Iraqi Public Opinion
The BBC has a recently published poll which sheds some light on something that's gone curiously neglected in mainstream thinking about Iraq -- the unpopularity of the American military presence. Asked "Do you strongly support,somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq?", 47.6 percent marked themselves strongly opposed and 20.8 percent are somewhat opposed. Just 12.8 percent are strong supporters of the presence. 40 percent think coalition forces have done "A very bad job" of discharging their responsibilities in Iraq, and 19 percent say they've done "quite a bad job" (note that while "quite" is an intensifier in America, it's the reverse in Britain and the poll was written up by English people). Asked "how much confidence" they have in various institutions, 54.6 percent of Iraqis say they have "none at all" in coalition forces and 23.2 have "not very much."
As with Americans, public opinion is pretty ambiguous as to what should be done next. Only 25.5 percent say foreign troops should leave "now" but an additional 19.4 say they should "should remain until the Iraqi government elected in December is in place." "Remain until security is restored" gets 30.9 percent and "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently" gets 15.6 percent. Clearly, we shouldn't let Iraqi opinion determine our foreign policy, and the when should American troops leave question didn't generate a really clear-cut response, but the basic reality that our presence in the country is unpopular is something that needs to be recognized and taken account of as people think about the war.
Fascinating poll. While Iraqis would like to see the US leave, it seems a fairly low priority for them. By FAR, the biggest priority is security/peace. So I imagine that if the elected leaders of Iraq think that the US presence is necessary for continued improvement in security, they'll want us to stick around. (Interestingly, asked how the security situation is where they live, over 60% of the respondents said "very good" or "quite good".)
Reading the poll as a whole, it is almost all good news for progress in Iraq.
December 12, 2005 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(note that while "quite" is an intensifier in America, it's the reverse in Britain and the poll was written up by English people)"
By Britons! Not "English people".
December 12, 2005 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding like a knee-jerk reactionary against the very idea that good news can come out of Iraq, I'm not as confident as helpme is that these poll numbers are good across the board.
There are absolutely some promising signs -- Q3 is particularly suggestive, with 64% expecting their life to be much or somewhat better in the future. I have to wonder, though, whether that number is predicated on an Iraqi assumption that US forces will either leave peacefully or be driven out (depending on the respondent's affiliation.) A lot of the anti-American rhetoric we hear from Iraqis is the claim that it's the US presence that is causing all the violence; while I find this farcical, we need to accept that some of the respondents really do think this to be true, and think that a US withdrawal would bring about peace and security.
Naturally, pulling US troops completely out of Iraq won't happen before Bush leaves office; there might be some draw-down as Bush becomes more and more a lame duck, but any visible presence will be as bad as a huge presence for anti-American Iraqis. And it's extremely unlikely that whomever is inaugurated in 2009 will immediately order the US military completely out of Iraq. That means a dissatisfied Iraqi populace ready to believe the insurgents and terrorists when they use our troops as a convenient scapegoat for their attacks. (I'm not saying that's legitimate-- I'm just predicting.)
To boil all of this down: I fully expect that as US troops stay in Iraq longer and longer, no matter the real level of their deployment, Iraqi dissatisfaction with our presence will increase. Saudi Arabia is a fine parallel -- an increasing number of internally-generated attacks -- but Iraq starts at a much more violent level. That's not at all promising.
December 12, 2005 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those ingrates! After all we've done for them -- invading their country, killing a few tens of thousands of people, destroying infrastructure, sparking a low grade civil war -- you'd think the least they would do is show a little gratitude by wanting us to stay there in some nice, new military bases. And I thought hospitatlity was part of the Arab tradition.
December 12, 2005 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the insurgency is inherently justified by the existence of Coalition forces, perhaps a re-thinking of the strategy is necessary. Rather than opening all out offensive "sweeps" of cities where terrorists organize, maybe the Coalition forces should intensify their efforts on training Iraqi security forces. In general, less transparency on the part of Coalition forces may be required. Indeed, once the U.S. and its allies are out of the region, one would surmise that any further attacks by insurgents would be completely unjustified. Furthermore, if they continue after the gradual pullout, Iraqi people will likely turn against Zarqawi et al.
