If you're referring to my comment, datarat, no. ITM has no repeat no supporters in the Iraqi blogosphere other than the posters at ITM.
My own view is that in the spectrum of opinion in the Iraqi blogosphere, Iraq the Model represents one extreme pole of that opinion. They are generally more optimistic and favorably disposed to the United States than Iraqi bloggers, generally.
Over the last three years I have read every single post by every Iraqi blogger I could identify so I think I'm in a pretty good position for making generalizations of this sort.
Spin #1: Suggesting that the guys at ITM think it's a "mild imposition."
Spin #2: This LA Times story you're pointing to is not "fact." It's a reporter's distillation with his own spin, from a paper that's been hostile all along to the operation.
In any case, you cannot take any poll seriously until you see the actual questions asked, and the actual answers, and the percentages as they broke down. Offhand, this looks like pretty much every other survey of Iraqis we've seen so far--of which there have been many. Most Iraqis have always said they want the coalition forces to leave, but when asked simple questions like "how soon" their answers suddenly become a lot more complex.
Get us the actual poll results and let's talk about that.
In the meantime, it remains that the legitimately elected Iraqi government does NOT want us to leave. And there's good reason for that: they know what will happen to their country if we do. One of the reasons for elected governments is to make sure popular passions don't lead to stupid choices.
As an aside, I want to say that I am not here as a lefty gladiator who comes armed with left spin to engage right spin.
I thought that game was fun for a while. Now I see that the division is actually a political tool and has not served America well.
Peaceniks and diplomats are not the enemy. They are fellow-Americans who serve as a necessary counterbalance to warhawks and other aggressive ideologies.
While with the extreme right, I have given up all hope and I go there just to see how crass and acerbic I can punch out posts against their rotten ideas.
Here, a place that still substitutes surrender for withdrawl and other obvious RW rhetorical cliches, there is an obvious acceptance of diverse opinion and an interest in truth and goodness.
I doubt that many of you will agree with me, but I wanted to not just appear to be the guy that comes here for abuse and to dish out the same.
Well, here's an opinion. I think that Tommy Thompson is right: we should ask for a straight up or down vote in the Iraqi Parliament for whether the U. S. forces should stay or go. If they say we should go it will definitely tell us where we stand and provide political cover for doing so. If they say we should stay, it will become harder to pay much attention to spot polls.
DMZ: Withdrawl *is* surrender. That's not a rhetorical cliche, and it's not right wing. It's an opinion firmly shared by an awful lot of people in and out of the military.
You will have to deal with this.
I'll read your poll over later, but just so you know I have seen many like it over the years. My prediction is that when you look at it carefully you'll find that the answers are more like what I said above--yes, people don't like us there but their anxiousness for us to leave goes down when you ask them exactly how soon they think we should leave. It usually does.
I would also simply point out that the fastest way to get us to leave would be to end the insurgency.
I also think Dave's mostly got it right; the elected Iraqi parliament who really gets to decide. The Iraqis will have elections again on the matter. One thing I'd like to see, but which is impossible, is a new set of elections, with fuller Sunni participation and people now having a clearer idea of what's going on. That probably won't happen immediately but probably will in the next few years (I can't remember how they schedule their elections).
This is a very interesting PDF by the way, thanks DMZ. Lots here to wade through. Nothing here that's surprising. Here's stuff I'm noticing so far:
Only 1 in 4 Iraqis believes Iraq is in a state of civil war, which is unsurprising to anyone who's been watching carefully.
Iraqis are more pessimistic in general these days, also no surprise.
Most want a united Iraq, no surprise there either.
Most support the current government, again no surprise, we already knew that. Maliki's got a pretty solid base of support, we knew that too...
About 15% know someone who's had family members move away since the liberation began. That is a surprise, I would have expected that number to be a lot higher.
About half believe things are better now than they were under Saddam. It used to be more than that, but pessimism has been on the rise in Iraq the last year.
Garrh, my eyes are glazing over. I have to go do some other stuff. So far this looks pretty in line with the other responsible polls we've seen in the past, but I haven't gotten yet to the question about coalition forces leaving. Do you know what page it's on? (This is 76 pages long.)
Withdrawl *is* surrender. That's not a rhetorical cliche, and it's not right wing. It's an opinion firmly shared by an awful lot of people in and out of the military.
Only for an incompetant leadership that has no adequate exit strategy.
The insurgency will never be defeated. There is no proven plan to defeat it and no track-record to show how to defeat it.
Dave is right in the sense that while polls are facts, interpretations are opinions.
Underlying the opinions, you will find the preferences of the interpretors.
Another would be that a pathetically weak insurgency with very little support from the Iraqi people is inflicting incredibly tiny numbers of casualties on our forces, all while butchering innocent Iraqis every single day.
Still another would be that if we withdraw in the face of this, it will forever vindicate the idea that the only thing you need to do to defeat American forces is make headlines by blowing up bombs in crowds of civilians every day. And that Americans run crying home to mommy whenever they get a bloody nose.
And that Americans run crying home to mommy whenever they get a bloody nose.
For the most powerful military force in the world, it sounds like we have a huge chip on our shoulder.
Are you really willing to kick down every Iraqi door and disrupt every Iraqi life to root out the insurgency from its urban camoflage?
Good God man, when did "cutting and running" from Tora Bora to attack Iraqi insurgents become the raison d'etre of American Military Machismo? Don't you see how sidetracked we are from the actual terrorists that attacked us and radicalize young Muslims outside of Iraq on account of our invasions?
"Ewww....but the slopes of the Afghan mountains are REALLY steep and my boots are TOOO tight and I have blisters EVERYWHERE. Atleast Iraq is flat. Let's fight there instead and see if the terrorists will come to us."
Wah! I don't ever want the War on Terror to stray beyond a camp where our brave troops can get PizzaHut and soft serve ice cream with 12 toppings.
1) A chip on our shoulder? Because we won't back down in the face of the pathetic joke that is the cowardly fascist "insurgency" in Iraq? Ha. No, but we'd surely be pathetic cowards and liars.
2) There is absolutely no need to kick down every Iraqi door. We have known for decades how to defeat insurgencies, and are actually very good at it. It basically involves everything we're doing now, and takes an average of about 10 years.
3) It is the murderous, fascist Iraqi "insurgency" that is disrupting Iraqi lives, not us.
4) The entire claim that we are somehow "distracted" from going after Bin Laden or other terrorist groups because of Iraq is a non-sequitur. Are you really under the impression that we can just redeploy those forces in Iraq and that they'll miraculously root out Bin Laden for us since they no longer have to be in Iraq? That's not how it works.
5) I've noticed for some time now that the radicalizing of young Muslims in that part of the world has been going on for decades, and that certain parties always blame American action for it. This appears to be no different to me. The real radicalization happens because of the corrupt, dysfunctional, brutal regimes that rule that region, not American action.
"What a play! What a scam! What a joke."
I would call that a pretty good summation of the "anti-war" side myself.
Hmm, since I'm not getting an answer (did you even read this thing, DMZ?) I'm now guessing this has to be how the LA Times got the spin on their story:
The very first question is what they think of the "surge" (I hate that phrase), where they give a wide variety of responses, with varying levels of pessimism. Then we get question 2:
Q2: And thinking ahead, do you believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better or worse in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of Multi National Forces?"
Answers:
A great deal better--29%
A little better--24%
Stay the same--6%
A little worse--15%
A great deal worse--11%
Don't know/refused to answer: 12%
If that's what the LA Times article was based on, then it's typical LA Times spin. The poll's also a little oddly tilted--what is the point of asking about the "surge" and then immediately asking a question about withdrawl? Seems like a leading question to me if I ever saw one.
The really important poll question on Iraq, if you're going to ask at all, is always this one:
Assuming you want the coalition forces to leave, how soon would you like to see them go?
A) Immediately
B) Within the next few months
C) Within the next few years
D) Not until the security situation is fixed
Try that question, or one structured much like it. When that's been asked in the past in other surveys it's become pretty obvious that the much vaunted "the Iraqis support the insurgency and want us out now!" crowd is full of it.
So far, unless there's something in this 76 pages of data I'm missing something on the question of "coalition forces leave."
It's otherwise just another survey--not a bad one by the way--telling us the uninteresting and unsurprising fact that Iraqis don't generally like seeing foreign forces on their land. Oh gosh what a shock.
IMO, Dean, the increasing U. S. military presence (dramatic in the last 20 years) is a cause of increasing radicalism. However, while the increased military presence is a cause of increasing radicalism, it is a consequence of the inability of the governments in the region to produce stability there on their own (which may in turn be a consequence of increasing radicalism).
This dates from Iran's attempts to interfere with shipping in the Gulf during its war with Iraq.
Our first choice in dealing with the Middle Eastern countries was the normal American reaction of not wanting to have anything to do with them i.e. isolationism. When that became unworkable our second choice was reliance on regional powers (now known as “support for oppressive regimes”) namely Iran and the KSA). When it had become obvious in the 1980's that the Twin Pillars Policy (as it was called) had failed, we began a military build-up of our own in the Gulf (now known as “occupation of Arab lands”). What's behind Door #4?
The entire claim that we are somehow "distracted" from going after Bin Laden or other terrorist groups because of Iraq is a non-sequitur. Are you really under the impression that we can just redeploy those forces in Iraq and that they'll miraculously root out Bin Laden for us since they no longer have to be in Iraq? That's not how it works.
Oh, well you tell me: how it DOES work.
If I want politics, I can read Cheyney comments at AIPAC / AEI meetings.
I am talking about Generals who cannot get resources in Afghanistan because it "Is all about Iraq."
Do you think the Taliban are NOT resurgent in the area? Why do you think they ARE if you agree.
I don't care about Bin Laden. I am talking about the actual forces that attacked the United States and the enemies we can ethically fight.
We cut and ran before the job was finished.
What does THAT say to the would be Taliban sign-ups?
"We kicked Russia's ass and we just finished kicking the United State's asses as well."
Dave: Oh, I'd agree that our presence is a source of friction and therefore is a contributor. Other contributors include religion, ethnic issues, racism, the legacy of fascism and communism, the cold war, the presence of oil and the money it brings, and much more.
But arguing that American action is the primary cause of radicalism and violence is as shallow and stupid as those Islamophobic dorks who run around and say Islam is the cause. Well of course Islam has SOMETHING to do with it--the Koran has lots of nasty things to say about non-Muslims if you insist on reading it that way--but so what? The KKK was a staunchly Protestant Christian organization throughout most of its history, but again so what?
The idea that American action is the primary problem here is equally shallow. As if somehow our leaving Iraq would suddenly make terrorism evaporate. What a joke!
DMZ: You still haven't answered my questions. What's your first name? Also, could you please answer my questions about the polling data? Did I identify the right question or not?
As for the rest: you'd do best to stop bashing the current temporary occupant of the White House and start concentrating on what your actual policy recommendations are. Are you suggesting we should be putting more into Afghanistan? I'd agree with you on that. I'm sure the generals there agree with that, just as I'm positive that the generals in charge of Iraq have their own complaints.
By the way, you *do* actually take the time to listen to what generals who disagree with you say, right? Just like you read the polls you quote as definitive?
"Pull the troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, because the Afghans love us much better than the Iraqis and there will be no problem of an insurgency there."
Would that be your position? If not, what exactly are you advocating?
First Name: De Mili. My parents were peaceniks. My nickname is DMZ
I am not bashing Bush. I will readily admit that my politics are not driven by my blind allegiance to him.
I am calling the whole gameplan on the war on terror into question.
Iraqis did not attack us. Taliban did. Now they are resurgent in the area. How dare our leadership allow people who killed over 3000 American civilians allow something like this to happen. It is an outrage. If anyone deserved the full force of American might shoved right up their ass, it was the taliban
Now we are pussyfooting in Afghanistan. Outrageous!
Listen to generals? Sure, all listen to them all if you will. Here is one of the most recent assessments.
We should deploy all necessary force in Afghanistan to completely dessimate the Taliban with not even a drop of mercy.
If we could nuke Tora Bora and be sure that only Taliban would die, I would light the fuse myself.
That said, American force is more than boots on the ground killing and being killed.
The war on terror is a fight for the hearts and minds of the people.
If we had spent our money in Iraq finding and hanging Saddam and the IMMEDIATELY turning around and protecting Bectel and other engineering firms as they built the regions best hospitals, schools, sanitation and electrical plants (and the oil of course) we would actually have been greeted with flowers and candies as liberators.
Now people are wondering what the hell america stands for. Who can say? The whole war effort is a bizarre shell game.
As for the rest: "Iraq is a fig leaf for George W. Bush's failures" is pretty much Bush bashing no matter how you slice it. It shows you're much more interested in talking about Bush than you are about what we actually need to be doing. So does the "blind allegiance" business.
I'm talking about the war. You're talking about Bush. What should that tell you?
By the way, Iraq did attack us, multiple times. So you're already completely off base there.
Also, we did give the Taliban an unbelievably brutal punishing. And are still fighting them.
So, so far it looks like your only real policy recommendation is that we put more forces into Afghanistan. I'd agree that this is probably a good idea. I'd support a military buildup to make that happen. I also think it's appropriate to start asking how much longer we give the Iraqis to stabilize their own security situation, and to ask just how much of a troop presence in Iraq we can continue to support without doing something stupid like abandoning the country.
Did you have any suggestions on that score or did you just want to keep bashing Bush?
We should deploy all necessary force in Afghanistan to completely dessimate the Taliban with not even a drop of mercy.
Not a bad idea.
I just hope you realize that the Taliban right now represents the Afghan insurgency, and that as with all insurgencies it will take some years to deal with.
You get that, right?
The war on terror is a fight for the hearts and minds of the people.
Including the hearts and minds of the Taliban supporters, and the others in Afghanistan who want the coalition forces to leave and attack our troops to that end?
Let's just be clear what you're saying here. You do realize that Afghans who hate the coalition forces on their soil have the same objections as the Iraqis, right?
If we had spent our money in Iraq finding and hanging Saddam and the IMMEDIATELY turning around and protecting Bectel and other engineering firms as they built the regions best hospitals, schools, sanitation and electrical plants (and the oil of course) we would actually have been greeted with flowers and candies as liberators.
Well in fact we were greeted with flowers and as liberators in Iraq. Anyone who told you otherwise was mistaken.
That said, it's interesting to look back at what we could have done better in Iraq, if the interest is in learning as opposed to bashing. What happened is, we put most of our time into trying to build democratic institutions and supporting mechanisms into place, and to get the electricity and the water and the food production fixed, which the brutal fascist "insurgents" opposed us on from day one. Indeed, the main reason for those infrastructure has been that the "insurgency" bombs electrical lines and oil pipelines and medical convoys and such. That's been part of the issue from day one.
