<p>Name of survey so I know what to search for?</p>
<p>The most recent polling on that question in the Brooking Institute’s weekly Iraq index report is from a September 2006 poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org.</p>
<p>Approval of attacks on US-led forces:</p>
<p>Sunni: 92%
Shia: 62%
Kurd: 15%</p>
<p>Overall: 61%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just silly. By that standard, the United States was not “free” until sometime in the last decade or so.</p>
<p>It does no good to impose unrealistic standards in the conduct of our foreign policy. All Islamic countries in the middle east have Islamic governments and Islamic constitutions and official state religions, even the more “moderate” and “free” countries in the middle east.</p>
<p>I do not see any evidence that the problems bringing to stability to Iraq are religious in nature or the result of Islamic fundamentalism. At least not in any contemporary sense. Historically, it could be argued that the Sunni/Shi’ia divide is religious, but it’s really more a political issue with factions attempting to gain power in the country.</p>
<p>My sense is that the Iraqi clerics have, on balance, been a moderating influence. There have been exceptions, obviously. Certainly the big guns, like Sistani, tried to play moderating roles. In many ways, they have lost the battle just like the US has lost the battle. Bottom line, no leadership has emerged in Iraq that has been successfully able to overcome parochial/sectarian interests. This is probably not suprising, given that Sadaam had systematically dismantled the political class over the last several decades.</p>
<p>Apparently the iron-y was not lead-en enough for you, Interestedad.</p>
<p>Thump.</p>
<p>Free, eh?</p>
<p>Here’s the link to the poll:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_quaire.pdf[/url]”>http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_quaire.pdf</a></p>
<p>WPO established in Jan. 2006 by PIPA.</p>
<p>Grain of salt time: Brookings, Ford, Rockefeller, Circle (Pew, Carnegie), Stanley, Calvert…</p>
<p>Not saying I don’t believe it, but it’s always worth taking a look at the political leanings of these foundations/poll backers.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm[/url]”>www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</a> -</p>
<p>“it’s always worth taking a look at the political leanings of these foundations/polls.”</p>
<p>Fair enough, but the primary way that polls are slanted is by tweaking the questions. It’s always possible that something got changed in the translation from Arabic, but the link includes the questions, and I think they were phrased as fairly and neutrally as possible. From what we see, it looks like a carefully designed survey instrument to me.</p>
<p>Same poll, Hindoo.</p>
<p>HH, do you have any polls to show that contradict this one? Any evidence to show that the results of this poll are due to bias? </p>
<p>Wouldn’t a fair person need those things to cast aspersions at it?</p>
<p>Conyat: Don’t get sucked into it. HH has no interest is finding out the reality of what’s happening, as many of the posters here do. There’s been good discussion here, and I am still glad I saw Burns’ interview that someone here suggested. </p>
<p>She’s just interested in documenting partisan jockeying and suggesting anyone who sees the reality and talks about it must be motivated by partisanship, is unpatriotic, and is an aid and comfort to the enemies. The weight of events is on the side of proving your positions. Iraq’s not going to improve for us until we leave. That doesn’t necessarily mean Iraq will improve, but if we aren’t there, it will have improved for us.</p>
<p>She’s in increasingly isolated company. Like Dick Cheney ranting the other day to Blitzer that Iraq has been a great success. Even Bush stopped saying this.</p>
<p>Let it go. Let her call us all traitors. It’s her last refuge.</p>
<p>HH–I thought it was probably the same poll, but didn’t check. The fact is that Iraqi attitudes have clearly turned against their “liberators.” I don’t think anyone can argue that we haven’t captured their hearts in overwhelming numbers. From a different perspective, I’m acquainted with two Iraqi/American families who live in my part of Kentucky. Both hated Saddam, but loathe Bush more for the chaos he has instigated in their former country. Both have family members still in Iraq who live in far more terror and under far more restriction on a daily basis than they did a few years ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Before you go around labeling people as you seem more than willing to do, bear in mind that this poll has been very dynamic over time. I have actually referenced this poll in the past and have been the one to introduce it to the CC community. To be intellectually honest, to take the result of this latest poll and use it to justify a policy of withdrawal, one would also have to accept the fact that the results of earlier polls would point to the opposite policy decision. Earlier polls were MUCH more pro-US involvement and were overwhelmingly supportive of the notion that the hardships of the war were worth it to get rid of Saddam. Note that even with the hardships that they have endured lately, they still believe that it is worth it to get rid of Saddam - hence the John Burns’ comments that deep inside, the Iraqi’s are grateful for our actions.</p>
<p>So how should we treat this poll? If we were to withdraw and things become overwhelmingly bad as John Burns and others predict and a new poll shows that they wish the American would come back and stabilize things, what do we do? Are we going to create policy based on polls or based on what is perceived to be the best for all countries that are involved?</p>