December 12, 2005 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
While Iraqis would like to see the US leave, it seems a fairly low priority for them
Not sure how you get to that conclusion when almost 65% are either somewhat or strongly opposed to our presence?
If bombs were going off in my neighborhood everyday, I'd check the "security box" before I'd check the "US leave" box, too.
But it's too far a leap to concluded that because they want peace and security they also want us to stay.
December 12, 2005 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful with that poll. If you read the fine print, you notice that it was a "random in person interview" poll that specifically did NOT ask about religious or ethnic identity (for security reasons). Keeping in mind that quite a few Iraqis are not available for "in person interviews" (conservative religious women, for example), and the likely tilting of the interview pool toward secular Shiites and Kurds in "safe" areas who are likely to be happy about how things have gone, you've got quite a different story.
A poll with serious design flaws is worse than no poll at all. We really have no idea how and what kind of biases are involved here.
December 12, 2005 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clearly, we shouldn't let Iraqi opinion determine our foreign policy"
What was the foreign policy objective for invading Iraq? Get rid of Saddam Hussein - done; stop WMD programs - none to be found; enable Iraqis to form own government - done.
Mission accomplished - what US foreign policy purpose is served by maintaining 100,000+ troops in a country that doesn't want us?
December 12, 2005 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, we shouldn't let Iraqi opinion determine our foreign policy, and the when should American troops leave question didn't generate a really clear-cut response, but the basic reality that our presence in the country is unpopular is something that needs to be recognized and taken account of as people think about the war.
I read into the way you have worded this a little fear/hesitancy on your part, as if you're trying to qualify your gut reaction, what you'd really like to say.
Whether or not I am correct on that :-)
I myself think this strongly:
once one has decided to meddle in another country, whether it just be some teeny CIA project or a full-blown invasion and occupation,
one damn better pay attention to what the inhabitants of the country thinks! Study it up, down and sideways, it's the key to doing whatever you're trying to do successfully!
This gets at what I see as the hubris and idiocy of much of the current field of International Relations. They all talk as if there is no people in countries, just leaders. Just like the old in Sam Cooke old tune Wonderful World, they almost proudly sometimes "don't know much about" demographics, culture, sociology....I don't care what kind of government it is, even if the people have been cowed for decades, if you don't pay attention to what they think, they will eventually get back to you and to the leaders (revolutions and stuff happen this way.)
Countries are not objects, there are people in them. It's one's best hope for foretelling the future (still iffy and in most cases stoopid, mho), and acting without bad blowback, on any interventionist project one might do, to understand the people. Polls are great tools in doing that; a variation of "polling" is how people have always been successful at "selling things."
December 12, 2005 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few comments, after reading the poll:
Iraqis seem pretty optimistic about the future -- 69% think things will be a better for Iraq a year from now, while only 11% think things will be worse.
On Q28, a majority of Iraqis think the new constitution does too much to guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and equal rights.
4 of the 1711 respondents said that the security situation had improved recently, and then credited terrorists with improving the situation. Okay, it's only 4 people, but WTF?
What is the Moukhtar? On the last question, 51% of Iraqis think a woman should be able to be Governor and 46% think she should be able to be President. But only 38% think a woman should be able to stand for Moukhtar.
December 12, 2005 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
CParis
The reason for invading Iraq was oil. China, in particular, threatens to demand the lion's share of Earth's remaining crude. The U.S. Government cannot let that happen, and for good reason. Liberation, WMD, etc. are all second-rate justifications despite what the president says. When you look at it as a business man (like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowicz, Karl Rove, et al) the win/loss factor isn't particularly significant as long as U.S. oil companies, or those sympathetic to U.S. markets, get increased access to Iraqi oil. Indeed, this would indicate why the war has been managed so incredibly poorly.
December 12, 2005 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the insurgency is inherently justified by the existence of Coalition forces, perhaps a re-thinking of the strategy is necessary.
Why Gettysburg, you sound like Jack Murtha!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
re: al-Qaeda, I think it's more than likely that Iraqis will force them out. Once we leave the country.
December 12, 2005 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason for invading Iraq was oil. China, in particular, threatens to demand the lion's share of Earth's remaining crude.
