Six years ago the US saw the cheers of Palestinians at the destruction of 9-11. We saw the smiles of Saddam and his butchers and we heard the gloating of Bin Laden. Six years later Saddam is gone and Bin Laden is still running from justice. But now Iraqis are chanting “al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allahâ€Â. This is a stunning turn around, and it is all due to the wide gulf that separates American values from al-Qaeda’s bloodlust and hunger for absolute power over others.
When Muslim are chanting these things about al-Qaeda it is clear we have hit a turning point in the war on Terror. The Muslim street DOES see us as liberators and protectors in Iraq. And it sees we have a common enemy in al-Qaeda.
Well, then. Perfect time to pull out and concentrate on universal health care and mandatory low flush toilets.
LET’S ROLL!
Speaking of which, time to go jump around a bit in my muscle tee.
Universal healthcare, with mandatory visits no less. While we are at it, we ought to tax the hell out of the successful, create more rebates for those that do not pay taxes, and let government control more and more of our lives.
Yes, rolls for all!
Rolls? I’d rather have PIE! And see a certain hard shelled, hairless rodent dancing!
Isn’t it possible that the Sunni Arabs hate both the US and al-Qaeda and would be able to fight al-Qaeda even more if we left?
The Sunni tribal uprising against al-Qaeda has been going on long before the surge began and many other Sunni insurgent groups have pledged to turn against al-Qaeda or lay down their own arms in exchange for a timetable for US withdrawal.
From the AP a couple months ago:
“Isn’t it possible that the Sunni Arabs hate both the US and al-Qaeda and would be able to fight al-Qaeda even more if we left?”
About as possible as lowering the cost of something by giving it away for free. Now go clean up your room.
Senator Schumer, is that you?
AJB,
Please see Jeff’s top-shelf post yesterday about “negotiating” with Al Qaeda. I think you should know by now that these people aren’t interested in “political process”.
Are you making fun of the Breck Girl, Jeff?
The Muslim street DOES see us as liberators and protectors in Iraq. And it sees we have a common enemy in al-Qaeda.
While there are some positive signs (such as the anecdotal ones reported by Bill Ardolino, and one aspect of the polling data I’ll cite below), that statement seems very inaccurate. Polling of Iraqis in August showed:
– A continued decline in the percentage of those who think the US was right to invade
– A continued decline in the precentage of those who think things will be much better a year from now
– A majority believing that security had become worse in the past 6 months
– 58% with no confidence in US/UK security forces
– An increase to 80% for those who think Coalition forces have done quite bad/very bad in carrying out their responsibilities
– 79% somewhat to strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces
– Strong majorities think that the surge has made conditions worse
– 47% want the Coalition forces to leave now
– Almost a tie between blaming the US and AQ for violence (19% and 21%); an encouraging note is that the percentage blaming the US has dropped substantially since February 2007
– 48% still feel that AQ attacks on US forces are acceptable
[/end skeptic]
“Isn’t it possible that the Sunni Arabs hate both the US and al-Qaeda and would be able to fight al-Qaeda even more if we left?”
Let me sum it up this way, AJB–the Sunnis fell into the trap of believing the following sales pitch early on: “We’re from al-Qaeda and we’re here to help you.”
And if you really think anyone can fight al-Qaeda better WITHOUT those fabulous young Marines in Anbar, I’m sure Osama’s boys have some beachfront property in Waziristan they’d like you to see.
Because THEY sure don’t like when the Americans, and their training, equipment, professionalism, and big F’in guns join any fight.
**SHOULD HAVE WARNED–THAT LINK IS TO A PDF**
My apologies.
Hubris,
I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than trust anything from the BBC.
Ever.
Big needles.
Like the knitting kind.
So AQ must ask itself “Why do they hate us?”
Then they must try diplomacy. And withdraw their forces.
There, Senator Obama, I just tweaked your plan a bit – think it’ll work out?
Isn’t it possible that the Sunni Arabs hate both the US and al-Qaeda and would be able to fight al-Qaeda even more if we left?
