a sine qua non of a postive outcome.
---
edit: I want to re-emphasize here. Obviously, having the goodwill of the Iraqis wasn't enough, as we are in a very poor spot and we've also lost the goodwill of the Iraqis. That's what you seem to me to be faulting people for saying in the past, that even though we had their support, our outcome was likely going to be bad.
Also, now people (even people who once supported the war) are saying that without the support of the Iraqis, in an environment where a large majority of them really want us to leave, that it will extremely difficult to near impossible to succeed in Iraq.
Somehow, you seem to be taking exception to these statements. I'm not sure why. The only way I can see them as being seen as inconsistent is from a very, very simplistic viewpoint.
[ May 11, 2007, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To go back to earlier, I meant to post this but my internet was having issues (we just switched to a new provider and the net is humming along smoothly again) so I'll post it now with a slight addition:
If they ask us to leave, we should leave, but I think Scott is right that maybe the people need a reality check, the Iraqi people I mean. I think the Bush Administration has made its case several dozen times over on why it's in America's best interest to stay in Iraq, and by and large I think he has failed to make that case adequately.
The Iraqis on the other hand might not understand the consequences of asking for us to leave. I think many of them assume that when the US troops leave, their problems will also go away. I've seen polling data that suggests Iraqis intrinsically tie the terrorist trouble to US forces, which makes little sense to me since most of the violence is sectarian shiite on sunni rather than whoever on US troops.
I think we need to look at the situation from more angles. Bush likes to narrowly define things. Win in Iraq or else the terrorists follow us home. Okay, what is a "win?" How will these terrorists do so? What constitutes defeat? Which terrorists? What happens if we win? What happens if we lose? That's the problem with one sentence goals or even one word goals like "freedom" or "democracy." They make the goal sound simplistic and then we all get tripped up on the intricacies.
We need to ask ourselves what we specifically, really want to happen over there. Do we/they want one Iraq or three separate Iraqs? Do they want a strong federal government or weaker with more provincial power? etc, etc. And the biggest question for America to ask itself is "how long are we willing to wait?" Clearly we aren't willing to wait forever, a majority of us don't seem much willing to wait longer than the rest of the year. So how long are we willing to wait, and what can we expect to get done in that time? If we have a limited amount of time, that should be factored into whatever goals we set, or we're only setting ourselves up for trouble.
Time for a reality check. Time for the President to get more serious than surges and one liners, because neither of those things are going to fix the entire country. Even if we managed to quell the violence there, which at the moment is a longshot of its own, what are we going to do if the Iraqis can't get their crap together and form a working government and body of law? What happens if they end up choosing a government we don't like at all?
These are really questions we should have asked ourselves BEFORE we invaded, but better late than never. Benchmarks are arbitrary in their deadlines, but facing a country with limited patience on our presence there (our own population), it's time to get serious with the Iraqi government and spur them to motion. If they continue to drag their feet and no make progress, then I think they are taking advantage of the price we are paying, and maybe it's time we gave them a deadline to meet, and if they don’t meet it, then they lose our help.
And to add to that, the guy who was fixing my internet today was a Marine, and I, politely as I could, asked him what he thought of the entire political situation with war funding. Some of this you can dismiss as anecdotal (which is generally inadmissible in the Court of ‘Rack), but I think it deserves attention in this case. He told me we should have gotten the troops out a long time ago, that we’re just standing around refereeing a fight between two sides that are determined to fight each other. He said it was like the American Civil War, and it wouldn’t have made much sense for Britain to come to America and try and stop the north and south from fighting each other, which is basically what we’re doing. He said they should just fight it out, and we shouldn’t get in their way.
I told him the only reason I asked is because generally on the news all you ever see is troops supporting the war. He told me that when he was in Iraq, the troops were specifically told by their commanders that the media has free reign, and can go wherever they want, and they can interview and ask whatever they want, but under no circumstances were the troops to give a negative opinion of the war, or they would face punishment. He sounded somewhat bitter and said free speech didn’t matter much in the Marines. That pretty much lines up with what I have heard from other troops who’ve since left the service. Dismiss his opinions of the war if you want, but I think that bit about the troops not being able to express real opinions is telling. He also said they had the option of just saying nothing at all, but considering how long the phone lines are, the chance to say hi to mom and dad back home was just too good to pass up, so those who didn’t like what they were doing just sucked it up, lied, and made the best of it. He also told me that when they first got there, they had no idea what was going on. None of them knew about the political problems in Iraq, or the sectarian divides, and religious differences. They just knew where to point and shoot, and that’s all they were told. One wonders if the commanders even knew.
I’m not sure where I stand on polling data. Personally I don’t think polling data in Iraq is really reliable, but from the start I have approved of the Iraqi people holding a referendum on a continued US presence, and I guess the legislature is the next best thing to that. Frankly I don’t know what Iraqis polls said a few years ago, and other than the one posted in this thread I don’t know what they say now. But I think we can agree that when/if their parliament asks us to leave, that’s a bit more reliable a reason than a Zogby poll.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
An interesting post, Adam. I don't think polling in Iraq is reliable either. However, raising the margins of error counters that somewhat.
quote: Seven out of ten Iraqis overall—including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)—say they want the United States to leave within a year.
You'd have to posit a 20%+ error rate to get below 50% of Iraqis wanting us to leave. I don't think that's realistic, unless it's a push-poll.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Iraqis on the other hand might not understand the consequences of asking for us to leave. I think many of them assume that when the US troops leave, their problems will also go away. I've seen polling data that suggests Iraqis intrinsically tie the terrorist trouble to US forces, which makes little sense to me since most of the violence is sectarian shiite on sunni rather than whoever on US troops.
The vice-president has said (last year IIRC) that adjusting troop levels is a delicate balance, because our military presence causes and exacerbates problems as well as maintaining security. At some point, our presence will do more harm than good--if we are not already there, I think we will be shortly.
I don't think many Iraqis view a pull-out as a magic bullet. But it's not only a rational but an emotional thought process.
A friend several years ago posited a thought experiment:what if America had a dictator, and foreign powers invaded to depose him. How would Americans view the subsequent occupation? I am sure that many if not most Americans would want the occupiers out ASAP, even if it would cause short-term (or even long-term) problems. Many would take up arms against the occupation.
[ May 11, 2007, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Valid point about margin of error, but I still wonder specifics on the polling data.
What was the size of the group of people asked? What region of the country are they from? What was their position before the war? And what is their occuation and economic status?