The oil motive is understood by everyone except the morons still mouthing BushCo's talking points. But what right does the US (or any other country) have to invade another nation to secure its natural resources for ourselves? Colonialism is so last century.
December 12, 2005 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ABC news reporting of the poll results is much better - I paste in a sample below. But the methodology is problematic in a number of ways, and not clarified on the Oxford International website. I'm trying to find out.
Bill Barnes
ABC News Online:
....
Majorities in Shiite and Sunni Arab areas do share some views, such as discontent with the presence of U.S. forces and -- perhaps crucially for Iraq's future -- a desire to keep the country unified. But the degree differs sharply -- for example, 88 percent of those in Sunni areas want a unified Iraq, compared with 56 percent in Shiite provinces. And on other matters, including fundamental political issues, Sunni/Shiite area views more directly conflict.
Confidence in this week's elections is far lower in Sunni Arab areas -- 48 percent, compared with more than 80 percent in other groups -- but, given Sunnis' broad disaffection, that could be worse. More threatening is that just 27 percent in Sunni areas approve of the constitution, compared to more than eight in 10 Iraqis in the rest of the country, Shiite, Kurdish and mixed areas alike.
Such gaps between these groups seem to represent Iraq's greatest challenge. On issue after issue, from personal satisfaction to security to political views, people in Sunni areas -- about one in four Iraqis -- express vastly more negative views than their Shiite- or Kurdish-area counterparts.
Just 11 percent of people in predominantly Sunni-Arab provinces, for example, feel safe in their own neighborhoods, compared with eight in 10 Iraqis in other areas. People in mainly Sunni-Arab areas are far less confident in the Iraqi government, army or police. They're half as likely as those in mainly Shiite provinces to say their own lives are going well and half as likely to expect things to improve in the next year. While 53 percent of people in predominantly Shiite areas say the country as a whole is doing well, a mere 9 percent of those in mostly Sunni provinces agree.
<h4>Growing Caps </h4>Rather than moving toward healing, the gaps between views in Sunni areas versus the rest of Iraq have widened sharply since early 2004, with attitudes worsening in Sunni areas while improving elsewhere. While Iraqis in Shiite, mixed and Kurdish provinces all rate the security situation, their job opportunities, and their family's protection from crime more positively than they did 20 months ago, those in Sunni provinces have grown decidedly more negative.
Similarly, while Iraqis' positive ratings of their lives overall look stable (71 percent today versus 70 percent in 2004), beneath those overall numbers is a 21-point improvement in Shiite areas -- and a 26-point decline in the outlook in Sunni provinces.
The Sunni/Shiite gap has also grown on measures of confidence in key Iraqi institutions. While people in mainly Shiite provinces are 22 points more likely to have faith in the Iraqi army than they were in 2004, in mainly Sunni areas confidence has fallen by 13 points; a 15-point gap has now grown to 50. The divide in views of police similarly has increased by 23 points.
As noted, both Sunni and Shiite communities oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces, but views on the subject in Shiite areas have held steady over the past year and a half, while support for coalition forces in Sunni areas has gone from minimal, 24 percent, to near zero, 4 percent.
.....
December 12, 2005 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ABC news reporting of the poll results is much better
I agree, so much so that I make this arrogant buttinsky suggestion to Matt: update your post with a link to it. :-)
December 12, 2005 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
These poll numbers are somewhat less insistent on our leaving Iraq than the recent fallout from the Arab League vote by Iraqi groups in attendance. They overwhelming wanted us out.
The question that has concerned me since is what do we do if/when a newly elected and fully sovereign Iraqi government invites us out?
The administration never even hints that the incoming government has a say in the question of do we stay or do we go.
Is Bush relying on our might to continue to make our decisions right?
December 12, 2005 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2005 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how you get to that conclusion when almost 65% are either somewhat or strongly opposed to our presence?
Um, I get to that conclusion from the question about priorities (Q14)? The results of that question show that 80%+ answered that regaining security was one of their top 3 priorities for the next 12 months. 46% answered rebuilding infrastructure was one of their top 3 priorities. 34% said establishing a national government. 34% said ensuring that most people can make a decent living. And only 28% said that one of their top 3 priorities was getting the US out.