We’re providing arms, logistics, training, cover, and fighting side-by-side in many cases. Oh, and stopping the Shia from obliterating them. Therefore, if we pull out, the loss of such support will be a benefit to the Sunnis.
Now class: Spot the flaw in that argument.
Polling of Iraqis in August
You’re trusting a poll that was conducted by anti-war Westerners of people in a war zone who endured 30 years of being killed for having the wrong opinion (and risk it still but from other parties) and whose society values saving face over telling the truth.
Why the hell would an Iraqi tell an idiot Western poller that they love the US presence in their country and want us to stay longer, even if they felt that way? I really don’t think that their culture polls the same as ours, Hubri, especially not in a freaking war zone.
“try diplomacy”
It might shock the junior Senator from Illinois to learn that we do this everyday about all sorts of things all over the globe.
It’s one of those “I will reduce crime” or “I will strengthen the economy” positions–the dead terrorist is in the details.
dicentra,
Assuming your assertion is true, it does not explain the deterioration of positive opinion (for most factors) over time, during which the same variables applied.
Hubris, you go ahead and put your belief behind polls. I will put mine behind what I am hearing from every part of the theater I am going to go serve in…
I’ll bet my life on the inefficacy of these “polls”. Literally.
But the same variables didn’t apply. The country was more chaotic, and the need for American presence more pressing. If one buys dicentra’s assertion, one might conclude that polling will look worse for the US as things improve and the Iraqis feel more capable of complete autonomy.
Is one way of looking at it.
But now I really MUST go workout.
Hubris,
No, but the slow realization that telling the truth under the coalition does not carry the same penalty as it did under Saddam, might help explain it. IOW, maybe they have always felt this way, and now aren’t afraid to tell others.
For what it’s worth, though, I think AJ does overstate the liberators thing a bit. I suspect many of them grudgingly acknowledge it — but it might take some time before the layers of rationalization that prop up their hatreds dissipate.
“- 47% want the Coalition forces to leave now
– Almost a tie between blaming the US and AQ for violence (19% and 21%); an encouraging note is that the percentage blaming the US has dropped substantially since February 2007
– 48% still feel that AQ attacks on US forces are acceptable”
Really, these poll numbers are the only ones that count. 53% want us to stay. So even with all that other nonsense, the bottom line is they want us to stay. Why? Because they know either a) that us leaving leaves them in a world of shit or b) same as a. They don’t want us there indefinitely. But they do know that our presence there now is allowing healing.
“Assuming your assertion is true, it does not explain the deterioration of positive opinion (for most factors) over time, during which the same variables applied.” A very decent question by Hubris, I must say.
“But the same variables didn’t apply. The country was more chaotic, and the need for American presence more pressing. If one buys dicentra’s assertion, one might conclude that polling will look worse for the US as things improve and the Iraqis feel more capable of complete autonomy.
Is one way of looking at it.”
But an even more decent answer by Jeff.
Jeff G and Education Guy,
Point taken; however, that presumably would lead to the conclusion that a substantial portion ARE indicating their true feelings. In other words, it would undermine the finding of deterioration over time, but would simultaneously buttress the assumption that the current negative opinions are sincere.
Major John,
I am not saying these opinions are immutable (heck, with things happening so quickly there could be change since August), but despite problems with polling I’ll trust it over anecdotal reports for accuracy vis-a-vis snapshots of overall current opinions.
Not to mention a poll whose methodology is flawed.
And then there’s the incongruence between many of the findings:
If 47% want the MNF out now, then 53% have other wishes. Yet 79% strongly oppose the presence of MNF? What can the 32% differential be thinking? 58% have no confidence, but only 47% want us out immediately? How can that be? While 80% rate the performance as quite bad/very bad?
GIGO meets Occam’s Razor.
Three words for those who believe in policy-by-poll:
Congressional Approval Rating.