Unless the polling people sampled people in relatively equal numbers from across all the people of those groups, I don't trust the data at all. I don't think you'll get the same answer in Al-Anbar as you will in Diyala, or from someone who is rich rather than poor, or from someone who held a position in the Saddam governmenet versus someone who didn't, etc. etc. How many of those polled refused to give their real names for fear of reprisal? Remember you can be targeted in Iraq if you show support for the "American occupiers," it's possible many of them didn't give truthful answers. And if a small enough sample population was used, then I think it makes the argument that it's a worthy cross section of the population moot.
I'd just need to see specifics on the polling data, what questions were asked and who was asked before I could put any real stock in the polls. American polls I trust, because by and large the results bear out the truth of the polls, and because pollsters have been researchin, refining and actually doing polls in America for the better part of five decades. They have it down to a science here, and it works. Five years trying to figure out Iraq's polling quirks aren't enough to convince me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
From the .pdf about the methodology of a poll I quoted from above, taken in Jan 2006 (corrected from 2007 thanks to Lyrhawn)
quote:Face-to-face interviews were conducted among a national random sample of 1,000 Iraqi adults 18 years and older. An over sample of 150 Iraqi Sunni Arabs from predominantly Sunni Arab provinces (Anbar, Diyalah and Salah Al-Din) was carried out to provide additional precision with this group. The total sample thus was 1,150 Iraqi adults. The data were weighted to the following targets (Shia Arab, 55%, Sunni Arab 22%, Kurd 18%, other 5%) in order to properly represent the Iraqi ethnic/religious communities. The sample design was a multi-stage area probability sample conducted in all 18 Iraqi provinces including Baghdad. Urban and rural areas were proportionally represented.
I agree that polling there is less accurate than in the US, but at first glance they appear to use good methodology. The .pdf lists a margin of error of +/- 3 %, based on the sample size of 1150 (and perhaps other mathematical considerations.) Now, +/- 3% may be optimistic, but I don't think you can reject the entire poll because of "polling quirks."
[ May 11, 2007, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just don't put all my faith in it, though now that I've actually read the whole thing, a lot of the numbers appear to bear out what we hear in the media (though one wonders if they aren't just reinforcing each other).
I'd be curious to see the same questions asked in 2007. But both surprised and not surprised by the fact that they generally approve of attacks on US forces but universally disapprove of attacks on Iraqi forces. Also slightly surprised that they really think we'd stay regardless of being asked to leave.
Some of the numbers from the Kurds have me a bit confused. There really aren't any allied troops in the Kurdish territory, but they seem pretty worried about what will happen when we leave. Are they concerned for themselves or the rest of Iraq? It also appears the Kurds are the most friendly of all the groups towards us, and the most pragmatic, whereas it's fairly obvious the Sunnis just out and out hate us and want us out of there.
The problem I have with the methodology is I don't know what provinces other than the over sample ones were used, I guess I'm supposed to assume it was all of them, and there is zero demographic data available on the people who participated, not even something as simple as age and gender. I think those are valuable numbers.
Does anyone know off the top of their head if the current parliment has a lot of Sunnis in it? I know that they boycotted the first election, but has there been an election since then that they have participated in? The poll says almost 100% of Sunnis feel the current Iraqi government does not represent Iraq as a whole. That's a pretty scary statistic if still true.
Anyway, I just want more info.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I thought the poll was from 2007, you're right it's 2006.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The poll says almost 100% of Sunnis feel the current Iraqi government does not represent Iraq as a whole. That's a pretty scary statistic if still true.
Yes, that 94% of Sunnis felt that the parliamentary elections were not free and fair really stood out to me too.
It's frightening in its implication that Sunnis feel they have nothing to gain from the political process.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I wasn't aware of polls from before the invasion saying that a majority of Iraqis wanted us to invade. Could you point me toward those? Thanks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I thought the poll was from 2007, you're right it's 2006.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The poll says almost 100% of Sunnis feel the current Iraqi government does not represent Iraq as a whole. That's a pretty scary statistic if still true.
Yes, that 94% of Sunnis felt that the parliamentary elections were not free and fair really stood out to me too.
It's frightening in its implication that Sunnis feel they have nothing to gain from the political process.
Well that, and they had so much more to gain when they were supporting the Sunni champion dictator Sadaam Hussein. It would be extremely difficult for a minority group to give up so much power, priveledge, and prestige.
Ill be honest, short of a kurdish Woodrow Wilson, a Shiite Gandhi and a Sunni Jesus, coming out of the woodwork, I am not sure how all three groups will unify without alot of blood shed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well that, and they had so much more to gain when they were supporting the Sunni champion dictator Sadaam Hussein. It would be extremely difficult for a minority group to give up so much power, priveledge, and prestige.
I am by no means an expert and I can't point to a source for this, but I was under the impression that the average Sunni Iraqi wasn't treated that much differently from an average Shi'a Iraqi. Prominent Sunnis had it really good (edit: and many individual Shi'a had really bad things done to them), but the average Sunni, especially one living during embargo time, wouldn't be lowered much by a more democratic government, given that this government had strong individual equal rights protections.
I think, again not being an expert, that there was a real opportunity to bring the Sunni and Shi'a together in 2003 and into 2004. The Kurds, I kinda doubt, but they're still mostly happy living in their semi-autonomous region.
However, it doesn't look as if there was sufficient amount of thought, planning, or attention towards how to accomplish this admittedly difficult goal. Months before the invasion, President Bush reportedly didn't even know the difference between the two groups.
And now, I think the situation is broken beyond our ability to fix, especially considering the people in charge are the same ones who squandered/destroyed the earlier much more advantageous situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rakeesh, I wasn't aware of polls from before the invasion saying that a majority of Iraqis wanted us to invade. Could you point me toward those? Thanks.
kmboots, could you point me to where Rakeesh said there were such polls?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oooh, can I play too?
Dag, can you point to where boots said that Rakeesh said that there were such polls?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:kmboots, could you point me to where Rakeesh said there were such polls?
Squicky, I'm in no mood for your crap today. boots's statement very clearly implies that Rakeesh has asserted such polls exist. You're smart enough to recognize that, boots is smart enough to recognize that, and you're not actually fooling anyone with this.
Do you think Rakeesh actually asserted that there were polls taken while a brutal dictator was still in power that suported the overthrow of said dictator?
If you don't think so, why would you ask him to show you where such polls are?
