ABC has a poll of the Iraqi population, with some interesting results:
An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.
Surprisingly, given the insurgents’ attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
***There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.
Interest in politics has soared.
Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a “single strong leader.”)
Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country’s future.
***Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.
The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.
There’s other evidence of the United States’ increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
The entire poll can be found here (.pdf).
Seems to me there is broad improvement in attitudes about a number of things, and I am not that distressed by the higher numbers who want troops to leave. I would worry if they didn’t want us there. Would you like a foreign Army roaming your neighborhood?
It will be interesting to see how the elections play out this week.
*** Update ***
If you want some sober analysis of Iraq, check out the always excellent Belgravia Dispatch. Key things to pay attention regarding the elections this week:
One of the key dangers in all of this, it might be pointed out, are false declarations of victory (that, in turn, help lead to too rapid deadlines that, despite attempts to conceal any linkage, are often really more related to American political calendars than actual conditions on the ground in Iraq). Come December 15th, if the elections move forward without catastrophe (which they will), there will be much euphoria about what a massive step has taken place, and there will be declarations of victory aplenty. But these triumphalist notes are dangerously premature indeed, as serious observers well realize. To be sure, who but the greatest cynics can remain unmoved at the specter of the veritable birth of modern, post-Saddam Iraqi politics, with myriad political parties sprouting up, and even formerly hostile Sunnis being urged to take up the ballot box rather than the gun (if only temporarily)? But still, minimizing the endemic violence, the myriad perils still facing Iraq, and just speaking breezily about a normalization of Iraqi politics (bombings happen a lot in the Arab world, after all!) is just bunk. Yes, it is irresponsible in the extreme to have already declared victory.
More here from Cathy Young.
Steve S
Thankfully we have elections later this week, and after that the US troops can withdrawal… as our mission of bringing Democracy to Iraq will be completed.
Paddy O'Shea
Funny. The AP article on this same poll is headlined: “Most Iraqis Oppose Troops Presence.” Apparently more than two-thirds of the Iraqi people want us out of there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_attitudes
Taking the poll as a whole it would appear that the Iraqi people are optimistic in spite of our involvement, not because of it. Probably explains why the majority of the voters there are electing Islamic fundamentalists and not George W. Bush bobbleheads.
And that only 44% would think things are better now than in the times of Saddamn Hussein cannot be the kinds of results the spin-happy Bush administration was looking for.
The real tragedy here is we’ve sacrificed so much and in the end Iraq will fall into the orbit of Iran. That is, of course, unless it is ordained that we will need to go to war with Tehran as well.
Steve S
Mission Accomplished!
Queue in Ozzy singing “Mama, I’m coming home”.
Cromagnon
This is the only number that matters. Its the Sunnis who make up 95% of the insurgency (the foreign fighter and jihadist crap is WAY over stated and is just WH spin in order to somehow, someway link Iraq to the WOT) In the new Iraq the former ruling class will be relegated to 2nd class citizens with little political power and no economic power and will be at the mercy of Shia and Kurdish charity (in effect). And we all know how the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis feel about each other. The Sunni insurgency will go on and on and on… And the new Shia dominated Iraqi Army will never be able to effectively engage the insurgents on their own ever. The Shia Iraqies just plain make lousy soldiers. Always have, always will… Maybe before invading Iraq, Bubble-boy should have read the history of the failed British attempts to subdue a Sunni insurgency in Iraq during the 1920s and 30s. Oh I forgot he doesn’t read and only takes advice from Condi, Karen, and Momma
Blue Neponset
I hope you add the Belgravia Dispatch to your blog roll, John. IMO, he is one of the few Conservative bloggers who can give his opinion without spinning it for Chimpy McFlightsuit.
Al Maviva
Two of the more interesting trends involve Red-on-Red violence, in which “Sunni” insurgents are attacking AQ; and the seemingly unified voice of clerics and insurgents across the country condemning terrorist attacks and urging muslims to vote.
The former is not surprising – the last thing that worldly, secular Baathists want is a true-believing abstemious Islamic fundamentalist government in control and using commercially viable Iraqi businesses as a front for their own peculiar version of proselytization and paramilitary action. Saddam’s Baathist holdouts (and his tribes/allies view Iraq as their own personal prize to be divvied up, not belonging to some Arab billionaire or Jordanian millionaire.
The second trend, the urging of all followers/adherents to vote is interesting. It may be a cynical sign of a power grab in an attempt to position one’s clique for a final gotterdamerung following an American pullout. On the other hand, it would be a dangerous gambit if the insurgents have any political acumen whatsoever; the franchise, once acknowledged, is hard to revoke. Democracy and self-governance is almost infectious in some respects and very hard to do once you’ve inculcated that habit in people.
As for the development of an Iranian-loyal theocracy… I wouldn’t write off the nationalistic tendencies of the Iraqis so easily, nor their memories of great suffering imposed at the hands of the Mullahs of Tehran. I’m sure that the Shiites in Iraq would be grateful for assistance in gaining the upper hand, but surely they know that knuckling under to Persian power carries with it a great price tag; I doubt any other than the most deranged of Iraqi Shiite fanatics would care for unity with Tehran.