A slight majority doesn’t want us to leave immediately. Sectarian segregation is seen as a negative thing. Large minorities see civil war or Iraq as a staging ground for terror organizations upon a too-hasty U.S. withdrawal. Not a good day for the Democratic debaters’ points, at least not all of them.
The most interesting to me was the table (Q29) on who Iraqis think is currently in charge of their local security situation. 72 percent say either Iraqi police or Iraqi army.
If I have time this w/e I’ll do a quick rank correlation on Q3 and Q7.
I’m already on record as noting that the sample used in the ABC/BBC poll is suspect. And I have noted that Engram has some interesting points about how strictly one should construe some of the responses given in the poll.
That being said, Hubris left out a few items:
Thirty-eight percent in Anbar province, a focal point of the surge, now rate local security positively; none did so six months ago.
In Baghdad fewer now describe themselves as feeling completely unsafe in their own neighborhoods – 58 percent, down from 84 percent.
Overall, 41 percent report security as their greatest personal problem, down seven points from 48 percent in March.
67 percent are confident in the Iraqi Army, up 6 points since March.
69 percent are confident in the much maligned police, up 5 points from March. As to both the Army and police, most of the increase is due to increased confidence by Sunnis.
66 percent disapprove of Prime Minister al-Maliki’s job performance — an increase primarily due to increased disapproval from Shiites. Is this because he’s seen as too sectarian or not sectarian enough? The poll doesn’t ask directly. However, 56 percent of Shiites want a unified government, which is up 15 points since March. Iraqis remain nearly unanimous (98%) in saying that sectarian division is a bad thing. And the number who say Iran and Saudi Arabia are fomenting sectarian violence is on the upswing.
50 percent of Irais think the National Assembly is willing to make the compromises necessary to bring peace and security, up 9 points since March. Sunnis and Shiites are bullish; the Kurds bearish.
So the ABC/BBC poll is a bit more nuanced than some have suggested, even taken at face value.
Pablo,
79% somewhat to strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces. 53% strongly oppose the presence, which matches pretty closely with the 47% who answered “should they leave now.” question (and there is a shade of difference between the two questions). The opinion results of 80% bad to very bad on past performance (and 58% with “no confidence”) answer different questions as compared to the practicality-oriented “should they leave now.”
RACISTS!
(?)
But now Iraqis are chanting “al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allahâ€Â.
When this becomes common, I wonder where the Defeatocrats will move the goalposts to.
So the ABC/BBC poll is a bit more nuanced than some have suggested, even taken at face value.
Karl, I focused on the items I cited because they spoke to Strata’s assertion of “[t]he Muslim street DOES see us as liberators and protectors in Iraq.”
TERRORIST-IST !!!
No, it actually matches more closely with the 53% who think something other than that we should leave now. The difference between the two questions is negligible, basically the difference between “Do you want the to leave?” and “Do you want them to stay?” Sure, the wording is different, but the questions are essentially the same.
Right, so I’m looking for the line of thought that leads 11 to 27% of Iraqis to think we suck yet want us to stick around. Any ideas?
Pablo,
I guess I’ll agree to disagree on the 47% bersus 53%. I simply don’t see that as a contradiction for questions that are worded differently.
Right, so I’m looking for the line of thought that leads 11 to 27% of Iraqis to think we suck yet want us to stick around. Any ideas?
Probably like, for example, an employer survey where 90% of employees say the company sucks but a majority would like the company to stay in business because the alternative isn’t exactly palatable; the two results are not contradictory.
What if they asked this:
“Would you mind terribly if AQ took control of Iraq? How about Iran? Saudi Arabia? What if your government just plain fell and a genocidal bloodbath ensued? If the US troops are the only thing between you and that result, would you prefer that they stayed?”
Leading question? You betcha. But seriously, poll questions that take pains to obliterate any context or conditions yield just as useless results.
If a pollster asked me, “Do you want the US troops to leave Iraq,” I’d have to ask “Under what conditions?” in return. But pollsters won’t say, so that leaves me between, heh, Iraq and a hard place.
Dang! My comment was eaten! And now I only have time for a short summary.