December 12, 2005 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs
If oil is the motivation for the war, which it absolutely is, then it is fairly well useless to continue these haphazard raids on hostile cities. From the U.S. perspective it probably only serves as a means of keeping the troops alert and away from boredom. For the insurgents, however, it gives them added justification for further attacks. Lessening the transparency of American troops (not removing them yet) would go a long way toward hurting the insurgents.
December 12, 2005 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
CParis
I will not speak as to the "right" of the United States invading Iraq for oil. This war is certainly as loose on morals as it is on stated justification (WMD, liberation, etc). The problem is twofold: 1)The United States is absolutely reliant on foreign oil. Both economy and industry rely on oil for not only cars but also for energy; and to an extent, even employment when taking into consideration how many thousands of people are employed by oil companies, refineries, and the like. Without access to oil, the U.S. would be crippled. 2) China, like the U.S., has an unquenchable thurst for oil. The Sino nation, however, entered the post Industrial Revolution game much later than did the United States (about a century in fact). Their economy is spiraling upward at an alarming pace, so much so, that it can hardly be controlled despite the rhetoric out of Beijing which claims the contrary. China, in fact, is on pace to consume more oil than the United States within the next decade. Keep in mind, however, that the United States was able to meet its own oil demand up until 1970. The last 35 years has seen an almost exponential rise in oil demand and consumption. China, for that matter, has a population several times larger than that of the United States. Also, with a standing army 10 the size of the U.S. military, an enormous trade surplus with the U.S., and an economy which continues to rise almost unchecked, the U.S. has a major problem. That is why Bush invaded Iraq...to assure the U.S. would meet the demand which it feels it deserves. Indeed, Jimmy Carter was the only president to make it policy to convince Americans to use moderation. That idea was whole-heartedly rejected by Americans from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. If supply were to all of a sudden fail to meet demand, you would see Americans of all varieties singing a very different tune about war in Iraq. Do not slap the hand that feeds you.
December 12, 2005 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more you look at the poll, the screwier it looks. One example: recently, Iraqis voted, by 70 percent, for a constitution that strongly decentralized the country. That was, in fact, the main and well known issue. Yet the poll shows the opposite, almost 70 percent in favor of a strong central government. Similarly, Allawi barely survived the election in January, and there is no other indication of a surge for him -- except in this poll.
To my mind, the problem is in using regions as the metric for accuracy. The Oxford people, in my opinion, strongly tilted towards surveying middle class Iraqis. It would clarify things greatly if they had merely asked the question: are you employed? Since we know that unemployment or sporadic employment is the lot of about 60 percent of Iraqi population, this would tell us a lot about the socio-economic class surveyed.
The technique of substituting region for any other socio-economic characteristic would get the poll laughed at in the U.S. It is funny how we apply other criteria in Iraq.
December 12, 2005 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) It's interesting that a landslide majority think that their lives have improved since just before the invasion, but a landslide majority also want us to get out fast. Maybe the contradiction is explained by the fact that most Iraqis were suffering seriously from the effects of the embargo?
(2) Most ominous result: page 20 of the poll, in which solid majorities of iraqis show themselves to be non-enthusiasts for freedom of the press, of religion, and of peaceful gatherings. The distinct impression I get is that most Iraqis want the place to be a stable, unified dictatorship again, but with their particular group in charge of it. Which takes me to...
(3) The BBC poll, as published, doesn't break down the results by ethnic group, which is an extremely serious omission. ABC's two polls have, and show gigantic differences -- in their March 2004 one, the Kurds were fully 9 to 1 in favor of the US presence and against an Islamic theocracy. ABC doesn't list the Kurdish vote in their new poll, so how much is the Kurdish vote biasing the BBC's results for Iraq as a whole? In particular, how are the Kurds influencing the 55-45 national margin in both the BBC and ABC polls in favor of US troops staying "until security is restored"?
December 12, 2005 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it proves that thinking about bombs going off is more on their mind than thinking about what the U.S. is doing.
But I think it's wrong to conclude that our being there makes them feel warm and fuzzy, which I think you were implying in your post. Maybe I read it wrong. Sorry, if so.