Just like in Afghanistan, by the way.
Now people are wondering what the hell america stands for. Who can say?
I can. We stand for supporting the legitimately elected Iraqi democracy and defeating the murderous fascist "insurgents" who every day oppress and kill the Iraqi people and cause chaos.
It's not really all that complicated or hard to understand, is it?
Afghanistan is a shit hole. Sorry. It is the perfect place for military conflict.
No distractions. Our forces vs. yours.
No museums with antiquities, no oil, even if there is a pipe line and just a little poppy problem.
The majority of the country is barren wasteland.
If the taliban want to call themselves insurgency, fine. Who cares?
There should be no question in the world's mind what this is about: Osama Bin Laden, dug so deep in a whole he can't see daylight, should just be able to smell something that resembles smoldering chicken.
Sidestepping what? I'm the one who keeps bringing you back to questions you don't answer.
I never hear one voice on the Right say: "We ought to make those Taliban MFs pay! They killed our people..."
You haven't been trying very hard, then.
It is always about the blood thirsty insurgency and how they cut the head off some dumbass mili contractor.
Ah. Now this is very interesting.
My stepfather is a military contractor who did two tours over there to train Iraqi security forces. Is he a dumbass? And what would you say exactly if the insurgents cut his head off?
Those are the only militant muslims JUSTIFIED in what they are doing: resisting unprovoked invaders.
Ooookay. So if the insurgents in Afghanistan (some of whom are Taliban, some of whom are not) do these things, they're not justified. But if they do them in Iraq, they are? Is that your point?
Also, are the insurgents who are murdering and raping and torturing their fellow Iraqis--which is mostly what the "insurgents" do these days--justified in your mind?
I would never claim that our actions are the sole reason for increasing radicalism in the Middle East, Dean, just a contributory one. But the most significant part of that comment was that our current military presence has been arrived at as part of a process that doesn't involve imperialism on our part, just the failure of people in the Middle East to keep peace among themselves.
dmz: He took a chance in the name of a cause that he was proud to be a part of, and that I am very proud of. I'm used to the dishonor that some folks give that, however.
The rest I can agree with. Heh.
Dave: I agree. I also note again--and I think you'd agree--that our leaving would only exacerbate the situation.
Yes, it is true that the U.S.--along with many, many other nations and powers and forces--had some contribution to the state that part of the world is in right now. The real question, as always, remains what to do about it.
My own take is the same as it ever was, and it is the "neocon" position: due to a wide variety of complex factors, some of which we contributed to and many of which we did not, the entire region is now mired in oppressive governments and sick radicalism. They need help. The question is what to do about it.
We were fully justified in going to Iraq. All of the reasons we had at the time were legitimate, even if in retrospect we learned that we were wrong about one of them. Either way, now we're there. Now it's time to figure out what to do.
I do not find "leave and apologize" an acceptable option. It's not only dishonorable and dishonest, it'll only make things worse.
The L.A. poll contradicts a London Times poll released a couple of weeks ago (the latter was, according to the Times, the largest most comprehensive poll taken since 2003), but that begs a fundamental question:
Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls? Where would U.S. history have gone if during the Civil War in 1864, while the Union was mired in the siege at Petersburg and majority support for pursuing the war had vanished. And I'm just talking about popular support in the North. Should Lincoln have put the war on hold and conducted opinion polls in Dixie?
Similar situations existed during the American Revolution and in the late stages of the Korean War (Truman left office with a popularity rating of 22 percent. The lowest in American history.) Should we have cut and run leaving Seoul to the mercy of Kim II-sung and his successors?
Where did you ever get the notion that winning in Afghanistan was so cut and dry? Many believe that the Taliban is a proxy for Pakistan interests. At least Iraq is in the Middle East. Afghanistan is virtually on another planet living in a distant century.
Iraq is relatively modern, very well educated and hence has more potential of reforming itself and starting on a road towards democracy and integration with the West. It will take generations of continuous low-grade military "Wack-A-Mole" operations to keep Afghanistan from regressing to the state that existed in the early 1990's.
More importantly why do you think Afghanistan is more strategic than Iraq? In terms of interests of the United States and the world, there is no comparison.
Lastly, how do you think a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will play out in terms of human suffering, geopolitical instability, and risking our long term interests? Specifically why do you believe that we won't be forced to return within a few years to fight a much bigger problem in much less advantageous conditions?
<blockquote>
<i>Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls?</i>
</blockquote>
Bob, I have limited time so I will come to yours and any remaining Dean issues in time.
My intitial reaction to your first question is:
We are not defending the country against imminent threat. War Powers act is about the President having the authority to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis.
Taliban attacked, we fought in Afghanistan, stabilized the situation and then surrendered to Osama Bin Laden and got busy in Iraq.
Iraq may or may have not been perceived as a crisis. We'll never know.
Now we know this is an elective not some mandate for American survival.
The American people definitely SHOULD have a say in whether they, their children and perhaps their childrens children are willing to sacrifice lives and tax dollars to fight this war.
