An interesting (alternately distressing and heartening, as I read them) set of polls from World Public Opinion.org regarding the Iraq campaign, the analysis of a few I think it essential should be pointed out to the American public. From “Comparing Americans and Iraqis”:
[…] How Things Are Going in Iraq
Americans … have a more negative outlook overall on the current situation in Iraq than most Iraqis themselves. Americans largely perceive the situation in Iraq is getting worse a majority of Americans (64%) have this view, while only 1 in 3 Americans believes that the situation in Iraq is getting better. This contrasts sharply with Iraqi perceptions of how things are going in Iraq. When asked in January, 64 percent of Iraqis felt that Iraq was headed in the right direction, with only 36 percent saying Iraq was headed in the wrong direction, interestingly the reverse percentages of Americans’ views. However, it should be noted that dramatic distinctions occurred between ethnic groups, with Shia and Kurds largely positive (84% and 76% right direction) and Sunnis overwhelming negative about the direction Iraq was headed (93% wrong direction).
I’ve noted many times now how I believe overwhelming negative US press coverage—some of it ideologically driven, some of it driven by the sensationalism of our contemporary 24-hour news ethos—along with the often cynical and disingenuous rhetorical excesses of the war’s opponents, have created a perception of the Iraq campaign here in the US that does not match the facts on the ground in Iraq.
Others have disagreed with me—but the poll numbers suggest that Americans have been conditioned to think things far worse than they really are (either that, or our propaganda machine in Iraq has convinced the Iraqis, who work and live in the theater of combat, to misbelieve their own perceptions. My money is on the former, of course—but then, my reality-based bona fides are notoriously suspect)>
American Perceptions of Iraqis
Americans vary in the accuracy of their understanding of Iraqi public opinion. A majority correctly estimates Iraqi public support for a timeline for US withdrawal. Majorities also correctly estimate Iraqi opposition to attacks on Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians, but on the whole underestimate support for attacks on US-led forces. They also underestimate Iraqi opposition to terrorism per se as well as support for the removal of Saddam Hussein.
The majority of Americans (60%) correctly perceive that most Iraqis want the US to commit to withdraw US forces according to a timeline of no more than two years, while 38 percent believe that most Iraqis want US forces to be reduced only as the security situation improves in Iraq. In the poll of Iraqis, 70 percent favored such a timeline.
A majority of 55 percent of Americans also perceive correctly that only a minority of Iraqis approve of attacks on Iraqi government security forces. Likewise, 72 percent correctly perceive that only a minority approve of attacks on Iraqi civilians. Only 7 percent of Iraqis polled support attacks on Iraqi security forces and only 1 percent on Iraqi civilians.
But Americans as a whole lean toward underestimating Iraqi support for attacks on US-led forces. Approximately half of Iraqis (47%) approve of attacks on US-led forces, according to the January poll. Only 40 percent of Americans correctly identified this in the new poll. Nearly half of Americans polled (45%) underestimated Iraqis’ support for attacks on US-led forces, saying it is only a minority. Twelve percent overestimated Iraqi support for attacks on US-led forces, assuming that a majority of Iraqis approve.
Americans also underestimate the extent to which the Iraqi public soundly rejects terrorism as they define it. In the January pollâ€â€a virtually unanimous 99 percent of Iraqis said it was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed in a statement at an Arab League conference late last year that terrorism should be rejected. However, only 14 percent of Americans correctly identified a “large majority†as the proportion of the Iraqi public that approved of the statement. Another 35 percent estimated that it would be a majority. Forty-six percent of Americans thought that half or less of the Iraqi public approved of the statement rejecting terrorism.
Naturally some may be perplexed by the overwhelming rejection of terrorism coupled with support among nearly half of Iraqis for attacks on US-led forces. It is clear that many Iraqis do not define attacks on US-led forces as terrorism. According to most expert definitions of terrorism, this is validâ€â€terrorism is generally defined as attacks on civilians, not an occupying military force.
It is not clear here whether the 47% of Iraqi support for attacks on US-forces is a function of the answer being given in the abstract (an expression of Iraqi nationalism and the right to fight long-term occupation), or whether the Iraqis (and I suspect that the Sunnis and al-Sadr Shiites carry a good deal of weight driving this number) really do believe attacking US forces is a legitimate and worthy endeavor.
Finally, there’s this:
Americans underestimate the extent to which Iraqis believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was worthwhile. Three-fourths of Iraqis (77%) said in January that ousting Saddam was worth it despite any hardships they may have suffered since the 2003 invasion, while 22 percent said it was not worth it. Fifty-five percent of Americans underestimated this support, assuming that most Iraqis feel it was not worth it (22%) or that Iraqis are evenly split on the question (33%). Forty-four percent of Americans correctly assumed that most Iraqis say it was worth it. (It should be noted, though, that among Iraqi Arab Sunnis, large majorities regret the overthrow of Saddam, and that some Americans may have been influenced by that when they opted for the position that views are evenly split.)
One last thing to note: Most Iraqis want a 2-year timeline for withdrawal of US troops (as opposed to an events-driven timeline like the one pushed by the White House and many pro-war conservatives; of course, that position can change—but even should it not, what is important is that the Iraqis will have the opportunity to make their wishes known at the ballot box. And when push comes to shove, I suspect that many Iraqis, in two-years time, will back a candidate who is a bit more open to the continued presence of US troops in certain important capacities).
Read the whole thing here.
(h/t Allah)
Gullible American commoners easily brainwashed by the Pinkopacifist left and the Nonphilosemiteisolationistright!
I mean not everyone is blessed with the intellectual rigor and visionary foresight that Neocon high policy making requires…
What kind of press coverage do Iraqis get? They’re not all ‘on the ground’ there.
Great, a drive by Vega-offering (at least he didn;t address it to “Josh” this time). Then actus asks a very weird, off kilter question. Maybe we should just leave this tread for dead now…
P.S. In the US media, actus, Iraqis are covered in one of a few ways by the press: idiots who cannot mind their own affairs (look at any story about their parliament); loonies who beat their own heads with swords (and by insinutaion, not worth the bones of a single Illinois Guardsman); innocent victims of US aggression (funny how the USAF hasn’t missed bombing a wedding yet…); people who hate and resent us and want us gone (as arranged by the fixers who hang in the lobby of the Palistine Hotel). That help any?
And maybe I should learn to type properly.
Not really. I want to hear about what coverage iraqis see, not how they’re seen by us.
Go look at Iraq the Model then.
Major John, but reality’s not nearly as fun as posing penetratingly insightful queries of Neocon conspirators designed to trip each and every one of them up with the sheer brilliance of their dazzlingly progressive Socratic elegance. Like the sweet, succulent dew of reason, these. Let us appreciate them for they are not with us always, amen.
That sound you hear is the simultaneous slapping of a thousand Rethuglican foreheads by a thousand and sixty four hairy Rethuglican palms.
Gah. I done already.
“non-philo-semite”?
Now, *there’s* a euphemism that dribbles leadenly off the tongue.
You’ve got to make your neologisms snappier, Vega–otherwise people are apt to notice them.
Sorry, but since when is 47% not a minority? I understand what they’re getting at, but . . .
I used to read Raed and riverbend. I’m sure I can read an iraqi blogger make sweeping generalizations like: I’ve noted many times now how I believe overwhelming negative US press coverageâ€â€some of it ideologically driven, some of it driven by the sensationalism of our contemporary 24-hour news ethosâ€â€along with the often cynical and disingenuous rhetorical excesses of the war’s opponents
. And it will be most enlightening.
You mean they have moonbats in Iraq, too?
So, actus, I guess you just need the proper sources then. I suggest BBC and AFP – they’ll hook you right up. Maybe Al-Jazeera, they have an English language site.
Do they broadcast in Iraq? if their english was like their arabic, then I would indeed have an idea of what the news in Iraq is. But I do think there are other sources there.
How so? Plenty of Iraqis–plenty of non-westerners–use and are conversant with the discourse of the west, whether of the western left or western right. The intelligent man knows that he is much more likely to have an influence through his writings if he couches his arguments in language that the particular powers-that-be to whom he makes his appeal will understand (and approve of). In a country with an educated populace, connected to the Internet, the average Iraqi is very likely to know the buzzwords and jargon common to the various ideologies of the English-speaking world. Why shouldn’t he make use of what he knows, if he believes that this is the best way to advocate for the betterment of his country?
It’s only more ‘authentic’ to parrot Foucault (or to parrot Said parroting Foucault) than it is to join the neocon chorus if that is what your ideological framework defines as ‘authenticity’. The optimistic and the pessimistic Iraqi citizen are both equally convenient for one side or another–but at least I have yet to see the wicked neocons summarily deny agency to each and every Iraqi voice that dissents from their party line.
Just the ticket, actus! A man who names himself “peace” in two languages, his friend the Socialist who wanted Saddam gone but was neither willing to exert himself to accomplish that nor to say anything good about those who did, and a spoiled richwitch whose main complaint over long months was that they had no electrical power while those people did (Saddam did better—by her.) That is, the Iraqi versions of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Barbara Streisand.
And we live in an echo chamber. Sheesh.
Regards,
Ric
The truth is: things are going quite well in Iraq. Could they be better? Of course. But I’m still not convinced that Baghdad is all that much worse off than, say, Detroit. If the MSM relentlessly covered every act of violence that happened in Detroit, the public would be pretty horrified by what was going on there. And I simply don’t buy the media line that they can’t cover the positive stories in Iraq because it is too dangerous. That seems like a cop out. If they’re too scared to do their jobs, they should find another line of work.
It’s easy to understand the different propective of the Americans and the Iraqi’s. The Iraqi’s aren’t exposed to the constant drum of lies from the Antique MSM as the American’s are. Add the fact that the Iraqi’s seem to have a better grasp on reality than the average moonbat in the U.S. The moonbats aren’t concerned with the freedom of anyone, they are too ate up with hate and the quest for power.
The moonbats have now joined forces with 12 million or so criminals in a drive to overthrow the government of the U.S. and are using violence against anyone that disagree’s with them. Don’t think so, go read Malkin’s blog about the phycial attack (with pictures) and personal injuries inflicted on someone today. Time to lock up a few million moonbats and throw the 12 million or so criminals out of the country. Bring on the military and don’t use rubber bullets. HEI tips do a better job.
Time to lock up a few million moonbats and throw the 12 million or so criminals out of the country. Bring on the military and don’t use rubber bullets. HEI tips do a better job.
You’re scaring me. Though I think it’s pretty likely you’re a liberal parody of a conservative.
…and they say the food on the Titanic was fantasic, and the staterooms were beautifuly appointed, but that darned media! All they ever want to talk about is, ICEBERG! ICEBERG! ICEBERG!
Maybe if it was safe for the media to travel around Iraq, unescorted by troops, in cars instead of tanks, without body armor, they’d find some of those “good news” stories.
But if you think building a school, (that *we* blew up for no particular reason), after three years of sitting on our hands is a “good news” story…
Or maybe the missing $9 billion dollars is a “good news” story? Or maybe that our Republican lead Congress refuses to investigate where the $9B went to… maybe THAT’S the good news.
America doesn’t give a crap how many schools we open. Or even if the power is on a whole 9 hours a day. The country didn’t go along with this. Those who did, did so because they were lied into in. Our people are dying for nothing.
Meanwhile back on planet earth, 64% of Iraqthink the country is headed in the right direction, and 77% say the war to oust Saddam was worth it. Funny how the moonbat skipped that part
I know, can you imagine? A self-important blogger? How model.
I don’t know much about foucalt, but I am going to get a 10 minute presentation on him soon. I did a long time ago watch a bit of a video where chomsky debated him. It looked like chomsky got the better of him. I don’t remember any of the content though—I think it was about linguistics, not politics.
Bush should run for president there.
Psst . . . Bush doesn’t have to run for President anywhere.
Love it how you’re so dismissive of Iraqi beliefs about their own country tho.
Sqwawk quagmire sqwawk. Actus want a cracker? Too bad the Iraqis themselves don’t see it that way. But we know better right?
Not surprised at all to find out your a law student tho. You’re a parody of a parody of parody.
I do believe them. That’s why I think they will reward dubya with political success there.
Someone should tell actus that there’s more to a career in law than professional pedantry.
BECAUSE OF THE INJUSTICE TO MANKIND!
I can’t imagine a debate between Chomsky and Foucault resulting in a “winner.”
It’s easy to forget some days that actus and Dr. Vega are the heroes of their own personal narratives. They really seem to think their doing the right thing, even if Dr. Vega doesn’t seem to engage so much as cluster-bomb the blogosphere with dense and sometimes fractured arguments, and actus sometimes seems more interested in finessing the argument than the principle or facts…
…but Marko, what a piece of work is Marko. Marko is like those CPT lunatics who not only can’t bring themselves to blame the people who kidnapped them for the abduction, but can’t even admit that their colleague was murdered by those same maniacs.
I’m sure Chomsky or Foucault could provide some intellectualist argument for their doing so (time aside), but the basic, practical fact of the matter is they’re nuts.
Marko expresses the belief that the American attack on Iraq was done for “no particular reason.” That is, it wasn’t his reason, so he cannot acknowledge its existence. Since I prefer to eschew accusations of dishonesty in situations like these, I can only assume that Marko is mad, as in imbalanced.
On the bright side, “Mad Marko” has a nice ring to it.
It isn’t really new, but the internet makes it seem more pervasive than it was. I remember in my wasted youth in the earlier days of the internet being in many arguments with people prepared to stand in the path of history and try to hold back all evidence with one hand while shouting “It isn’t so!!!”
Heck, I’m all for trying to impose your will on the universe by use of daily affirmations, but the real key there is to make them about what you want to happen, not what you want to have happened. The past is over.
Of course, that last paragraph is a big target for a certain ilk, but then that fight is kind of like arguing with a painting. It ain’t gonna change its mind on the subject, so why the fuss? Sometimes its better to talk past each other.
Ummm, I didn’t create the Iraq problem buddy boy. I’m only pointing it. Don’t blame the messenger.
This is the same lame strategy as blaming the media for not having enough “happy thoughts” to save Tinkerbell.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1598908,00.html
On October 23, the Sunday Telegraph disclosed the results of a poll which found that 82 percent of Iraqis “strongly oppose” foreign troops occupying their country.
This poll was in all the papers world-wide. Your poll, well, your poll appears on one web site that seems to find *ALL* of the far Right Neocon policies great ideas that are loved the world over. Hummm…
Next you’ll be telling us about a poll claiming the majority of Iraqis love civil war, invasion and death.
This is your idea of a rebuttal against the notion of media bias? Does it upset you when your buddies make fun of you for having to wear a helmet?
Marko, your poll was from the Guardian. If you don’t know why thats “problematic” from a credibility standpoint, well I’m afraid we’re speaking a different language.
Not unlike an argument stating that I didn’t create the poverty problem, and that being the case, feel no need to do anything about it but jump up and down and yell the sky is falling.
So marko, is the way to fix the problem to run away from it? What would you have us do now, since we have no time machine?
The poll Jeff pointed to is also right in line with the poll run last year by a conglomerate of world-wide media. That one was widely reported genius.
And your rebuttal to the fact that Iraqis support the removal of Saddam and are incredibly optimistic about the future—especially compared to Europeans and Americans—is that they want us to leave?
Well no shit. Which is why we’re pushing them to form their own gvt, take over military operations. What was it that Rummy said recently, we’re going to draw down by the end of the year or somesuch?
It’s almost like moonbats don’t pay attention to actual events. It’s as if they have a set narrative drilled into their wee little brains.
Gee, marko, it almost sounds like the Middle East would be the happiest place on Earth if we hadn’t removed Uncle Saddam.
We’re quite bad, aren’t we?
Again folks, I am not, nor is the media, the cause of America’s problems in Iraq. Or the cause of the failure of the conservative philosophy. These problems are systemic.
But I can accept much of what the poll says of face value. But have you read it?
47% or Iraqis feel it’s fine and dandy to blow up American troop!
WTF? We were sold a bill of goods. We were told we’d be greeted as liberators. Flowers and candy, flowers and candy.
And World Public Opinion did do a very enlightening study of news viewing (How Americans who got their news from Fox we’re 80% more likely to harbor the three most common misconceptions about the Iraq war, 1. Links between Iraq and al Queda existed 2. That WMD were found, 3, that world opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq)
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102
So I really aren’t all that surprised that the Iraqis are more hopeful than the Americans. They haven’t been lied to as often as we have.
We were also told that this war would pay for itself.
We were given various shifting reasons why we had to go to war. They turned out to be false.
DOESN’T ANYONE THINK THAT THIS COULD BE THE REASON AMERICANS AREN’T ALL THAT KEEN ON THIS WAR?
They smell a con job.
What would I do? Get out as soon as we can turn over control to someone else. The UN, NATO, Iran, the Iraqis, anyone. It is a lost cause and there won’t be any “getting better”. We could earn a lot of points with the Iraqis if we did 3 things. Regime change (our own). Give all the contracts to Iraqis, not the Vice President’s buddies. Tear down all our permanent bases (that was the reason this whole thing started on 9/11, our military bases in the Middle East. Our policy of military interventionism.)
Cut and run? Well, when you have cancer and it’s operable, the best thing to do would be, cut and run.
We’ve been presented with this concept, which may be nothing more than another Neocon myth. The idea is that Saddam created Iraq. That the failings of this society were due to this brutal dictator. “Gassed his own people! (We gave him the gas). But the opposite may be closer to the truth. It could be that a brutal dictator might be the only kind of leader who can keep a country composed of tribes that have hated each other since God knows when, from spiraling into civil war. After all, the only way our troops have been able to keep the wheels on the thing this long is by becoming brutal dictators themselves.
I just wish we had the wasted billions back so we could invest them in alternative energy sources. Which is the only way out of these kinds of messes. Energy self-sufficiency.
Are your only rebuttals further personal attacks?
That just tells me you can’t disagree with what I’ve said.
(And let’s not forget that the moonbats who disagree with this war and president’s policies, comprise the majority of Americans. It’s a moonbat nation.)
I think discussion with Marko is truly fruitless. If you all wish to have at it, go for it.
I mean, Americans smell a fraud, but that’s just stuff their are picking up out of the air, like a bunch of male hound dogs sniffing out a bitch in heat.
The media narrative? Nothing to do with it.
But here’s a twist: if the Iraqis haven’t been lied to as much as we here in the US have—and they believe things are going in the right direction—wouldn’t that suggest that they have a better idea about things on the ground than most Americans do?
Just asking.
I said American’s smells a con.
Americans were quite positive about the direction of the war, a few weeks in.
When Cheney and Rumsfeld said the war would last “weeks, not months.” Well that sounded good weeks into it. Months later Americans were still upbeat, but wary.
Years into it and the country is fed up.
Do you need proof? The President’s approval rating is as low as Nixon’s just before he resigned.
And let’s not forget, your guys have been wrong about everything concerning Iraq. EVERYTHING! The moonbats have been right all along. But don’t let that influence you. You won’t be seeing all the people who were right about the war with their own FOX talk show. Just the same conservative apologists.
I mean, stop and consider…
When this war started did you really think you’d be here in 2006 claiming a poll where 47% of the people we went to war to liberate, want us dead was good news?
Have YOU stopped to consider how much of that percentage is made up on the Ba’athist / Sunni minority and maybe a few religious petty tyransts like al Sadr?
Just to put it into perspective, take this as an analogue from the original post:
The overall “right direction” number was 64%—20% below the Shia number and 12% below the Kurd number.
Now, I’m no statistician, and I won’t presume to extrapolate any of this out mathematically, but I should think that without the Sunnis, that 47% number (averaging out the difference of the Kurds and Shias in the other example), would drop considerably—roughly )-31%, say?
Of course, I’ve brought up the idea of how the question was raised, and in what context (specific or hypothetical) Iraqis were answering the question…but you keep right on going.
Talk about cherrypicking. Hell, I included the info; whereas all you seem to want to do is concentrate on it exclusively and excuse away the other positive numbers.
But I’m done with you.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going…Moonbat style.
Yes Jeff, there is varying levels of hope among Iraqis. And about half of them want us dead for invading their country. Point?
B Moe, you say that as if you’re positive that a successful result is possible. Things have only gotten worse, and there is no reason to think that things will get better as long as we’re on their soil.
What if our very presence in Iraq is providing insurgency with a focal point for recruitment and funding?
And again, you sadly sink into personal attacks as opposed to being able to formulate a rebuttal. I understand why you have to. Do you?
“What if our very presence in Iraq is providing insurgency with a focal point for recruitment and funding?”
Of course it is, its the core of the enemy’s approach. The question is, why are you helping them?
And this is the kind of thing that makes Americans feel they’ve been played by this president and drive Bush’s poll numbers down.
The New York Times says it has seen a memo which shows that the US president was firmly set on the path to war two months before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
From private talks between George Bush and UK PM Tony Blair, the memo makes it clear the US was determined to go to war whether or not he had UN backing.
He is quoted discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4849744.stm
I am not attacking you Marko, I am mocking you. Someone who uses media polls to dispute media bias and asserts that the only way to victory is through surrender hardly warrants attacking.