What Iraqis Want:once more with feeling

Back in late August, I reported some previously unpublished data from an April 2006 University of Michigan survey of Iraqi public opinion which showed that 91.7% of Iraqis did not support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.   Some debate ensued as to whether the question "do you support the presence of coalition forces" was a viable proxy for "do you want the coalition forces to leave."

The Washington Post reports today on two more surveys of Iraqi opinion.   First, State Department polling found that "In Baghdad... nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout."  Second, PIPA has released the results of its latest round of polling today, which will show that "71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country."  Third, the Post mentions that "The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal."

So maybe that's the resolution of the earlier debate:  there's 15-20% difference between those who say they do not support the presence of coalition troops and those who say they want the coalition troops to leave.   Which leaves the core of the original point untouched:  a large majority of Iraqis do, in fact, want American troops out as soon as possible.

The PIPA survey also shows that all Iraqi ethnic groups overwhelmingly oppose al-Qaeda, with 94% overall holding an unfavorable view of the jihadists.    Those findings further support a point I've been making for a while now, that the prospect of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq in the wake of an American withdrawal is an unrealistic bogeyman which should not guide American decisions its Iraq policy.

Comments

[Daniel DiRito]

I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, "If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives", then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I'm of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations...which seems unlikely at best.

Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[Klaus]

allow me to state the obvious: Well, duh!

[Adam]

As the one who started the original debate in the first place, may I just say that I feel vindicated that while a whopping 92% oppose the coalition forces, only a piddling 75% or so want them to leave.

Er, yeah. So I win on a technicality, but, as you say, the point remains valid.

[Jay C.]

"...the prospect of al-Qaeda taking over Iraq in the wake of an American withdrawal is an unrealistic bogeyman which should not guide American decisions [regarding] its Iraq policy."

"Unrealistic bogeyman" or not, AA, the incessant promotion of al-Qaeda as the face of "the enemy" in Iraq does serve a far greater purpose, AFAICT, for this Adminstration: it makes a great political talking-point to be used to convince/scare/mislead American voters into supporting George W. Bush and his Party's policies. For that reason, if no other, Osama bin Laden has had to become functionally immortal, and "reality" tossed by the wayside.

[Danny Yee]

Adam, maybe 17% of respondents oppose coalition forces but don't want them to leave because they're having too much fun plantin IEDs and lobbing mortar rounds at them.

[BadTux]

Haven't you heard? Dear Leader has annointed a new bogeyman for why the US cannot leave Iraq: Iran. It's not al Qaeda al Qaeda al Qaeda anymore. It's Iran, Iran, Iran. Why, if the US left Iraq, the Iranians would just waltz in and take over the place!

Now, why they would do that, when one of their puppets *already* rules the place, I dunno. Seems to me they've see the Americans having their dick shredded in the armed wood chipper that is Iraq, and would avoid doing something equally stupid (I have not, in general, noticed that Iran's leadership lives in a delusional alternate universe of spin and belief in their own propaganda the way the US leadership lives). But hey, who cares about reality, when there's spin to be done and profits to be made?!

[wah]

Nice work on this. The most interesting part is the bit about 94% of Iraqis disliking the AlQ political platform. I'm curious, however, what the breadown would be if, forced to choose, they had the option of a)U.S. or b)AlQ.

I know watching the carnage might be one way to answer that question, but I'm curious if it has been asked.