<p>I found the tone and content of post #530 to be quite rude; but it is to be expected. </p>
<p>There is often more than one view to be had in politics, though some would prefer otherwise. It may be that your view is the correct one, you may in fact always be right…but there is no way for the rest of us to know that.</p>
<p>In the mean time, I suppose, many of us will do the best we can with the views we have waiting on the enlightenment to visit us: as you clearly believe it has already visited you.</p>
<p>“Like Dick Cheney ranting the other day to Blitzer that Iraq has been a great success.”</p>
<p>Iraq HAS been a great success. Here’s a five-year chart of Halliburton stock:</p>
<p><a href=“HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance”>HAL Interactive Stock Chart | Halliburton Company Stock - Yahoo Finance;
<p>
I see that mini is back to his ways of mudslinging - the fact that they are unwarranted doesn’t really matter:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, perhaps it was the charity that was behind the Iraq war all along. After all, those low-income students from Washington DC have always been known for their conspiratorial ways. Does the left have no shame in continuing to bring up the Halliburton canard?</p>
<p>I have NO knowledge whatsoever of Cheney gaining from the massive rise in Halliburton stock, other than the fact that Halliburton’s Board and officers are major contributors to the Party of Appeasement and Family Values (PAFV). So why YOU should care about what Cheney does with his money is “interesting” to say the least.</p>
<p>No, my point was far more general. The aggressive and hostile occupation of Iraq is good for the corporate socialists now, as would control of the oil pipelines and the establishment of permanent military bases there. It’s the American way. </p>
<p>Iraq HAS been a great success for Halliburton - the chart doesn’t lie - and the PAFV’s fundraising. I expect to see that success extended further out to a much broader group of corporate socialists as time goes on - until the troops come home.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, durable medical equipment is doing VERY well.</p>
<p>Like I said - typical conspiratorial, paranoid, anti-capitalism mudslinging.</p>
<p>And true, too. Great to have all those adjectives running together.</p>
<p>(how many shares do you own? and are you buying more? ;))</p>
<p>I wasn’t concluding much about the poll and its indication of anything with respect to policy. It’s part of a large picture. I thought the claim that the poll should be discounted because of its funders really weak, though. </p>
<p>Regarding those who found my posting rude, I am simply pointing out a strong preference: that is, don’t just talk about debating points between pundits here in the US who have a stake in being proved right, look at the situation on the ground and tell me what you think we should do and why. I am tired of the partisan jockeying, a la Sunday morning snit shows. </p>
<p>Fundfather, I don’t agree with you, but I think you are presenting views that are based on trying to assess for yourself what is going on. I respect that.</p>
<p>And I guess I should take my own advice not to let HH get to me, but remember she sent a very high-handed post impugning the patriotism of anyone who doesn’t believe the Iraq war was a good idea. You want to talk about labeling fast and loose look at that.</p>
<p>Fundfather: where I disagree with you specifically is that though Burns decries what would happen in Iraq were we to fail, he gives a very restrained vouching for his expectation that it would work. It’s absolutely true, I’ve read that the Kurds and Shiites are fundamentally happy with the fact that we removed Saddam. But the Sunnis are not and Saudi Arabia has already said they would fund that side of a civil war.</p>
<p>Yes, we will most likely see a descent into maelstrom should we leave, but our staying for longer needs to be able to succeed in my mind in setting the Iraqi nation on a path where this will not happen when we eventually leave. I don’t see that happening. There was a Shiite quoted recently in an article saying that the US staying is just prolonging the violence. Of course, he just wants to quash the Sunnis.</p>
<p>The fact is Iraq is broken, unfortunately through our agency. But if it can’t be fixed through our agency, and I don’t think it can, we should leave as soon as we have given the surge about 6 months to see if it could work. I don’t believe it will work, but since it’s a done deal, I would put my lot with hoping that that would succeed.</p>
<p>Dorothy Parker X: read the history in these posts. If you disagree with what I have written here as a totality, tell me, cite your reasons and facts, and I’ll listen. It’s not enough, though, to say I am closed-minded or in the case of the other poster, an inadequate patriot. That’s my point. Or that I think I corner the market on enlightenment. I don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I take any opinion polling in Iraq with a grain of salt. Opinions are inflamed and, as you note, subject to rapid change.</p>
<p>Having said that, one thing is so strikingly consistent throughout that poll that it slaps us in the face…the disparity in Sunni and Shi’a responses. This certainly suggests that the two sectarian groups are unlikely to gather together in a stirring rendition of Kumbaya anytime soon!</p>