The real dynamics, I think, are this. The U.S. has to stay for a while to help the Iraqi government and civil society to keep standing up. Insofar as insurgents, criminals and AQ keep committing attacks, they undercut their own cause. The U.S. must resist urges toward draconian retribution, and should try to maintain the high ground as much as possible; we are attempting to convince a people with no knowledge of it that self-governance and plural society is compatible with their way of life, and in fact a better way of handling politics and law. However, as an occupier, the U.S. is a wedge. Baathists, thugs and AQ can hit the U.S. and attempt to adopt a pose as noble liberators or freedom fighters. Likewise, the Shiites and the Kurds can hope to ride the strong U.S. back into a position of power. The trick is not whether to withdraw (indeed we must start phasing back as the Iraqi security forces and government stand up) but in the exact timing of it, and the managing of it so that it is clear that we are not withdrawing in defeat or a position of weakness, but in strength, and in a deliberate manner upon the reaching of qualitative benchmarks.
The great gamble is whether the Iraqi people will buy into plural civil society and self governance, and reject the alternate visions put forth by the Islamacists of various stripes, the organized looters of the Baathists and some Sunni tribes, and the plain old street thugs; or whether they will go “each man for himself.” The former seems possible, given the stunning transformation occurring in Afghanistan, but whether Iraqi society has hit rock bottom and is willing to step up and take the gift offered, as the former Talibs are doing with their reentry into the world of peaceful politics, isn’t clear yet.
Paddy O'Shea
Al Maviva: That the Shi’ite majority would vote almost lockstep for electoral slates recommended to them by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, an Iranian born fundamentalist cleric with strong ties to Tehran, kind of knocks your nationalism canard in the crapper. If they were still somehow worked up about the war between Iraq and Iran they would hardly be inclined to pitch their lot in with someone so closely connected to the enemy.
We’re going to be in Iraq for a long time, and it has precious little to do with our caring for the democratic longings of the Iraqi people. In other words, we are now that counterbalance to Itanian control of Iraq that Saddam Hussein used to be. And there is absolutely nobody else who can play that role right now.
Steve S
But the election is this week! Once that’s over, our mission of bringing democracy to the unwashed masses will be complete, and we can go home.
Right?
Right?
Oh damn… Someone call Ozzy, we may not need him after all.
Al Maviva
>>>That the Shi’ite majority would vote almost lockstep for electoral slates recommended to them by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani.
Funny, but for a theory that’s in the crapper, at least mine accounts for the profusion of political parties. You’d think that with the 60% of the population marching in lockstep with Sistani, that the Shiites would at least be able to rally around a particular political party endorsed by Sistani. I suppose if one party, the one endorsed by Sistani, wins an absolute majority, then my theory will be in the crapper. But if the 60% of the population that is Shiite splits… well, my theory may be in the crapper, but yours will be floating towards the sewage treatment plant.
John Cole
Blue- I thought he was on there. He is in my personal bookmarks.
William S.
“Maybe before invading Iraq, Bubble-boy should have read the history of the failed British attempts to subdue a Sunni insurgency in Iraq during the 1920s and 30s”.
The past is prolouge.
neil
Seems to me there is broad improvement in attitudes about a number of things, and I am not that distressed by the higher numbers who want troops to leave. I would worry if they didn’t want us there. Would you like a foreign Army roaming your neighborhood?
I think this is true, but it doesn’t explain away the fact that the answers are much more unfriendly than a year ago, especially now that most Iraqis join most Americans in wishing we’d never invaded. On which more later.
Paddy O'Shea
Al Maviva – So let me get this straight, in your mind those Shi’ites who vote against Sistani backed slates of candidates (even though he has made no endorsement in this particular election, merely recommending that people vote for those candidates who best represent their interests) do so out of opposition to Sistani? Is there an anti-Sistani faction within the Shi’ite population of Iraq that you would care to identify and discuss?
And if this is true, how is it he has become so widely regarded as the most powerful man in the new Iraqi government?
The biggest threat to our interests in Iraq has never been the insurgency, but rather the will of the majority faction of the Iraqi people themselves. They want us out and they want a fundamentlist theocracy, an Islamic State under the aegis of Ali al Sistani and those who support him. And we do know where his allegiances lie.
Mike
“Steve S Says:
But the election is this week! Once that’s over, our mission of bringing democracy to the unwashed masses will be complete, and we can go home.”
Hmmm, Can’t seem to find the President saying that exactly.
Apparently, this myth can only be found the mutterings of silly people.
I love how when John throws up a poll that flies in the face of “Known Liberal Facts”, we’re all told to ignore it, it means nothing, or there’s no comment at all from the rest. Throw up a poll showing the President doing badly and all you’ll hear is “see everyone agrees with me”.
The hypocrisy is deafening.
Steve S
So introducing Democracy to the brown folk isn’t our mission?
And when we get plame updates, I love it how all the wingnuts tell us to ignore it, it means nothing…
Whatever.