December 12, 2005 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to question the methodology of this poll myself. At some point the respondents realize this poll is being taken for outside comsumption and start thinking "what do the occupiers want to hear that will make them leave?" and adjust their answers accordingly. Keep in mind these people lived under a Stalinist thug for 30 years. Parroting what the powers that be want to hear is a reflex for staying alive.
Having said that I'd say if you live in a neighborhood that's a no go zone for American troops like Sadr City or any of the dozens of towns in the south we don't bother with getting occupiers you never see "out" would be a low priority. But then look at the trouble spots they avoid and things they do. They avoid US soldiers, route around police stations, and keep the kids home from school on a somewhat regular basis. That doesn't sound like a secure country to me.
Everybody wants working sewers, faucets and 24 hour a day electricity. That all stems from security, and secrurity stems from the government having the legitimacy of not being seen as occupation stooges who live in the green zone.
December 12, 2005 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no "ABC poll" or "BBC poll" -- it's all one poll, done by (local field operations hired by) Oxford Research International (as was the 2004 "ABC poll") -- ABC is just sharing some cross-tabs with its readers, whereas BBC is not.
BB
December 12, 2005 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply that Iraqis feel warm and fuzzy about us. Just that, based on the poll, given a choice between (a) a US military presence and an improving security situation, or (b) a US withdrawal and a deteriorating security situation... most Iraqis would choose (a). To the extent that Iraqi politicans think that those are the two alternatives (rather than, say, alternative (c) - a US withdrawal and an improving security situation, which I don't think is realistic), then for the time being the Iraqis will live with (a), even if they don't particularly like it.
At least, that's my reading of the poll.
December 12, 2005 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
" But what right does the US (or any other country) have to invade another nation to secure its natural resources for ourselves? Colonialism is so last century. " -- CParis
Besides that, it won't work. Oil is a commodity, sold in open markets. If Iraq won't sell oil to China, the Chinese will simply buy their oil from someone else. Even if the U.S. controlled enough countries to supply all our needs -- fat chance -- oil companies would simply turn around and export the oil to China.
December 12, 2005 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ABC news reporting of the poll results is much better
Did anyone besides me notice that the Sunni numbers track closely to the Democrats, and the Shiites are close to the Republicans? I just thought it was interesting.
December 12, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is the Moukhtar?"
As I understand it a moukhtar is somewhere between a tribal chief and a village mayor. It is a significant patriarchal position which is rarely (never?) held by females.
On the topic of WTF, though, did you notice that on the very same question (q38), more people said that the new Iraqi Police (27 - 5%), National Guard (16 - 3.1%), and Army (9 - 1.8%) were responsible for deteriorating security than al Zarqawi (6 - 1.1%)?
And I still can't get over the fact that fewer than half of the Iraqis polled (~47%) felt that they have more freedom of speech now than they did under Saddam (q13b).
December 13, 2005 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What if we leave after the elections?
Then insurgency against American occupation will stop.
war between sunni against shiites may continue.
terrorist or fundamentalists groups may take advantage but I think they will be small.
And think of it, if the terrorists do get some control, will they be able to govern with America on its back. I dont think so.
Thus it really makes sense to remove the major cause of insurgency--that is American presence.
And if there is still fighting, then they will be expose as traitors to Iraq and I am sure majority of Iraqis will not support them.
Besides, they would never be able to govern, because America will always be there to help the newly democratic government.
So I think it makes sense to leave after the elections but positioned to help militarily in against terrorists who are now isolated.
Today it is hard to distinguished who is who. but if you eliminate the insurgency against occupation, then you will know who to fight.
December 13, 2005 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
AlanC9
Besides that, it won't work. Oil is a commodity, sold in open markets
On paper, yes, oil should be sold in open markets. But there is a thing called Government collusion which greatly hinders such a lovely thought as private enterprise. The U.S. Government is VERY involved in the business of Big Oil and has a very big say as to what those companies can and cannot do. And I'm not speaking of the new film Syriana either (although the film is a fictitious allegory, it is fairly accurate). The first Gulf War, for example, saw the United States intervene to expell Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait because we would not "let stand" the idea of having that man dole out oil contracts. The point is, the Federal Government is all-encompasing and omnipresent. That most of its operations are of a clandestine nature does not change that one iota.
December 13, 2005 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink