How well is the new security plan doing in Baghdad so far? Apparently well enough that ABC News, USA Today, and the BBC had to join forces to produce biased reports of “lost hope,” based on an already biased German poll of Iraqi public opinion.
What are the major flaws in the poll and the reporting thereon? Let me count the ways.
First, it is worth noting—though only ABC News does—that “In addition to the national sample, oversamples were drawn in Anbar province, Sadr City, Basra city and Kirkuk city to allow for more reliable analysis in those areas.” It is not clear whether the results accounted for the oversampling of areas where violence has been among the worst. There is some reason to suspect the oversampling is not fully accounted for in the overall results. The full poll report notes that in an open-ended question, 48% cite security as the biggest problem in their lives—up sharply from 2005—but still a minority view. Yet the report notes that number is 80 percent in Kirkuk, and nearly as high in Anbar province and Basra. Elsewhere, the full report states that “In Anbar province essentially no one rates the security positively, in Baghdad 20 percent, in Kirkuk 26 percent, in Basra city 41 percent. By contrast, it’s rated positively by 95 percent in the Kurdish provinces and 73 percent in the south when Basra city is excluded.”
Second, when looking at the full poll results, we discover the following about the religion and ethnicity of the sample:
Shiite Arab 47%
Sunni Arab 35%
Kurdish 15%
Other 3%
Demographically, it appears that Iraq is 60%-65% Shiite, and 32%-37% Sunni, with Kurds comprising 15-20% of the population. Thus, it appears that the joint poll greatly oversamples Sunni Arabs who are, by all accounts, the most dissatisfied with post-Saddam Iraq—and unsurprisingly so, as they were the beneficiaries of that despotic regime.
The USA Today story on the poll actually notes the overall Iraqi demographics just cited, making their failure to compare them to the sample all the more egregious.
Third, the ABC News story states:
Given all this, for the first time since the 2003 war, fewer than half of Iraqis, 42 percent, say life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein, whose security forces are said to have murdered more than a million Iraqis.
That is untrue. Here is the question actually asked in the poll:
7. Compared to our country as it was before the war in spring 2003, are things in Iraq overall much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?
The question asked does not mention Saddam Hussein. Pollsters will tell you that the inclusion of names in a question may alter the responses. For example, even Democrats like Ruy Teixeira will tell you that including Pres. Bush’s name in polling questions about an issue will depress support for the proposition. In this case, we know from a new poll from Britain that only 26% preferred life under Saddam, when the question is actually asked that way.
Third, for all of the “lost hope” presented in the news reports, only 42% think Iraq is in a civil war, which is probably much lower than the percentage of those in the mass media who think so.
Fourth, while the BBC noted that 88% of Iraqis said electricity and fuel supplies were poor, the reporting on the poll—including the ABC News report, which runs four webpages—manages to omit passages from the full report like this one:
PROGRESS and PROBLEMS – While it doesn’t mitigate Iraq’s troubles, there has been some progress. Median household incomes have advanced from $150 per month in 2004 to $204 in 2005 and $286 now. Employment is up sharply. So is possession of consumer goods: Nearly every household in Iraq now has a satellite dish and a radio; nine in 10 have a cell phone, up from a mere six percent in 2004. On the other hand, in a persistent complaint, one in three households receive no power from utility lines whatsoever, and just 12 percent get it for more than 12 hours a day. Power and fuel supply are the two most negatively rated aspects of daily life in Iraq.
While violence is devastating, it’s sporadic; the lack of fuel and power are a lower-level discomfort, but a daily one…
Given the media omissions on this point, the media certainly was not going to point out that, as noted in an October 2005 report:
Iraqi power plants are now generating nearly 4,800 megawatts, up from 4,400 before the U.S.-led invasion.
The increase hasn’t been enough to keep up with demand. Since the end of the war, demand for electricity has increased by about 60% as Iraqis have bought new refrigerators, televisions, air conditioners and satellite dishes…
That is from a USA Today story, so it is not as though the paper is unaware of it.
Indeed, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Spectrum:
“Most officials, Iraqis included, agree that there is more power available in Iraq now than there was before the 2003 war. However, that fact is less germane than most people realize, because the allocation of electric power has shifted seismically, and more or less in sync with the shift in political power. Basically, parts of Baghdad and central Iraq now get much less power than they did before the war, while parts of the south and north actually get considerably more.”
That context, as always, is missing from the reporting on the Iraqi electricity situation.
The fuel shortages are explained in a recent Newsweek story on the blossoming sectors of the Iraqi economy:
Consider some less formal indicators. Perhaps the most pervasive is the horrendous Iraqi traffic jams. Roadside bombs account for fewer backups than the sheer number of secondhand cars that have crowded onto the nation’s roadsâ€â€five times as many in Baghdad as before the war.
But in the current telling, this is a sign of “lost hope.”
While only a plurality in the poll sees democracy as the best system for Iraq now, a majority think it is the best system for their future and expect that it will be so five years from now. Such numbers do not exactly scream “lost hope,” so the USA Today and BBC stories do not mention them all, while ABC News buries them on page three of four. They do manage to mention that almost 60% want Iraq to remain a unified country.
In sum, even in a poll skewed heavily to disaffected Sunni Arabs, most Iraqis want to be united, want a democracy and do not think they are having a civil war. They complain about shortages of electricity, fuel and jobs, though this seems to be because freedom has caused demand to outstip the short-term supply. While there are plenty of bad numbers in the skewed poll, the overall picture is a bit more complicated than the media who commissioned it would have people believe.
You forgot to mention gay Iraqis and women, Karl. Also, Ba’athists are suffering under under the Maliki government. Well, comparatively.
re: the Ba’athists—that’s why the skew to the Sunni Arabs is so telling.
C’mon now. Everybody knows this occupation is hurting their country. The lying and mis-representation of figures is only an attempt to tell the story the way it really is.
If the Kurds are atill overwhelmingly sunni, it seems to me the real story is there is now a Sunni majority in Iraq.
From fellow PJMer Michael Totten today in the Kurdish section of Iraq:
Kurdistan is safe even without its anti-terrorist trench, and that’s not because it is protected by American soldiers. Only 50 or so troops remain in this part of Iraq. There is no anti-American insurgency (because there is virtually no anti-Americanism) and there is no terrorism.
No American troops = peace.
Go figure.
Peace = no American troops
Go figure some more.
Go figure=Mission *Completely* Accomplished.
The “insurgency” isn’t effictively directed at Americans anyway, otherwise there’d be lots more casualities (unless the Arabs are even worse “soldiers” than my already low opinion allows).
The violence/warface is sectarian vengance and spoil-grabbing. Oh, dearie me: caliphatemongers are fighting each other.
What Would George G. Meade Do?
Cordially…
No alphie = no imbecilic non sequiturs.
Please.
Most of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops, Rick. A lot of civilians are killed in these attacks and when our guys shoot back.
It’s quite possible the level of violence in Iraq would be reduced to a manageable level simply by removing our troops from the equation.
But don’t forget, alfie supports the troops.
alphie didn’t link to Totten’s blog. Anyone care to guess why? Here’s the quote in context:
The Kurds stopped fighting among themselves in 1999.
Peshmerga who kept out Sunni Arab and Shia troublemakers = peace.
Peace = no American troops.
Go figure.
Proof, please?
ummmmmm yeah. I would sure love to see the dramatic decline in violence if our troops left right now.
I’m sure all the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds would spontaneously hold hands in a circle and sing Kumbaya.
Here’s the Totten link.
alphie has since added:
Of course, he’s got no link for that either. That most of the civilian deaths in the past year resulted from sectarian violence and the carbombing of cafes and markets tends to suggest that alphie is wrong yet again.
