Iraqi Public Opinion on the presence of U.S. Troops

fuck

"I will start with the most recent polling. In March of this year ORB conducted a poll for the British Channel 4, asking Iraqis what they would like to see happen with the Multinational Forces. Seventy percent said they want the Multi National Forces to leave, with 78 percent of this group wanting them to leave within six months or less and 84 percent within a year. Thus about six in ten of the whole sample said they want the troops out within a year or less. In a poll conducted in February of this year for a consortium of news outlets led by ABC News, 73 percent said they oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. Sixty-one percent said that the presence of US forces in Iraq is making the security situation in Iraq worse. Iraqis have been asking for a timetable for withdrawal for some time now. At the beginning of 2006 WorldPublicOpinion.org found that 7 in 10 wanted US-led forces out according to timetable of two years or less. About a year later 7 in 10 favored a timetable of one year or less. In late 2006 the US State Department conducted polls in numerous major Iraqi cities and consistently found about two-thirds calling for the US to leave."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/517.php?nid=&id=&pnt=517&lb=

Snake

And all my friends say this was a good idea. Its good they are getting the opinion of the people who actually live in the country we are occupying.

fuck

Snake wrote:

And all my friends say this was a good idea. Its good they are getting the opinion of the people who actually live in the country we are occupying.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, even many Americans who are against the occupation of Iraq fail to mention the Iraqi people.

It's always "bring the troops home," but that's it. It never involves what to do for the Iraqi people or anything.

Snake

_outlaw wrote:

Exactly.

Unfortunately, even many Americans who are against the occupation of Iraq fail to mention the Iraqi people.

It's always "bring the troops home," but that's it. It never involves what to do for the Iraqi people or anything.

Yep, they talk about all the troops who have died, and rarely even mention all the Iraqi people who have been "collateral damage". And when they do its always like a side note.

Abuskedti

_outlaw wrote:

Exactly.

Unfortunately, even many Americans who are against the occupation of Iraq fail to mention the Iraqi people.

It's always "bring the troops home," but that's it. It never involves what to do for the Iraqi people or anything.

I wonder how the dead Iraqis would have voted

fuck

Abuskedti wrote:

I wonder how the dead Iraqis would have voted

yeah, that's a million votes we'll never get to hear.

not to mention the other millions who have been forced to live in refuge.

spyguy

In closing, it is clear that the Iraqi people are quite eager for the US to lighten its military footprint in Iraq. More importantly it appears that they are eager to regain their sense of sovereignty. As long as they do not have this sense, they are likely to continue to have a fundamentally hostile attitude toward all aspects of the US presence in Iraq. However, as Iraqis gradually regain this sense that their country belongs to them, they will likely move toward wanting some ongoing relationship with the US, both economic and military, to help them find their way out of this troubled period of their long history.


does anyone think this is possible?

jeffbr

spyguy wrote:

In closing, it is clear that the Iraqi people are quite eager for the US to lighten its military footprint in Iraq. More importantly it appears that they are eager to regain their sense of sovereignty. As long as they do not have this sense, they are likely to continue to have a fundamentally hostile attitude toward all aspects of the US presence in Iraq. However, as Iraqis gradually regain this sense that their country belongs to them, they will likely move toward wanting some ongoing relationship with the US, both economic and military, to help them find their way out of this troubled period of their long history.


does anyone think this is possible?

Nope.

I just want our troops home tomorrow. We need to get the fuck out and keep our nose completely out of the region. We obviously don't understand how to interact with them beyond simple economics, so we should simply establish trade partners and leave the empire building/politicking/religious crusading/democratization out of the equation.

fuck

jeffbr wrote:

I just want our troops home tomorrow. We need to get the fuck out and keep our nose completely out of the region. We obviously don't understand how to interact with them beyond simple economics, so we should simply establish trade partners and leave the empire building/politicking/religious crusading/democratization out of the equation.

_outlaw wrote:

Unfortunately, even many Americans who are against the occupation of Iraq fail to mention the Iraqi people.

It's always "bring the troops home," but that's it. It never involves what to do for the Iraqi people or anything.

jeffbr

_outlaw wrote:

I fully admit to being your stereotype. I also know that no matter what we do we'll screw it up over there. And no matter what we do, we'll get shit on for it. So it is best to do whatever will put fewer troops in harms way, and cost us the least amount of money. Sounds crude, but the reality is that we have no ability to do any good in the region as we've clearly demonstrated.

fuck

jeffbr wrote:

I fully admit to being your stereotype. I also know that no matter what we do we'll screw it up over there. And no matter what we do, we'll get shit on for it. So it is best to do whatever will put fewer troops in harms way, and cost us the least amount of money. Sounds crude, but the reality is that we have no ability to do any good in the region as we've clearly demonstrated.

Actually, we can do good. The idea that you think we should just do a full withdrawal while that country further lowers itself to a barely-surviving one (due to our deeds) is ridiculous.

jeffbr

_outlaw wrote:

Actually, we can do good. The idea that you think we should just do a full withdrawal while that country further lowers itself to a barely-surviving one (due to our deeds) is ridiculous.

Eh, they weren't doing particularly well before we got there. What specifically do you propose would 'fix' what is broken there? How much will it cost? How will oversight/auditing be done? What measurable results would you like to see in what timeframe? What happens if those goals are not met?

In a utopia where unicorns run free, I'd love to wave a wand and cause peace to break out in the region. In this world I don't think we can do anything, although I'm sure some would suggest we just throw money that direction.