This is supposed to be a democratic government where the people have a say in their foreign policy.
The Iraq war has basically become a foreign policy decision.
<blockquote>
<i>Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls?</i>
</blockquote>
Bob, I have limited time so I will come to yours and any remaining Dean issues in time.
My intitial reaction to your first question is:
We are not defending the country against imminent threat. War Powers act is about the President having the authority to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis.
Taliban attacked, we fought in Afghanistan, stabilized the situation and then surrendered to Osama Bin Laden and got busy in Iraq.
Iraq may or may have not been perceived as a crisis. We'll never know.
Now we know this is an elective not some mandate for American survival.
The American people definitely SHOULD have a say in whether they, their children and perhaps their childrens children are willing to sacrifice lives and tax dollars to fight this war.
This is supposed to be a democratic government where the people have a say in their foreign policy.
The Iraq war has basically become a foreign policy decision.
4.1.2007 9:56pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
It's certainly true if you only listen to the left side of the American blogosphere.
Or is this just a roundabout way of saying that ITM are a bunch of liars?
My own view is that in the spectrum of opinion in the Iraqi blogosphere, Iraq the Model represents one extreme pole of that opinion. They are generally more optimistic and favorably disposed to the United States than Iraqi bloggers, generally.
Over the last three years I have read every single post by every Iraqi blogger I could identify so I think I'm in a pretty good position for making generalizations of this sort.
Is there anyone tending towards the middle that isn't obsessed with spin?
Here are the facts.
5000 Iraqis polled from all over the country. Majority want the US out and don't believe they are providing safety.
No spin.
Spin #2: This LA Times story you're pointing to is not "fact." It's a reporter's distillation with his own spin, from a paper that's been hostile all along to the operation.
In any case, you cannot take any poll seriously until you see the actual questions asked, and the actual answers, and the percentages as they broke down. Offhand, this looks like pretty much every other survey of Iraqis we've seen so far--of which there have been many. Most Iraqis have always said they want the coalition forces to leave, but when asked simple questions like "how soon" their answers suddenly become a lot more complex.
Get us the actual poll results and let's talk about that.
In the meantime, it remains that the legitimately elected Iraqi government does NOT want us to leave. And there's good reason for that: they know what will happen to their country if we do. One of the reasons for elected governments is to make sure popular passions don't lead to stupid choices.
It is important information.
As an aside, I want to say that I am not here as a lefty gladiator who comes armed with left spin to engage right spin.
I thought that game was fun for a while. Now I see that the division is actually a political tool and has not served America well.
Peaceniks and diplomats are not the enemy. They are fellow-Americans who serve as a necessary counterbalance to warhawks and other aggressive ideologies.
While with the extreme right, I have given up all hope and I go there just to see how crass and acerbic I can punch out posts against their rotten ideas.
Here, a place that still substitutes surrender for withdrawl and other obvious RW rhetorical cliches, there is an obvious acceptance of diverse opinion and an interest in truth and goodness.
I doubt that many of you will agree with me, but I wanted to not just appear to be the guy that comes here for abuse and to dish out the same.
That is not my plan or interest.
Opinions became facts when you poll Iraqis about how they feel about the Occupation and you want to know what they think.
Question: Do Iraqis appreciate and support the Occupation?
This poll attempts to address that question factually.
When you ask for Iraqi opinions, polls are facts.
You will have to deal with this.
I'll read your poll over later, but just so you know I have seen many like it over the years. My prediction is that when you look at it carefully you'll find that the answers are more like what I said above--yes, people don't like us there but their anxiousness for us to leave goes down when you ask them exactly how soon they think we should leave. It usually does.
I would also simply point out that the fastest way to get us to leave would be to end the insurgency.
I also think Dave's mostly got it right; the elected Iraqi parliament who really gets to decide. The Iraqis will have elections again on the matter. One thing I'd like to see, but which is impossible, is a new set of elections, with fuller Sunni participation and people now having a clearer idea of what's going on. That probably won't happen immediately but probably will in the next few years (I can't remember how they schedule their elections).
Only 1 in 4 Iraqis believes Iraq is in a state of civil war, which is unsurprising to anyone who's been watching carefully.
Iraqis are more pessimistic in general these days, also no surprise.
Most want a united Iraq, no surprise there either.
Most support the current government, again no surprise, we already knew that. Maliki's got a pretty solid base of support, we knew that too...
About 15% know someone who's had family members move away since the liberation began. That is a surprise, I would have expected that number to be a lot higher.
About half believe things are better now than they were under Saddam. It used to be more than that, but pessimism has been on the rise in Iraq the last year.
Garrh, my eyes are glazing over. I have to go do some other stuff. So far this looks pretty in line with the other responsible polls we've seen in the past, but I haven't gotten yet to the question about coalition forces leaving. Do you know what page it's on? (This is 76 pages long.)
Only for an incompetant leadership that has no adequate exit strategy.
The insurgency will never be defeated. There is no proven plan to defeat it and no track-record to show how to defeat it.