If you’re right, and there’s a first time for everything, then that shows they’re grossly incompetent. A mighty nationalist insurgency inflicts such low casualties as we’ve experienced? No wonder they choose the easy way out by bombing mosques, marketplaces & job centers.
You are welcome to your caliphatemongering heroes; I taunt in their general direction.
Cordially…
Even in this skewed poll, the Iraqis do not want the US to leave now.
Why rely on polls, skewed or otherwise, when we could just let the Iraqis vote on the question?
BWHAAAHAAAAHAAHA!!!
This coming from the ultimate poll worshipper.
Asks alphie, who—aside from the already-noted hypocrisy—has no evidence that anyone is stopping a referendum, if that’s what Iraqis wanted.
The question is, Karl, if we think a majority of Iraqis would vote for us to stay, why wouldn’t we hold a vote?
It would certainly bolster our efforts in Iraq.
What part of “there-is-NOTHING-keeping-Iraqis-from-holding-a-vote” don’t you understand, Alphoid Mary?
Please post proof of this asinine claim…
… or is it just another posted turd you pulled from that sphincter you call a brain?
Your failure to address the question will speak volumes, jackass.
The Sunni *Arab* population was around 20% four years ago and is probably around 15% today … the missing 5% having fled to neighboring Sunni countries. Any source claiming the Sunnis are 35% of the population is including Sunni *Kurds* in that number. The poll is overcounting Sunni Arabs by at least 100%. Adjust results accordingly.
Dew,
Here’s a recent Army report that says there are now 180 attacks a day against our troops in Iraq.
180 * 365 = 65,700 attacks will be carried out against our troops in Iraq this year.
We only hear about the ones that kill more than one soldier or marine. Single deaths and those attacks that just maim some of our guys don’t even rate coverage these days.
Uh. The Iraqis have had elections. The reason they had elections is because we’re there. Unless, of course, you think they were rigged.
I can think of one reason. We don’t run Iraq. The Iraqis do. So holding a vote – like their purple finger elections when we helped them realize their goal by providing security- is their decision.
Alphie’s hit on a novel approach if we can convince the SCOTUS to go along. The jihadists should hold a vote here in America to see if the majority of Americans would vote for us to leave Iraq.
It would certainly bolster their efforts in Iraq.
Point being, Alphie, the US handed over the administration of Iraq to the Iraqi government That government hasn’t asked us to go.
Uh no, alf. You said that “Most of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops”.
We are still awaiting proof of that statement.
Either that, or a really slippery change-of-subject.
Oh, alphie’s almost funny today.
Does little “a” bother to read his own sources? That was an average of 180 attacks in the month of January… as in 1 month of the 48 we’ve been there. What are you using that special “global warming” math to make another meaningless & ill-conceived point or does data reflecting 1/48th of total time evoke accurate extrapolation? Since you have made 7 meaningless points in thread today, I guess, at a minimum, we can expect 2,555 (365×7) dumbass comments a year, per thread, right?
Read the link, TomB.
There are 50 attacks a day against civilians in Iraq.
There are 180 attacks a day against our troops in Iraq.
So 78% of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops.
I think that qualifies as most, don’t you?
Oops,
Left out Iraqi security personnel getting attacked 30 times a day.
So “only” about 70% of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops.
Still counts as most, I think.
And that means a reduction of 70% in attacks if we pull out, something to consider.
That’s so dumb, it’s practically unfiskable.
Well that’s an especially schmolly poll eh? Heh, sad stuff they are trying so very hard to find something wrong somewhere.
The really sad part is there’s still a generation of people who get home, turn on the network news and watch – and trust – it every single night. This will work: enough people will hear it, not question it, and believe it.
I’m going to type slowly and use small words so the flotsam between your ears doesn’t overload, ok Alpo?
THE FIGURES WERE FOR ONE MONTH…. JANUARY (oops.. too many syllables) of 07, your retarded monkey shite.
You didn’t say “Most attacks in January were against troops”.
No. You said “Most of the attacks in Iraq are against our troops, Rick”.
Your link did not prove your point… unless your point was to remove any remaining doubt what a flaming, idiot tool you are.
You still with me, Simpleton?
Now find a link that shows that “most” of the attacks FOR 48 FREAKING MONTHS are against are troops and I will conceed to your “superior intellect”. (bwahahahaha)
Kirk- Khan, I’m laughing at the superior intellect.
Alf, its always good to go to the source. Here is the actual statement from Maples:
Your source was wrong.
Nonetheless, without actual, you know, numbers of people attacked, one sniper hitting a latrine is equivalent to a carbomb in a marketplace killing 60 people. Where are the actual numbers?
alphie,
Thanks for the stats, which truly butress my opinion of these risible “insurgents.” And the preposterousness of withdrawing from combatting these calipatehomgers.
After four years of conflict, and by extrapolation perhaps a couple hundred thousand “attacks,” they haven’t yet inflict over 3,000 KIA. While their losses are far higher. Grim milestones, and all that.
It’s understandable, then, that these great soldiers of the prophet chose easier targets: each other, and innocent, bystanding Iraqis. Burnishes their fearsome, 10’ tall image, don’t it? Well, that works for at least one vistor to PW.
Thanks again. Cordially…
As an aside alf, the fact that you actually think that the people who are attacking the troops will suddenly become peaceful and not attack anybody else once they leave is almost infantile in its reasoning.
Do you think, maybe, the troops might be protecting people and keeping the terrorists from attacking others???
Well, then we need to get our troops the hell out of Darfur.
Dewclaw
<blockquote>Now find a link that shows that “most†of the attacks FOR 48 FREAKING MONTHS are against are troops and I will conceed to your “superior intellectâ€Â. (bwahahahaha)
I’m not trying to support or agree with Alpo, but if you really want to demonstrate superior intellect, you should start with spelling ‘our’ correctly.
And I should learn how to use blockquote.
(bwahahahaha)
Yea.. I noticed two typos in there.
I will now sit in the corner with the Alphie Hat on….
(~sob~)
I don’t know. After the first hundred or so, blowing up groups of children at play might start to seem unfulfilling. I would bet that the average insurgent is really a peacenik–loves music, cats, latte, Prius’s–he’s just so upset about the Chimperor that he can’t help but decapitate innocents with a hacksaw.
… maybe I’ll just snicker a little at the “superior intellect”.
Seriously though, what is depressing is that in the information war, a biased poll like this goes around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
(Apologies to Mark Twain.)
Dewclaw,
I don’t feel the need to assist you in reaching new levels of denial, but that’s over 8000 attacks and 70% of them were against our troops.
That’s a pretty decent sample size (over 2% of all attacks since we invaded) to extrapolate a good picture of who is being attacked in Iraq.
Rick,
In addition to killing 2619 of our troops, the bad guys have managed to wound over 23,000 of them.
You seem to have forgotten our wounded (just like the administration.
And what were the guidelines on what constituted an attack, Alpoo?
If 7000 of those “attacks” consisted of someone chunking a rock at a Hummer, then color me not impressed with your “extrapolation”.
Of course, you can’t show me exactly what those figures mean… what with the details probably not supporting your quaint, perochial view of the world, and all.
Then don’t presume to do so.
The only denial here, little man, is your’s.
Dew,
You’re the one who thinks they know more about attacks in Iraq than Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell.
If you want to question how they measure these things, go a right ahead.
In the immortal words of Duke Wayne (as Rooster Cogburn): “I’ll buy amoeba rectum a Daniel Webster ceegar if what he cites ever proves the point he claims.”
Let’s see–no Americna troops in southern Thailand, or Kashmir, or Darfur, or Somalia, or Chechnya, or south central L.A. Yep–them ‘Murcan soldiers sure cause teh violence.
And amoeba rectum sure is teh stupid.
Next!