Edit: and also in the very next post below this one, which I shall address momentarily.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: The irony of people opposed to the war in Iraq to begin caring about polls like this in increasing amounts is amusing to me too, Lyrhawn.
Didn't hear much chatter about what the Iraqi government (or the Iraqi people, or the US people, or the American government for that matter) wanted when they were in favor of a continued American presence.
quote: I don't understand why that's a reasonable line of argument, Mr. Squicky. If it wasn't important a few years ago back when a majority of Iraqis didn't want us gone, then any support or intensification of support should be minimal now, to say the least, right?
I read these as indicating that there was some poll saying that Iraqis wanted us there. I am curious about that. Just a request for information.
edit to add: actually, if there were polls, taken after the invasion, indicating that the Iraqis wanted us to be still there now I would be interested in in seeing those as well. Most of what I have read seems to indicated either an immediate withdrawal or one as soon as a government was elected. 2004 polls that I know about show most Iraqis wanted us out "within a year".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Well that, and they had so much more to gain when they were supporting the Sunni champion dictator Sadaam Hussein. It would be extremely difficult for a minority group to give up so much power, priveledge, and prestige.
I am by no means an expert and I can't point to a source for this, but I was under the impression that the average Sunni Iraqi wasn't treated that much differently from an average Shi'a Iraqi. Prominent Sunnis had it really good, but the average Sunni, especially one living during embargo time, wouldn't be lowered much by a more democratic government, given that this government had strong individual equal rights protections.
I think, again not being an expert, that there was a real opportunity to bring the Sunni and Shi'a together in 2003 and into 2004. The Kurds, I kinda doubt, but they're still mostly happy living in their semi-autonomous region.
However, it doesn't look as if there was sufficient amount of thought, planning, or attention towards how to accomplish this admittedly difficult goal. Months before the invasion, President Bush reportedly didn't even know the difference between the two groups.
And now, I think the situation is broken beyond our ability to fix, especially considering the people in charge are the same ones who squandered/destroyed the earlier much more advantageous situation.
I am not an expert either, but here are some advantages I thought the Sunni's had under Sadaam, as well as possible disadvantages under a democratic coalition government.
1: Sadaam protected the Sunni's and helped them brutally oppress the Shiites and the Kurds, both of which are more numerous in Iraq. No more school yard bully protection, what karma is coming?
2: Sunni's were disproportionately represented in the government because Sadaam mostly appointed Sunni's to positions. Those jobs and their influence were purged when Hussein was deposed. Coalitionist beurocracts Sunni's along with Baathists were all fired, it was a dumb decision IMO.
3: There are no oil reserves in Sunni lands, its all with the Shiites and to a lesser extent with the Kurds. If the government takes control over all oil reserves and does not allow them to be privatized, the Sunni's should be fine, but there is no guarantee that will ultimately happen, and the prospect of becoming the beggers of Iraq when they used to be the leaders is too much to accept.
4: Anyway you slice it, in a democracy, minorities lose power. The Sunni's will not get nearly as much control in this new government then they are used to. At best they will be under a government that does not pander to them, at worst they will be harshly opressed. The problem is exactly like the US's initial debate over preportional/equal representation.
Note point 2 is more concerned with executive branch influence, 4 is more legislative.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I read these as indicating that there was some poll saying that Iraqis wanted us there. I am curious about that. Just a request for information.
Then why did you add "from before the invasion" to your question? Rakeesh spoke of a "continued American presence" and asserted that "a majority of Iraqis didn't want us gone" - as in, to leave.
He didn't even mention the invasion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:boots's statement very clearly implies that Rakeesh has asserted such polls exist.
No it doesn't. It implied that these polls or the absence thereof affects Rakeesh's point. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's not what you said at all.
--- edit:
quote:He didn't even mention the invasion.
Of course he didn't. But then the situation he brought up was explicitly about widening the context. He was faulting people for taking a position here by explicitly bringing up a situation they didn't mention that he felt was connected. boots did the same thing by introducing something Rakeesh didn't mention but that she felt was relevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:boots's statement very clearly implies that Rakeesh has asserted such polls exist.
No it doesn't. It implied that these polls or the absence thereof affects Rakeesh's point. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it's not what you said at all.
The only way it could affect Rakeesh's point is if Rakeesh's point were in any way related to before the invasion.
It wasn't.
Now, it would be possible to make an argument similar to Rakeesh's that asserted that Iraqi popular approval of an invasion from before the war should have silenced critics.
But that's not what he said.
quote:edit to add: actually, if there were polls, taken after the invasion, indicating that the Iraqis wanted us to be still there now I would be interested in in seeing those as well. Most of what I have read seems to indicated either an immediate withdrawal or one as soon as a government was elected. 2004 polls that I know about show most Iraqis wanted us out "within a year".
And at the time those polls were out, people were calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq - not in a year (or after the government was in place, which was another common deadline in those polls). So the contrast between polling data and anti-war advocacy is still present.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course he didn't. But then the situation he brought up was explicitly about widening the context. He was faulting people for taking a position here by explicitly bringing up a situation they didn't mention that he felt was connected. boots did the same thing by introducing something Rakeesh didn't mention but that she felt was relevant.
In a manner that implied he had made the underlying claim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I read these as indicating that there was some poll saying that Iraqis wanted us there. I am curious about that. Just a request for information.
Then why did you add "from before the invasion" to your question? Rakeesh spoke of a "continued American presence" and asserted that "a majority of Iraqis didn't want us gone" - as in, to leave.
He didn't even mention the invasion.
My opposition for the war started before the invasion. My understanding at that time was that Iraqis didn't want us there. If there is information that contradicts this, I should learn more about it. My opposition to the war has continued throughout. My understanding is that the majority of Iraqis want us gone as well. If that is incorrect, I should learn more about that.
I don't think it would change my mind about whether or not our occupation is good or legitimate, but it is relevant information. As it contradicts what I have read/heard, I should learn more about it and would appreciate more information.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
edit: Just wanted to make clear that this is all my opinion.
quote:1: Sadaam protected the Sunni's and helped them brutally oppress the Shiites and the Kurds, both of which are more numerous in Iraq. No more school yard bully protection, what karma is coming?
I don't see no longer being able to do bad stuff to people as necessarily a lowering, especially when one of the initial steps towards what I'm talking about is a formation of a common group identity with these people.
quote:2: Sunni's were disproportionately represented in the government because Sadaam mostly appointed Sunni's to positions. Those jobs and their influence were purged when Hussein was deposed. Coalitionist beurocracts Sunni's along with Baathists were all fired, it was a dumb decision IMO.