First, Hubris seems to have dropped the quote from Strata about AQ being a common enemy, likely because that part is absolutely correct.
Second, Hubris should read the Engram link in my original comment, as I believe it sheds light on the contradictions in the results Pablo identifies.
note that this didn’t make the headline though, not significant news according to the BBC. Iraqis chanting death to al`Qaeda? Eh, who cares, they were never really there anyway, didn’t you hear Murtha?
Also very quickly:
The US being in Iraq is seen as better than the alternative, but the US is not seen as a protector. OK. Iraqis are a proud people, so they may not be as blunt as Hubris would like. But how they behave when there’s a distinct cost attached beats a cost-free response to a pollster.
That’s because they were overrunning Okinawa to steal Murtha’s secret, invisible $100 million pump, CT. the same secret, invisible pump is available now from the New York Times for $3.95 (Kostards only).
We just haven’t heard about the Okinawa invasion yet because it’s over the international date line.
While stationed in Baghdad from 2006-2007, we conducted almost daily “face to face” communications with local Iraqis, and while anecdotal local national opinions gathered by armed, uniformed US servicemembers shouldn’t be taken at face value, the general ghist was that the status of a neighborhood strongly correlated with support for coalition presence.
Neighborhoods in Baghdad that were contested by multiple forces (Sunni militias and JAM, for example), welcomed Coalition forces and complained that we didn’t stick around often enough. Stated attitudes were backed up by behaviors–neighborhoods that were out of a zombie flick on Monday would start generating signs of life on Tuesday almost immediately during a four-hour cordon & search. Operation Together Forward II also showed this on a larger scale, as the areas we sought to clear and hold were also sectarian/security fault lines.
The flip side of this was that popular opinion was decidedly not on our side in neighborhoods that were dominated by a single group. In those neighborhoods we were viewed as challenges to the ongoing counter-state operations of whatever militia/armed entity was running the show. Why this is so depends on the neighborhood and why it was non-contested. These areas were by definition less violence-prone, so the Coalition showing up increased the risk for the average resident, regardless of whether they supported us, the GOI, or their friendly neighborhood militia force.
Also, folks who were ballsy enough to tell us to leave yesterday didn’t think that the violence would ‘go away’ when we left, they just figured they had a better shot of coming out on top if the US/Coalition wasn’t around to interfere.
Karl,
First, Hubris seems to have dropped the quote from Strata about AQ being a common enemy, likely because that part is absolutely correct.
Do I think that is objectively true in the sense that AQ is an enemy to the interests of the US and to the interests of Iraqis? Absolutely. Do I think that the perception of AQ is an enemy is shared by the “Muslim street”? Not really–while it is held by a (hopefully growing-in-the-future) portion of the populace, 48% believing that AQ attacks on the US forces are okay is not heartening.
I will check the link when I can; thanks.
With all due respect to Karl, Hubris and others, I’d like to take a slightly different approach to the polls, Iraqi or US.
Screw ’em, screw em all.
Are we to make global strategic decisions on the basis of a local person who knows only about their local situation? Do any of these people really understand the national and/or global conditions that exist and effect the overall strategy? I think it is less than useless to trot out these Iraqi based polls just as it is useless to make policy decisions on the basis of any poll of the month.
Beyond the obvious methodology issues (cultural, strategic, sectarian, etc.) the only polling that means anything has already been done: The three national Iraqi elections. In addition, we are in Iraq for our own purposes as well as the purposes of the Iraqi people. There, I said it; let the cries of imperialist begin! Our purposes include planting a strong democratic seed in the Middle East to give the Caliphate/Monarchy/Dictator crowd a new vision of how it may be done. You know, for the long term stability of the region.
In addition we’re attempting to demonstrate on an ongoing basis that being a batshit crazee jihadist is a piss poor career choice that will only bring you misery, death and, most importantly, failure! We are finally seeing the fruits of AQ’s failure at the tribal level. The idea that the tribes have been “doing this on their own” is absurd. How, exactly, were they going to accomplish this without a security frame work provided by the US military and the Iraqi military and police forces, oh, by the way, trained and equipped by The US Military!