Oh, alphie, it turns me on when you’re all, like, indigent and nail those hippocrits on how they don’t, like, care about the wounded and shit. Let’s go get something peerced, like, right away.
Hey, fat Goth chick,
Like, what are you wearing?
BTW, alphie still has no link support for this:
In fact, he’s tried the “reckless US troops” trope before and got a smackdown from Major John. He then did his usual impression of the fish flopping about in the bottom of the boat, followed by the usual non sequitur changing of the subject.
Reruns are boring.
The usual. Uncured deerhide, chainmail, horned helmet, and a big iron sword. If you’re interested, a bunch of us are getting together later to go sack Rome…
What, you thought I was one of those whiny Renfield-type Goths?
(TW: six78 Oh crap, the turing word generator has learned to count!)
Weird.. why would they weight only by these demographics and not ethnicity? A statistician at the survey company would reflexively weight by ethnicity because it makes simple sense. Makes no sense, unless they purposefully did this for dramatic effect. Having worked for these types in the past, my guess is the survey company was told not to weight by ethnicity.
Thanks again, alphie. Possibly 200,000 “attackes” in four years, and the mighty warriors of the prophet manage to produce just a D-Day like casualty list for the U.S., while getting clobbered themselves. (And hey! Germany never attacked us/had anything to do with 9/11. Why the Grim Milestones at Normandy? Goddamned Chimperor Roosehitlervelt!)
It’s best to keep grinding the caliphatemongers up there, then leave them undisturbed while they slaughter their neighbors, and plan the same for our population.
Cordially…
Demographically, it appears that Iraq is 60%-65% Shiite, and 32%-37% Sunni, with Kurds comprising 15-20% of the population
The above doesn’t seem to make mathematical sense.
.
I agree that the numbers are often reported badly. The numbers make sense once you account for the fact that the Kurds are predominantly Sunni as a matter of religion. That’s why the poll distinguishes between Sunni Arabs and Kurds. And how we know that the poll appears to overrepresent Sunni Arabs by roughly 100%.
Hope that clarifies things.
It seems alphie dosen’t really care about the truth only sticking it to that mean old George Bush! I have been to both areas of operation and I have witnessed these attacks and a previous poster is correct in that a mortar blowing up an outhouse counts 1 attack just like a IED killing 5 of my brothers in arms. The truth is that we have fought a war against a highly equiped, highly trained, highly funded guerilla force that can attack and then blend in with the surronding population. The fact that we have operated in this environment for 4 years and only lost a little more than 3,000 lives is a testiment to the training and abilitity of our own forces. We lost more troops in one day on Omaha Beach than we have lost in 4 years in Iraq. The Iraqi’s I spoke with were so glad we had come to save them from the old regime. They are getting frustrated with the time it is taking but we have been working on freedom and democrary for over 200 years and we still don’t have it exactly right. And finally, we are the world’s last super power. We didn’t ask for the job it was thrust upon us. I didn’t want to go to Iraq but I took and oath and I fulfilled my obligation as a soldier and an American and nothing makes me want to puke more than people that think this world was built by daisies and peace signs. This country is as great as it is because people in this country are willing to stand up, leave their families, and put their lives on the line to defend this country. This whole war was started because Amercia was attacked. I may not agree with all the reasons why we went but I would rather take the fight to another country as try and defend this one from here. Freedom is not free, it is the sacrifice of a few that allows freedom for many.
Am I the only one to notice that the company that produced this poll – D3 Systems – is the same one involved in the bogus Lancet Iraqi death toll study?
Glenn, as far as I know, you are. So thanks for bringing that to our attention. Can you find out who funds D3?
Why is getting news always like cleaning a cowpen?
You have to fight your way through an acre of bullshit to get a payoff, then the next morning – look, another acre of bullshit!
You want to know why so many people don’t read the news and don’t vote? It’s not apathy, they’re just tired of slogging through all that bullshit!
Merovign,
Thanks for the kind words at LGF!