And, as I said, those particular Sunnis were definitely advanteged. From what I understand of the situations, howerver, there wasn't a great deal of trickle down to the average, everyday Sunni. Joe Sunni, if you will. With the lifting of the embargo and a revivification of the country's social and economic structure, even if Joe Sunni would have to share the pie more with Joe Shi'a, he'd still be getting more of that delicious fruit filling.
quote:3: There are no oil reserves in Sunni lands, its all with the Shiites and to a lesser extent with the Kurds. If the government takes control over all oil reserves and does not allow them to be privatized, the Sunni's should be fine, but there is no guarantee that will ultimately happen, and the prospect of becoming the beggers of Iraq when they used to be the leaders is too much to accept.
So part of the developed government that we were supposed to be major architects for should include economic distribution of these resources in such a way as people are most happy with it.
quote:4: Anyway you slice it, in a democracy, minorities lose power. The Sunni's will not get nearly as much control in this new government then they are used to. At best they will be under a government that does not pander to them, at worst they will be harshly opressed. The problem is exactly like the US's initial debate over preportional/equal representation.
That's not actually true, especially if we take the case where Joe Sunni didn't have much power under Saddam to begin with.
Yes, if we view the situation as necessarily a sectarian struggle, then you are correct. However, avoiding/defusing the sectarian struggle and demostrating how unification is better in the long run for everyone should have been a top priority for our post-invasion plans, as opposed to something that it doesn't seem the people planning it gave much thought to.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Yeah, if we get a reputable message from the Iraqis that we should leave Iraq, then we should get out; otherwise we'd be turning this into a "white man's burden" situation. But they'd better get a very stern warning that we'll be back if they start playing cat-and-mouse like Saddam Hussein again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And at the time those polls were out, people were calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq - not in a year (or after the government was in place, which was another common deadline in those polls). So the contrast between polling data and anti-war advocacy is still present.
And it's three years after those polls were taken and we're still there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The only way it could affect Rakeesh's point is if Rakeesh's point were in any way related to before the invasion.
It wasn't.
I have no idea why you think that you could know that. To me, a statement like that would rely on knowing all the ways that the two could be related and being able to reject them all with absolute confidence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My opposition to the war has continued throughout. My understanding is that the majority of Iraqis want us gone as well. If that is incorrect, I should learn more about that.
You've alluded to the polls that, in 2004, a majority of Iraqis wanted us there until at least 2005. You still opposed it during that time. Further, after the invasion, over 60% of Iraqis said ousting Sadaam was worth the harm caused by the invasion and occupation up to that point - a point in time in which, presumably, you still thought the invasion to have been wrong. Therefore Rakeesh's basic premise - that anti-war activists advocated policies contrary to those supported by the majority in Iraq - true. That doesn't mean his conclusion is true, but it does mean that the factual predicates of his argument are true.
quote:I don't think it would change my mind about whether or not our occupation is good or legitimate, but it is relevant information.
I agree with this, and do not agree fully with Rakeesh's conclusion that opposing our presence at a time when the majority of Iraqis wanted us there (as you did during some point in 2004) means polls cannot be used to support withdrawal now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And at the time those polls were out, people were calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq - not in a year (or after the government was in place, which was another common deadline in those polls). So the contrast between polling data and anti-war advocacy is still present.
And it's three years after those polls were taken and we're still there.
And I'm not making any assertion about the relevance of those polls to today's situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The only way it could affect Rakeesh's point is if Rakeesh's point were in any way related to before the invasion.
It wasn't.
I have no idea why you think that you could know that. To me, a statement like that would rely on knowing all the ways that the two could be related and being able to reject them all with absolute confidence.
Hey squicky, I note that, in the past, you have posted statements about the nature of prejudice and scientific studies related to it.
I wasn't aware that scientists have identified a reliable and valid blood (edit: changed from "physical" to make the point clearer) test to determine a person's level of prejudice. Can you please point me to the articles on those? Thanks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain why that would be relevant?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a parallel construct to the original post that we have been discussing. My contention is that it implies that you have stated that there is a blood test for prejudice (which, to my knowledge, you have not done).
Certainly, I would consider posting that in a thread about the studies you have cited to be a very unfair post.
Perhaps you disagree, but I doubt it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I gave the wrong impression. The polls I know about are still firmly in favour of us leaving. The most "pro-staying" poll that I know about was about a third saying leave now; a little more than that saying stay until a goverment is elected; and somewhat less than a third leaving it open-ended. That one, in February of 2004 (I think) also had a majority that opposed the coalition presence. All the other ones I know of were even more in favour of us getting out.
Iraqi opinion is by no means the only reason I oppose our occupation. Nor the most significant. That, as I understand it, the Iraqis don't want us there either is additional information that supports my opposition. If it is not correct then I should know that.
As I said, I would appreciate the information to further my own understanding and correct misinformation that I might have. If you or Rakeesh don't feel like sharing, you aren't under any obligation. It was a request for a favour, feel free to tell me to do my own darn research.
edit: though you have other sources that I don't seem to be able to find.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I don't think you understand. I was replying to your post, not to the meta-content in your post. Could you explain why a blood test to determine a person's level of prejudice would be relevant to the preceding?
---
edit: Also, I don't read your statement as making any implications about what I did or did not say. It raises the idea of a blood test as being relevent, but says nothing about what I said.
When Rakeesh brought in the earlier situation, despite it not being brought up by the putative people he was talking about, I didn't assume that he was implying that they mentioned it. I did assume that he thought it was relevant and addressed my response to that.
When boots brought up the pre-invasion polls, if you didn't think or understand why she thought it was connected, you could have asked her why she thought that. Then she could explain her reasons for bringing it up and you could have a conversation about that. I think this would have been a better and more respectful choice than what you did do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only one poll in 2004 shows a clear majority for leave immediately:
quote:February 2004: 33 percent want withdrawal within a year; 40 percent, withdrawal once an Iraqi government is in place; 27 percent, a longer or more open-ended stay. (Oxford Research International)
June 2004: 41 percent, "immediate withdrawal"; 45 percent, withdrawal after election of a permanent government; 10 percent, 2 years or longer. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).