Dave is right in the sense that while polls are facts, interpretations are opinions.
Underlying the opinions, you will find the preferences of the interpretors.
Another would be that a pathetically weak insurgency with very little support from the Iraqi people is inflicting incredibly tiny numbers of casualties on our forces, all while butchering innocent Iraqis every single day.
Still another would be that if we withdraw in the face of this, it will forever vindicate the idea that the only thing you need to do to defeat American forces is make headlines by blowing up bombs in crowds of civilians every day. And that Americans run crying home to mommy whenever they get a bloody nose.
For the most powerful military force in the world, it sounds like we have a huge chip on our shoulder.
Are you really willing to kick down every Iraqi door and disrupt every Iraqi life to root out the insurgency from its urban camoflage?
Good God man, when did "cutting and running" from Tora Bora to attack Iraqi insurgents become the raison d'etre of American Military Machismo? Don't you see how sidetracked we are from the actual terrorists that attacked us and radicalize young Muslims outside of Iraq on account of our invasions?
What a play! What a scam! What a joke.
Wah! I don't ever want the War on Terror to stray beyond a camp where our brave troops can get PizzaHut and soft serve ice cream with 12 toppings.
2) There is absolutely no need to kick down every Iraqi door. We have known for decades how to defeat insurgencies, and are actually very good at it. It basically involves everything we're doing now, and takes an average of about 10 years.
3) It is the murderous, fascist Iraqi "insurgency" that is disrupting Iraqi lives, not us.
4) The entire claim that we are somehow "distracted" from going after Bin Laden or other terrorist groups because of Iraq is a non-sequitur. Are you really under the impression that we can just redeploy those forces in Iraq and that they'll miraculously root out Bin Laden for us since they no longer have to be in Iraq? That's not how it works.
5) I've noticed for some time now that the radicalizing of young Muslims in that part of the world has been going on for decades, and that certain parties always blame American action for it. This appears to be no different to me. The real radicalization happens because of the corrupt, dysfunctional, brutal regimes that rule that region, not American action.
"What a play! What a scam! What a joke."
I would call that a pretty good summation of the "anti-war" side myself.
I'm still asking, what page of the survey is the part about their wanting us to leave on? You must know, you've seen it right?
Also, what's your first name?
The very first question is what they think of the "surge" (I hate that phrase), where they give a wide variety of responses, with varying levels of pessimism. Then we get question 2:
Q2: And thinking ahead, do you believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better or worse in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of Multi National Forces?"
Answers:
A great deal better--29%
A little better--24%
Stay the same--6%
A little worse--15%
A great deal worse--11%
Don't know/refused to answer: 12%
If that's what the LA Times article was based on, then it's typical LA Times spin. The poll's also a little oddly tilted--what is the point of asking about the "surge" and then immediately asking a question about withdrawl? Seems like a leading question to me if I ever saw one.
The really important poll question on Iraq, if you're going to ask at all, is always this one:
Assuming you want the coalition forces to leave, how soon would you like to see them go?
A) Immediately
B) Within the next few months
C) Within the next few years
D) Not until the security situation is fixed
Try that question, or one structured much like it. When that's been asked in the past in other surveys it's become pretty obvious that the much vaunted "the Iraqis support the insurgency and want us out now!" crowd is full of it.
So far, unless there's something in this 76 pages of data I'm missing something on the question of "coalition forces leave."
It's otherwise just another survey--not a bad one by the way--telling us the uninteresting and unsurprising fact that Iraqis don't generally like seeing foreign forces on their land. Oh gosh what a shock.
This dates from Iran's attempts to interfere with shipping in the Gulf during its war with Iraq.
Our first choice in dealing with the Middle Eastern countries was the normal American reaction of not wanting to have anything to do with them i.e. isolationism. When that became unworkable our second choice was reliance on regional powers (now known as “support for oppressive regimes”) namely Iran and the KSA). When it had become obvious in the 1980's that the Twin Pillars Policy (as it was called) had failed, we began a military build-up of our own in the Gulf (now known as “occupation of Arab lands”). What's behind Door #4?
Oh, well you tell me: how it DOES work.
If I want politics, I can read Cheyney comments at AIPAC / AEI meetings.
I am talking about Generals who cannot get resources in Afghanistan because it "Is all about Iraq."
Do you think the Taliban are NOT resurgent in the area? Why do you think they ARE if you agree.
I don't care about Bin Laden. I am talking about the actual forces that attacked the United States and the enemies we can ethically fight.
We cut and ran before the job was finished.
What does THAT say to the would be Taliban sign-ups?
"We kicked Russia's ass and we just finished kicking the United State's asses as well."
Iraq is a fig leaf for George W. Bush's failures.
But arguing that American action is the primary cause of radicalism and violence is as shallow and stupid as those Islamophobic dorks who run around and say Islam is the cause. Well of course Islam has SOMETHING to do with it--the Koran has lots of nasty things to say about non-Muslims if you insist on reading it that way--but so what? The KKK was a staunchly Protestant Christian organization throughout most of its history, but again so what?