What exactly is our mission?
afghanipdtar
Paddy O’Shea wondered: “Is there an anti-Sistani faction within the Shi’ite population of Iraq that you would care to identify and discuss?”
Muqtada al-Sadr and Mohammed Yaqubi come to mind fairly easily.
Paddy O'Shea
In the end all so-called conservative thought has just this one aim in mind: covering the ass of George W. Bush.
And that is one immense quantity of ass in need of covering.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The poll is suspect until I see evidence that at least half of the polling was done outside the “green zone”.
I am skeptical that the pollsters would venture out of the green zone at the risk of their lives just to conduct a poll.
Anyone know the background on the poll?
Paddy O'Shea
Afghaniptdar: al-Sadr is anti-Sistani? Even after Sistani got him to put away his toys and participate in the election process? Sadr owes Sistani his ass.
Yaqubi?
Read article, learn stuff:
“Yaqubi is one of the leaders of the influential Shia organization called Al-Hawzah Al Ilmia, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani…”
This is not to say they haven’t had their squabbles, but anti-Sistani? Nah.
http://www.rferl.org/features/2003/11/26112003152705.asp
Al Maviva
>>>In the end all so-called conservative thought has just this one aim in mind: covering the ass of George W. Bush
You know, Paddy, the thought of covering George Bush’s ass hadn’t crossed my mind. I was a boot on the ground, a dumbass Army soldier in Southern Iraq during Spring ’91, we stuck around for a long time until the ceasefire deal was complete, and I worked with – negotiated humanitarian relief with, handled casualties and refugees from – the Shiite leaders who had risen up in reliance on CIA promises to assist their rebellion. If you think Shiites are in lockstep with anybody, you are a bigger fool than you let on. They certainly share some common interests, but to presume they all feel the same way or are under some common discipline, is to be just as stupid as Michelle Malkin, except in the opposite direction. She thinks all Muslims are suspect because, y’know, they’re muslims so they’re acting under Al Qaida orders. You think all the Shiites are suspect as Iranian Mullahs’ plants, because, y’know, they are all Shiites and so are the Iranians and Sistani, so…
I’d rate them as more akin to the likes of Afghan warlords, with no permanent alliances except to family and tribe members.
In my experience, people have different motivations and different viewpoints on a range of issues, and generally act accordingly. If you think that there is permanancy in informal alliances between religious and political leaders, that cross cut tribal ties, national borders, and competing economic interests, well then, you are perhaps even more ignorant of the nature of Persian and Arab politics than I am.
Sojourner
But there’s still the problem that, according to their constitution, Iraq will follow Islamic law. As it’s currently interpreted by most Islamic countries, this will be disastrous for Iraqi women.
Steve S
So? IF they don’t like it, they can get a sex change.
Sojourner
Good point. That would also prevent overpopulation as well.
Paddy O'Shea
Yeah, right Al. Iraqis vote for Shi’ite fundamentalist theocrats because they long for Wal*Mart Supercenters, Dunkin Donuts and Disneyland. Don’t be an ass, man. The Shi’ites of Iraq know that once they con us out of there the keys to the kingdom are all theirs. (Of course, if we want to kill a few more Sunnis on the way out, they won’t mind.)
Cons live in a magical world, don’t they?
Looks like George W. Bush’s “Operation Enduring Bullshit” isn’t quite making it with the citizens. New Gallup Poll today shows support for whatever it is he thinks he is doing in Iraq is in the shitter. 59% disapprove, 58% say he doesn’t know what he is doing.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq.poll/
Steve S
“Operation Enduring Bullshit”… That’s good.
afghanipdtar
Paddy O’Shea instructed: “Read article, learn stuff”
I try.
You deny al-Sadr is Sistani’s rival? I think you will find Yaqubi is an adherent of Sadr the Sr. not Sistani. See that other Cole. :)
Jack Lindahl
Filed under: War on Terror aka GSAVE®
So, the Iraq war is part of the “War on Terror?”
TallDave
Paddy,
You seem to be a bit misinformed. Sistani isn’t even endorsing anyone, and the Shia religious parties aren’t expected to get more than 1/2 the Shia vote. They’ve already announced their goal is to hold 1/3 of the parliament, and they might not even get that. Surprise, people want effective governance.
Besides, to hear leftists like you talk, America is a theocracy ruled by a religious party, and everything half the country says is just to cover for their leader.
Pan Pan (anon...)
Prediction: The Iraqi Sunnis will take up both the ballot box and the gun, just like the religious Shiites, who were swept into positions of power that enabled them to set up their own retribution squads. We had ought to be worrying about the conduct of the Iraqis in power rather than the ‘feelings of optimism’ among powerless Iraqis. It should be abundantly clear that these elections do not in any way approximate government under scrutiny of the public. Iraqis can ink their fingers and celebrate the progress all they like, but if the security situation does not improve, there will be nothing to prevent the elites on all sides from turning to a more overt civil war.
The Disenfranchised Voter
We sure as hell aren’t the secular country the Constitution layed us out to be.
And I hardly see how you can deny the glaring fact that the Republican Party is a religious party.