June 2004: 30 percent desire immediate withdrawal, 51 percent want withdrawal after a government is elected, 13 percent said that Coalition forces should remain until stability was achieved. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)
June 2004: 53 percent say leave now or "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year"; 33.5 percent allow "more than one year" or "until permanent government is in place"; 13.6 percent, even longer if necessary. (Oxford Research International)
quote:I don't think you understand.
It's you who does not understand. What you have deemed "meta-content" was the only content in the post.
quote:I was replying to your post, not to the meta-content in your post. Could you explain why a blood test to determine a person's level of prejudice would be relevant to the preceding?
I was posting an example of what I consider to be a similar form of unfair behavior.
However, if the contention is that prejudice can be scientifically measured, then it would be relevant.
Unless, of course, it didn't actually exist and the person making the contention about scientifically measuring "prejudice" hadn't claimed it existed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When Rakeesh brought in the earlier situation, despite it not being brought up by the putative people he was talking about, I didn't assume that he was implying that they mentioned it. I did assume that he thought it was relevant and addressed my response to that.
There's a difference between bringing something up and asking someone to provide data - in an unconditional way - about something immediately after a sentence indicating that a new revelation had been made.
There's more than just bringing up a new topic in play here. There's the manner in which it was done.
quote:When boots brought up the pre-invasion polls, if you didn't think or understand why she thought it was connected, you could have asked her why she thought that. Then she could explain her reasons for bringing it up and you could have a conversation about that. I think this would have been a better and more respectful choice than what you did do.
Wait a minute. Either what boots did was respectful or it was not respectful. If it was respectful, then so was my post.* If it wasn't, then why are you only calling me out on it?
(Note that I am not saying that if boots's post was not respectful then mine was also not respectful - there are differences - but anything in mine that might make it disrespectful was also present in hers.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I understand you perfectly. I'm trying to get you to actually address what I'm saying though.
---
In the context of you asking about a blood test for preudice, without any of the wider context in this thread, let's say in the thread like you are postulating where I talked about the scientific studies of prejudice, my response to someone I considered likely asking in good faith about blood tests would to ask them why they thought it was relevant, as I am not arrogant enough to assume I know absolutely everything about the topic or that there is no value in addressing a misconception about the field or what I was saying. Then we could talk about this.
To me, this is advancing discussion. What you generally do feels to me like playing games. It looked to me like you weren't interested in what boots was thinking.
---
quote: but anything in mine that might make it disrespectful was also present in hers.
I don't believe that this is true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, those are the polls that I have already seen. None of them indicate that we should still be there after government was elected (which it has been for some time now). And the most favorable - the Oxford poll - also said that a majority opposed the coalition presence. And "strongly oppose to strongly support was better than 2:1 opposed. And if you had quoted the last one as well as the others
quote: January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal ãeither immediately or after an elected government is in place.ä (Zogby)
there was an overwheming majority - over two years ago. None of this seems to contradict what I have been saying.
edit: hey, my post (as I have tried to make clear) was a request for information. To Rakeesh. Who seemed to indicate that he had information that I didn't. And to which he hasn't responded.
You have responded (eventually) with information that I already had and had already mentioned. But I appreciate the effort.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boots,
I've thought about this for about a half an hour, and I continue to think that it's pretty darn clear that I wasn't talking about polls from before the invasion expressing favoritism for an invasion. Obviously that's a ridiculous notion-how could I think there were?
That leads me to view your claim that you actually thought I was implying there were such polls with extreme skepticism, to say the least.
quote:actually, if there were polls, taken after the invasion, indicating that the Iraqis wanted us to be still there now I would be interested in in seeing those as well.
This is also not what I said or implied.
Frankly, after the last discussions you and I had concerning the Iraq war or the Bush Administration, I'm wary of getting into this with you again at all. The last time, if I wasn't explicitly condemning something, then I must approve of it.
Can we just skip that BS this time around, please?
Thanks.
-------------------
Mr. Squicky,
Haven't forgotten about our discussion. It's getting kind of swept away, but I'll try to address the points you made.
quote:If we're talking about construction, then I don't think your criticism works. A novice screwing around with very powerful tools is very much at risk to damage the site that they are working on. If we're talking about Iraq, then it actually happened, just as people, like myself and others on this site, said it would. I don't see how you can fault people for making thoughtful predictions that came true.
Unless the novice were to take a triphammer to the foundation itself (in actual construction), then no, he's not really at much risk of damaging the site he's working on. He may build a really crummy house on that nice foundation, but the structure could be leveled.
As for Iraq, I dispute that things have happened "just" as you and others have said it would. That implies a degree of prognostication that hasn't been met, I think. Generally though, those predictions have been correct.
I'm not faulting anyone for making predictions. Where have I said or implied otherwise? I will say this, though: ceaseless criticism before and during the effort that, "This is not going to work!" might in fact be harmful.
quote:That's what you seem to me to be faulting people for saying in the past, that even though we had their support, our outcome was likely going to be bad.
This isn't actually what I was saying. What I was faulting was the emphasis on polling data now, but a lack of emphasis on polling data back when it was favorable. That's all. I brought it up because bringing up polls isn't done solely as a utilitarian thing. People who bring up polling data, in general, do so to demonstrate that "This thing is what The People want". That carries a heavy weight all on its own, particularly in a representative society like ours.
Unless someone brings up polling data solely as a reference towards the likely outcome of our continued presence in Iraq (and you're welcome to show me a statement from someone who does), then I think they're cherry-picking.
I do think it's very clear that boots's post suggested I was relying on such polls.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: What I was faulting was the emphasis on polling data now, but a lack of emphasis on polling data back when it was favorable.
What I am asking is when was it ever "favorable"? None of the polls that I have seen, indicate the it was. Your post seem to say that there were polls that say that it was. This would be new information for me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What I was faulting was the emphasis on polling data now, but a lack of emphasis on polling data back when it was favorable. That's all. I brought it up because bringing up polls isn't done solely as a utilitarian thing. People who bring up polling data, in general, do so to demonstrate that "This thing is what The People want". That carries a heavy weight all on its own, particularly in a representative society like ours.
I think you seem to be saying that people should make both sides of the case when they are arguing something. I don't believe that this is true.
If an advocate of the war brings up something that, after a long time of trying and a history of failures, finally succeeds, should we fault them for when, in their earlier support, they refrained from mentioning this problem with their position?
If not, why is it fair to apply this standard to the anti-war side? Do you think people are resting their opposition on the war solely or even mainly on the Iraqi polls? That is not my experience at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It appears to me that, upon boots clarification, I misunderstood her. Thus, a lot of what I said isn't really relevant. Sorry about that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What I'm saying is: there have been polls, linked to in this thread, pointing to times when the 'leave now' notion was rejected by a majority of Iraqis in the past.
For some reason, you insist that since those polls said "within a year", or some such, that they're invalid. That doesn't wash, given that I'm not suggesting they should carry weight now.
I've been very clear about this. Even Mr. Squicky, with whom I've had many disagreements or misunderstandings, gets the point I'm making-he just disagrees with it.
I'm saying that more and more, when the polling information is favorable to their cause, we hear more and more about polling from anti-war folks. We sure didn't hear much reference to polling back when it wasn't favorable to their cause, now did we? Additionally I go on to point out what I feel is a contradiction in doing things that way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for Iraq, I dispute that things have happened "just" as you and others have said it would. That implies a degree of prognostication that hasn't been met, I think. Generally though, those predictions have been correct.
I'm not faulting anyone for making predictions. Where have I said or implied otherwise? I will say this, though: ceaseless criticism before and during the effort that, "This is not going to work!" might in fact be harmful.
I think at least some of us had the hope that if we spoke up then, it could be avoided, or at least the damage mitigated. And continuing to speak up now is something I hope will help prevent this from happening again.
I think many people also see themselves as having a moral duty to register not just disapproval, but specific critique of particulars, in order to force corrections to reality. (Rightly or wrongly -- I think rightly, but we may differ on that -- I do think that is a strong motivation.) Given that this is a conflict entered into and engaged in the name of the American public, that doesn't seem beyond the pale to me.
quote:I do think it's very clear that boots's post suggested I was relying on such polls.
I read kmboots as having interpreted your logic as requiring such evidence to be asserted, whether you had done so directly or not (as an initial assumption, as it were). I understood her and actually agreed with her, although I wasn't surprised that it was a request that people took umbrage at. Such a request can't be seen as other than a challege by its very nature, and it is natural to respond to that.
---
The whole tenor of this thread is so painful. I might just be particularly sensitive and maudlin right now (I have hormonal, sleep-deprivation-related, and personal reasons to be a whiney weeper today, alas! ), but it feels unlike a meeting of friends.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, I understand you perfectly. I'm trying to get you to actually address what I'm saying though.
And I've been trying to get you to address what I've been saying, although I'm done with that now.
I quite honestly don't believe you about what you would have done, and I don't believe that you are interested in advancing discussion:
1) You decided to respond to the second of two nearly identical posts. 2) You ignored the first post. 3) You did not engage in this discussion-advancing behavior you are now advocating.
If what I did was games-playing, then so was what you did. You apparently think that you had a sufficient reason to engage in this non-discussion-advancing behavior. I don't agree with your assessment of the behavior as non-discussion-advancing, but I do think I had sufficient reason to post as I did.
You've labeled my actions game-playing. I think you are engaging in a inconsistent - bordering on hypocritical - commentary regarding posting behavior.
quote:See, those are the polls that I have already seen. None of them indicate that we should still be there after government was elected (which it has been for some time now). And the most favorable - the Oxford poll - also said that a majority opposed the coalition presence. And "strongly oppose to strongly support was better than 2:1 opposed. And if you had quoted the last one as well as the others
quote: January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal ãeither immediately or after an elected government is in place.ä (Zogby)
there was an overwheming majority - over two years ago. None of this seems to contradict what I have been saying.
2005 is not 2004 - it's almost a full year after the first of those polls. The only thing that needs to be true for Rakeesh's factual predicate (and not his conclusion) to be true is for there to be a time when anti-war advocates demanded immediate withdrawal AND Iraqis favored some extension to our presence there. There was such a time - most of 2004 (although there is one outlier poll in March).
In other words, nothing you have been saying in any way contradicts Rakeesh's assertion that some people adovocated immediate withdrawal at the same time as a majority of Iraqis favored some - even if brief - continued presence.
****
Back to Squicky:
There is now clear evidence that boots's original post to which I responded was based on the premise that Rakeesh had indicated that pre-invasion polls of Iraqis supported the invasion: "edit: hey, my post (as I have tried to make clear) was a request for information. To Rakeesh. Who seemed to indicate that he had information that I didn't." The information she asked for was information about those pre-invasion polls. This is the information she thought Rakeesh had indicated that he had.
In other words, MY READING OF HER POST WAS CORRECT and it implied - deliberately - that Rakeesh had somehow indicated the existence of such polls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To be honest, in some respects just simply having a shoot out about a disagreement seems more attractive then this endless semantical bickering.
"No what I said is that what she said clearly indicates that he said that my opinions were thus."
"I disagree, and I do not think you can agree with me when you consider that his grasp of her opinions was flawed in the first place."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think you seem to be saying that people should make both sides of the case when they are arguing something. I don't believe that this is true.
If you're (general 'you') only waiting to bring it up later when conditions change, then yes, I do think you should at least mention both sides.
quote:If an advocate of the war brings up something that, after a long time of trying and a history of failures, finally succeeds, should we fault them for when, in their earlier support, they refrained from mentioning this problem with their position?
Yes! Because in such a case, the 'success' would arguably have more to do with chance and luck than with the correctness of the approach.
quote:If not, why is it fair to apply this standard to the anti-war side? Do you think people are resting their opposition on the war solely or even mainly on the Iraqi polls? That is not my experience at all.
Certainly not, it's not my experience either. My point is that people bring up polling information when it suits them, and 'neglect' to mention it when it doesn't...and if you're going to bring it up at all, in my opinion it should be brought up favorably or unfavorably-and then in the unfavorable case, should be argued as to why something should be done in spite of that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I read kmboots as having interpreted your logic as requiring such evidence to be asserted, whether you had done so directly or not (as an initial assumption, as it were). I understood her and actually agreed with her, although I wasn't surprised that it was a request that people took umbrage at. Such a request can't be seen as other than a challege by its very nature, and it is natural to respond to that.
I don't understand how what Rakeesh said requires pre-invasion polls when Rakeesh was speaking only of continued presence. Especially in a climate where there were quite a few people who opposed the invasion but supported continued presence once the invasion had happened.
I also have a hard time understanding how anyone would come to the conclusion that Rakeesh would believe that such polls were conducted while a brutal dictator was in power.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I very much dislike playing the games too, but with Dag it seems that the option is to play the games or let him get his way and his way often seesm unfair and very disruptive of conversation to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For the purposes of opposition to the war and given the practicalities of the political process and moving an army, "leave immediately", "leave soon", "leave within a year" etc. are all pretty much the same. All of the polls listed support leaving. They are in favour of us getting out. And all of them were known and reported at the time.
The opposite of my position would be "stay indefinitely" or "stay until things are secure". None of the polls I have seen, say that. If there were such a poll that would be interesting information.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I very much dislike playing the games too, but with Dag it seems that the option is to play the games or let him get his way and his way often seesm unfair and very disruptive of conversation to me.
I was not playing a game. I was asking a specific question about from where kmboots had derived her implied conclusion that Rakeesh was asserting the existence of pre-invasion polls.
Since the alleged unfairness of my post depends on whether my reading of boots's post was correct, wouldn't it have made more sense to ask before doing something you claim to dislike very much?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Do you really think that you've applied that standard to the Bush administration or the war supporters in your posting at Hatrack?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My intial request for pre-invasion polls was an automatic response to the connection to opposition to the war - which for me started before the invasion. When that was clarified, I amended my request to polls from any time.
I had hoped to learn something new.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
The second the Iraqi Parliment votes for us to leave, we will leave.
I think there are members of the Bush admisitration that stay up at night praying this will happen. It would relieve us of a ton of culability in the aftermath, and save us a ton of money.
However, just as much of the American congress publically denounces the war but won't vote to defund it, because they know that would be insane, much of the Iraqi congress gives lip service to the idea in public but stay up late at night praying we don't leave.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Do you really think that you've applied that standard to the Bush administration or the war supporters in your posting at Hatrack?
I do actually, Mr. Squicky. Your tone of surprise notwithstanding. While remain in favor of our continued presence in Iraq, I have numerous times expressed frustration and antagonism to certain decisions Dubya has made with regards to his foreign policy, and his domestic policy as it affects foreign. Not always, not everytime, but many times nonetheless.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have never, that I can recall, seen you make a criticism on the Bush administrations announcement of success in an area after remaining silent about the failures they were having in that area, something that they do often. It may be that I just have missed those posts or that my recollection is faulty, however.
Would you agree that the Bush administration is very much in the wrong because they are not keeping people abreast of the failures that are going on in Iraq?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Would you agree that the Bush administration is vey much at fault because they are not keeping people abrest of the failures that are going on in Iraq?
I think they are at fault for not keeping people abreast of many things, both good and bad. The American people need to know exactly what the administrations goals in Iraq were, and if any new ones have been set. They need to know what is preventing those goals from being realized, and what the nature of those obstacles are.
Same goes for our accomplishments, as well as when our enemies are defeated.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, That sounds like a major problem. Do you express your issues with this problem so that the Bush administration are aware of it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, That sounds like a major problem. Do you express your issues with this problem so that the Bush administration are aware of it?
1: I am sure they are aware of this problem already, and the current state of affairs reflects how they have decided to respond to that problem.
2: I have no faith in writing letters to the government, they do not take them seriously, and do not respond to them in an appropriate fashion, though I cannot really blame them, 300 million Americans is alot of letters.
3: I vote for candidates that I believe will represent my political agenda as best as possible.
edit: You are welcome to suggest an alternative way of getting my own ideas heard, besides running for political office.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I moved this from an edit above
If I were guessing, I'd say that you strike me as someone who would not have answered that they were disatisfied with the way that the Bush administration is running this war, especially if we were talking about a timeframe 2 or 3 years ago. Are you saying that this is an incorrect impression?
---
I would suggest that, if you do agree that this is a major problem, that the least you do is write letters to your representatives. I would suggest further that you encourage other people in your area to do the same. With the upcoming showdown over this, I think it is very important that the people involved realize that their constituents have strong opinions that they take seriously and that will be strongly informing their votes come next election.
(edit:)The Republicans that are going against the President here are doing so in large part because they are feeling the pressure from their constituents and are afraid for their own jobs. If you yourself and the people you convince make your reps aware that supporting President Bush in this is going to lose your vote, I'm pretty sure it will have an effect.(/edit)
There are also protest groups that you could get involved that whose engagement and time or resources required can be pretty minimal.
---
edit: On a purely selfish note, there have been multiple times on Hatrack I've picked up the banner of accountability in the government in regards to this war. I've been pushing the idea of a timetable (of the sort of "We expect to accomplish X in this timeframe." etc.) for a cuople of years now over multiple threads. I wouldn't mind your support.
I honestly had no idea that this view on this as a problem was so widespread here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I moved this from an edit above
If I were guessing, I'd say that you strike me as someone who would not have answered that they were disatisfied with the way that the Bush administration is running this war, especially if we were talking about a timeframe 2 or 3 years ago. Are you saying that this is an incorrect impression?
3 years ago I did not think I knew enough about our war in Iraq to have a solid opinion on the matter. I was a missionary from Sept 12th 2001 until August of 2003, and so the events that led up to the invasion were mostly a mystery to me. Chinese people failed to explain to me that we though Sadam had WMDs not Nuclear weapons, and so I ignored the whole affair until I got home.
Upon being back home it was hard for me to get an unbiased report of the Iraqi conflict. Sadaam had Al Qaeda connections and then he didn't. We found WMD's and then we didn't. We were there to remove terrorism and its sponsor Sadaam, and then we weren't. That coupled with my need to catch up with everything else that happened in the news left me with an undecided view on Iraq until as late as 2005.
I support the reasons we went to Iraq, I support our stated goals there, and I do not support unilaterally leaving any time soon.
I do oppose my perceived media black out of this affair. I want to know what Shiite militia's are in the way, ditto on Sunni's. Where they are located, and what has been done to stop them. I want to know about propaganda campaigns we are using to win the ideological battle, if we arn't, why not.
I'd like to know what facilities we are building there. How we are improving infrastructure.
I'm sick of reading purely casulty reports.
But I understand why I cannot be privy to this information right off the get go, but when its reasonably to declassify any of it, I'd like to know.
So that I can avail myself of any responsibility to the current administrations mistakes in Iraq that I believe are on going, I will commit to writing every congressman and senator from Utah. I already voice my opinions to other Utahns when the appropriate situation arises.
But I still find most anti war advocates do not persue the goals I myself wish to see fulfilled, and so I do not attend protests.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: The second the Iraqi Parliment votes for us to leave, we will leave.
I think there are members of the Bush admisitration that stay up at night praying this will happen. It would relieve us of a ton of culability in the aftermath, and save us a ton of money.