The idea that American action is the primary problem here is equally shallow. As if somehow our leaving Iraq would suddenly make terrorism evaporate. What a joke!
As for the rest: you'd do best to stop bashing the current temporary occupant of the White House and start concentrating on what your actual policy recommendations are. Are you suggesting we should be putting more into Afghanistan? I'd agree with you on that. I'm sure the generals there agree with that, just as I'm positive that the generals in charge of Iraq have their own complaints.
By the way, you *do* actually take the time to listen to what generals who disagree with you say, right? Just like you read the polls you quote as definitive?
"Pull the troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, because the Afghans love us much better than the Iraqis and there will be no problem of an insurgency there."
Would that be your position? If not, what exactly are you advocating?
I am not bashing Bush. I will readily admit that my politics are not driven by my blind allegiance to him.
I am calling the whole gameplan on the war on terror into question.
Iraqis did not attack us. Taliban did. Now they are resurgent in the area. How dare our leadership allow people who killed over 3000 American civilians allow something like this to happen. It is an outrage. If anyone deserved the full force of American might shoved right up their ass, it was the taliban
Now we are pussyfooting in Afghanistan. Outrageous!
Listen to generals? Sure, all listen to them all if you will. Here is one of the most recent assessments.
If we could nuke Tora Bora and be sure that only Taliban would die, I would light the fuse myself.
That said, American force is more than boots on the ground killing and being killed.
The war on terror is a fight for the hearts and minds of the people.
If we had spent our money in Iraq finding and hanging Saddam and the IMMEDIATELY turning around and protecting Bectel and other engineering firms as they built the regions best hospitals, schools, sanitation and electrical plants (and the oil of course) we would actually have been greeted with flowers and candies as liberators.
Now people are wondering what the hell america stands for. Who can say? The whole war effort is a bizarre shell game.
Anyway, did I get the polling question right?
As for the rest: "Iraq is a fig leaf for George W. Bush's failures" is pretty much Bush bashing no matter how you slice it. It shows you're much more interested in talking about Bush than you are about what we actually need to be doing. So does the "blind allegiance" business.
I'm talking about the war. You're talking about Bush. What should that tell you?
By the way, Iraq did attack us, multiple times. So you're already completely off base there.
Also, we did give the Taliban an unbelievably brutal punishing. And are still fighting them.
So, so far it looks like your only real policy recommendation is that we put more forces into Afghanistan. I'd agree that this is probably a good idea. I'd support a military buildup to make that happen. I also think it's appropriate to start asking how much longer we give the Iraqis to stabilize their own security situation, and to ask just how much of a troop presence in Iraq we can continue to support without doing something stupid like abandoning the country.
Did you have any suggestions on that score or did you just want to keep bashing Bush?
Not a bad idea.
I just hope you realize that the Taliban right now represents the Afghan insurgency, and that as with all insurgencies it will take some years to deal with.
You get that, right?
The war on terror is a fight for the hearts and minds of the people.
Including the hearts and minds of the Taliban supporters, and the others in Afghanistan who want the coalition forces to leave and attack our troops to that end?
Let's just be clear what you're saying here. You do realize that Afghans who hate the coalition forces on their soil have the same objections as the Iraqis, right?
If we had spent our money in Iraq finding and hanging Saddam and the IMMEDIATELY turning around and protecting Bectel and other engineering firms as they built the regions best hospitals, schools, sanitation and electrical plants (and the oil of course) we would actually have been greeted with flowers and candies as liberators.
Well in fact we were greeted with flowers and as liberators in Iraq. Anyone who told you otherwise was mistaken.
That said, it's interesting to look back at what we could have done better in Iraq, if the interest is in learning as opposed to bashing. What happened is, we put most of our time into trying to build democratic institutions and supporting mechanisms into place, and to get the electricity and the water and the food production fixed, which the brutal fascist "insurgents" opposed us on from day one. Indeed, the main reason for those infrastructure has been that the "insurgency" bombs electrical lines and oil pipelines and medical convoys and such. That's been part of the issue from day one.
Just like in Afghanistan, by the way.
Now people are wondering what the hell america stands for. Who can say?
I can. We stand for supporting the legitimately elected Iraqi democracy and defeating the murderous fascist "insurgents" who every day oppress and kill the Iraqi people and cause chaos.
It's not really all that complicated or hard to understand, is it?
What else can you do?
I never hear one voice on the Right say: "We ought to make those Taliban MFs pay! They killed our people..."
It is always about the blood thirsty insurgency and how they cut the head off some dumbass mili contractor.
Those are the only militant muslims JUSTIFIED in what they are doing: resisting unprovoked invaders.
As to the question about the UK Poll co., I am reading the details to answer the question.
Back later on that to contradict or concede the point.
No distractions. Our forces vs. yours.
No museums with antiquities, no oil, even if there is a pipe line and just a little poppy problem.
The majority of the country is barren wasteland.
If the taliban want to call themselves insurgency, fine. Who cares?
There should be no question in the world's mind what this is about: Osama Bin Laden, dug so deep in a whole he can't see daylight, should just be able to smell something that resembles smoldering chicken.
No Israel. No oil. No alterior motives.
Clear concise victory.
I never hear one voice on the Right say: "We ought to make those Taliban MFs pay! They killed our people..."
You haven't been trying very hard, then.
It is always about the blood thirsty insurgency and how they cut the head off some dumbass mili contractor.
Ah. Now this is very interesting.
My stepfather is a military contractor who did two tours over there to train Iraqi security forces. Is he a dumbass? And what would you say exactly if the insurgents cut his head off?
Those are the only militant muslims JUSTIFIED in what they are doing: resisting unprovoked invaders.
Ooookay. So if the insurgents in Afghanistan (some of whom are Taliban, some of whom are not) do these things, they're not justified. But if they do them in Iraq, they are? Is that your point?
Also, are the insurgents who are murdering and raping and torturing their fellow Iraqis--which is mostly what the "insurgents" do these days--justified in your mind?
The world does not abide my Muslim law. Common sense should rule.
The Taliban should be engaged if they relocate to Houston.
The rest I can agree with. Heh.
Dave: I agree. I also note again--and I think you'd agree--that our leaving would only exacerbate the situation.
Yes, it is true that the U.S.--along with many, many other nations and powers and forces--had some contribution to the state that part of the world is in right now. The real question, as always, remains what to do about it.
My own take is the same as it ever was, and it is the "neocon" position: due to a wide variety of complex factors, some of which we contributed to and many of which we did not, the entire region is now mired in oppressive governments and sick radicalism. They need help. The question is what to do about it.
We were fully justified in going to Iraq. All of the reasons we had at the time were legitimate, even if in retrospect we learned that we were wrong about one of them. Either way, now we're there. Now it's time to figure out what to do.
I do not find "leave and apologize" an acceptable option. It's not only dishonorable and dishonest, it'll only make things worse.
Completely.
dmz:
The L.A. poll contradicts a London Times poll released a couple of weeks ago (the latter was, according to the Times, the largest most comprehensive poll taken since 2003), but that begs a fundamental question:
Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls? Where would U.S. history have gone if during the Civil War in 1864, while the Union was mired in the siege at Petersburg and majority support for pursuing the war had vanished. And I'm just talking about popular support in the North. Should Lincoln have put the war on hold and conducted opinion polls in Dixie?
Similar situations existed during the American Revolution and in the late stages of the Korean War (Truman left office with a popularity rating of 22 percent. The lowest in American history.) Should we have cut and run leaving Seoul to the mercy of Kim II-sung and his successors?
Where did you ever get the notion that winning in Afghanistan was so cut and dry? Many believe that the Taliban is a proxy for Pakistan interests. At least Iraq is in the Middle East. Afghanistan is virtually on another planet living in a distant century.
Iraq is relatively modern, very well educated and hence has more potential of reforming itself and starting on a road towards democracy and integration with the West. It will take generations of continuous low-grade military "Wack-A-Mole" operations to keep Afghanistan from regressing to the state that existed in the early 1990's.
More importantly why do you think Afghanistan is more strategic than Iraq? In terms of interests of the United States and the world, there is no comparison.
Lastly, how do you think a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq will play out in terms of human suffering, geopolitical instability, and risking our long term interests? Specifically why do you believe that we won't be forced to return within a few years to fight a much bigger problem in much less advantageous conditions?
<i>Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls?</i>
</blockquote>
Bob, I have limited time so I will come to yours and any remaining Dean issues in time.
My intitial reaction to your first question is:
We are not defending the country against imminent threat. War Powers act is about the President having the authority to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis.
Taliban attacked, we fought in Afghanistan, stabilized the situation and then surrendered to Osama Bin Laden and got busy in Iraq.
Iraq may or may have not been perceived as a crisis. We'll never know.
Now we know this is an elective not some mandate for American survival.
The American people definitely SHOULD have a say in whether they, their children and perhaps their childrens children are willing to sacrifice lives and tax dollars to fight this war.
This is supposed to be a democratic government where the people have a say in their foreign policy.
The Iraq war has basically become a foreign policy decision.
<i>Since when should strategic policy decisions during a time of war be driven by polls?</i>
</blockquote>
Bob, I have limited time so I will come to yours and any remaining Dean issues in time.
My intitial reaction to your first question is:
We are not defending the country against imminent threat. War Powers act is about the President having the authority to do what needs to be done in a time of crisis.
Taliban attacked, we fought in Afghanistan, stabilized the situation and then surrendered to Osama Bin Laden and got busy in Iraq.
Iraq may or may have not been perceived as a crisis. We'll never know.
Now we know this is an elective not some mandate for American survival.
The American people definitely SHOULD have a say in whether they, their children and perhaps their childrens children are willing to sacrifice lives and tax dollars to fight this war.
This is supposed to be a democratic government where the people have a say in their foreign policy.
The Iraq war has basically become a foreign policy decision.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.