posted
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.”
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
The irony of the complaints coming from Bush and Republicans about extended recesses threatens to crush my brain under the weight of the irony.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