However, just as much of the American congress publically denounces the war but won't vote to defund it, because they know that would be insane, much of the Iraqi congress gives lip service to the idea in public but stay up late at night praying we don't leave.
Doc, that's an interesting way to look at it, but an unanswerable question. I wonder how many Iraqi MPs truly do want us to leave?
With American congresspeople I can guess at their hidden motivations from various clues, thanks to a shared culture and my interest in politics. Iraqi politicians are more of a "black box": only the outputs can be analyzed, their internal thought processes are a mystery to me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Rakeesh's original quote was:
quote:Didn't hear much chatter about what the Iraqi government (or the Iraqi people, or the US people, or the American government for that matter) wanted when they were in favor of a continued American presence.
"A continued American presence" could easily be inferred to mean either the established presence that is there, post-invasion, or the establishment of a presence there brought about by an invasion.
So it would appear the useful step to further discussion is to clarify that point- which seems to have been achieved- and not to continue to fuss over semantics in ways that make everything five times as long and far more bitter and hostile than necessary.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Amen to that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, Sterling and Lyrhawn, how useful were your posts to furthering discussion?
Fussing over people fussing over semantics seems even more meta.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I suppose that depends on whether it encourages people to seek clarification rather than continue to attack what people think other people have said, and then attack people for thinking that, and then attacking people for thinking that people are thinking that, and then...
Personally, I'm not of the opinion that anyone has said or done anything to warrant being caught in that kind of spiral death trap.
-
Personally, I'm rather hoping a concensus can be achieved in the U.S. on the matter of firm but non-date related benchmarks. It seems like the best hope of spurring Iraq to act on it's own behalf, the Bush administration to consider alternative strategies, and moving forward on the matter of Iraq in general.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So, Sterling and Lyrhawn, how useful were your posts to furthering discussion?
Fussing over people fussing over semantics seems even more meta.
If ya'll are allowed to do it for a page and a half without pause, I really don't think you'd have a problem with a three word post expressing agreement with someone else over it. But hey, you're fussing over my fussing over your fussing, so I'd say we're even .
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god. this forum loves semantical bickering.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
(It's "y'all.")
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In my defense, there's two and a half million Google hits for "ya'll." Granted there are over six million for "y'all," it means there are millions of more people who feel the same way I do .
Thank you for the correction though, I didn't know that. It's rarely something I spell, generally something I say.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Well, "officially" (according to Wikipedia, anyway) it can be either. I just use "y'all" since it's supposed to be "you all" with the o and u removed. A discussion about the number of semantic arguments on Hatrack was the perfect place to insert the correction.
-j_k
[ May 11, 2007, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The second the Iraqi Parliment votes for us to leave, we will leave.
I'm skeptical that Parliament can vote for us to leave, actually. As I understand it, the way the government is set up, any proposed law has to be screened by legal counsel first -- and we've picked the legal counsel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Isn't that process currently happening?
And what exactly is the legal counsel checking against? The Iraqi Constitution? If there isn't anything in their constitution that says they can't do it, shouldn't it go through?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If there isn't anything in their constitution that says they can't do it, shouldn't it go through?
It would be up to our hand-picked legal counsel to decide.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, working with the assumption that Bush will more or less tell him what to say (if not, then it's really a moot point, as it'd just be a matter of law, and being a US chosen counsel or not wouldn't matter), then I think the question would become this: If our handpicked counsel vetoes this and the motion fails, it'll probably be played in the Iraqi press as US meddling in their internal politics and like we're trying to fix their parliament so we won't have to leave. So, is it worth the media backlash that will come with it? And really, what about the moral question there? Stifling their democratic decision is the same thing as ignoring them once they've made a decision, it's just a matter of semantics at this point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh my god. this forum loves semantical bickering.
And it loves commenting about it over and over again.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I take the fact that so many Americans see the political situation Iraq as such a "black box" to be a big failure in this war.
For a long time, I was tempted to blame Bush for this. I still kind of do--I think Bush should go to greater efforts to bypass the media and take the explanations directly to the American people, utilizing people who are more eloquent than himself, like Tony Snow--but when the media is as stubbornly set on misrepresenting you, it's hard not to leave a big chunk of blame squarely in their laps.
It's not just the mainstream media, though, but also the blogs on both side of the aisle. For example, alternet mentions that Nassar Al-Rubaie, the guy they get this petition from is al Sadr, but they fail to mention what the movement has done in the past or why they might have less-than patriotic reasons for wanting the US out.
It all goes back to an underlying desire on everybody's part to have their agenda believed, facts notwithstanding.
The only way to get the full story on any part of this is to read yourself, ask lots of questions, doubt, doubt, and doubt some more, regardless of your political party.
Don't be afraid to open the black box.
**********************
And Tom, I stand by my statement. Neither this admistration or anybody associated with it will make any but the most superficial of attempts to go against a vote by the Iraqi parliment for our withdrawl.
But nobody should hold their breath waiting for that. The majority of Iraqis, in and out of parliment, want us there.
Okay, let me revise that. The majority of Iraqis, in and out of parliment, hate the idea of us being there less than they hate the idea of what will happen right now if we leave.
Instead of votes for us to leave, expect to see a lot of petitons and votes for things like the changes in the security agreement al-Hakim is calling for today, with more power shifting back and forth between the US forces and the Iraqis, with the power gradually drifting towards the Iraqis.
Unfortunately, it will be a "climb three inches, slide back two" type situation.
The compromise of power used to be that US forces were partially answerable to the Iraqi government, as an effort to show support for those leaders. However, this resulted in some difficult situations. For example, Iraqi officials would order the release of select extremists of their own parties, and according to the former terms of the agreement, we had no way to counter that. As part of the so-called "Surge" (Which was really a revision of large portions of our strategy) the line between their authority and our athority became greater.
So now that our forces are less answerable to Iraqi officials, it's got Iraqi officials wanting more power in the hands of Iraqi forces who are answerable to them.
That will happen, slowly, and it will be a good thing.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Did anyone else come into this thread thinking that most of the members of the Iraqi parliament wanted to retire?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And it loves commenting about it over and over again.
Addicts the lot of you. Addicts. If I hang around too long it'll effect me too aaaaaahhhhh oh no
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Doc, I know a little about the Sadr movement, and they are surely no friends to the US. However, Kurds, Sunnis and Shia all signed the legislative petion. They all have a variety of reasons for wanting us to set a date for withdrawal.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but it feels unlike a meeting of friends.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.