As I’ve said before AQ is not some magical entity with endless resources. Their face will be greatly diminished in the world when Iraq does become a primarily secular democratic government. Opinion polls, foreign or domestic, are irrelevant to the mission and the worthiness of the goals. An operating security framework that deals with both local sectarian violence and foreign terrorists will do the most to improve the mood of all Iraqis and give them the sort of stable environment necessary to achieve the difficult political compromises.
Now please excuse me as I must go take my daily bath in brown people blood. Salaam Aleikum.
Not so. It would simultaneously buttress the assumptin that the current negative opinions are of the kind that, given the cultural considerations outlined by dicentra, one might expect.
I’d say you’re onto something with the analogy of the workplace though. Your office always sucks until you’re out of a job — and the dot com startups that installed foosball tables and nap rooms and reinvented the workplace on abundant investment capital? Most of those happy Utopians, had they to do it over again, would likely cut back on the frills and concentrate on the hard work so that they wouldn’t today find themselves muttering about how shitty work is from their cubicles at Yahoo.
The US being in Iraq is seen as better than the alternative, but the US is not seen as a protector. OK.
I really don’t know what to say if you think the results for different questions are inconsistent; they simply are what they are and don’t appear to be leading questions. Is there ambiguity in the feelings of many Iraqis with respect to the US? Sure.
Iraqis are a proud people, so they may not be as blunt as Hubris would like.
I’m in the room my friend, could you please shift to second-person address? If you would disregard the poll results due to the assertion that the Iraqis won’t accurately report their feelings, I guess we can’t talk about them, so that’s that.
pmm hits on a salient point here:
“they just figured they had a better shot of coming out on top if the US/Coalition wasn’t around to interfere.”
All sides in Iraq overestimate their ability to impose their will on others if the coalition withdraws. Thereby making that scenario REALLY bad. Think Lebanon, only with more people, neighbors, guns, neighbors with guns, and crazy neighbors with guns. That scenario, namely that things in Iraq and the region CAN get much worse, is finally dawning on some that were on the other side of the war divide.
When they are not posturing, that is.
It would simultaneously buttress the assumptin that the current negative opinions are of the kind that, given the cultural considerations outlined by dicentra, one might expect.
I think I see what you’re saying. Over time you could get the inverse of the normal positive outcome bias effect.
Closing italics tag.
How is having us stay more palatable if we’re making things worse and not getting the job done?
How is having us stay more palatable if we’re making things worse and not getting the job done?
…if they prefer that we stay but do things differently.
– Whenever I see a LunarBat trot out yet another rigged poll, the picture of a small child caught for the umpteenth time with his or her hand in the cookie jar springs to mind. Post the PEW exit poll in 2004, hubris doesn’t cover it anymore.
– Speaking of polls, heres one you can do in your head, with no polling required.
“Most political analysts agree that the demographic size of the entire ensamble of groups that can be reasonably included in the ranks of the “Left”, from grocery cart homeless, Anarchists, activist groups, Hollywood celebs, all the way through well-to-do angry young adults brats, ect, comprises approximately 15% of the total voter age population as a high side limit.
– That leaves 85% of the voting age population that either disagree with the Lefts weird assed ideas, ignore them altogether, or loath them outright. There. Now wasn’t that easy, free too.
– Apparently when dorks like Kennedrunk use the phrase “the majority of Americans this or that” he is really talking about the majority of Lefty Americans. He uses that term so often it should be stamped on his forehead.
– BTW. How’s that form 180 coming along Kerry?
In re: Universal health care
Do we all get to go on Medicare from birth to death, then? I’m sure that’s going to work out bee-yoo-ti-fully, given the joys of Medicare now.
Big Bang,
What the hell are you talking about? Elsewhere, I’ve previously posted results from past polls of Iraqis showing surprising levels of support for the US to counter assertions that all of them hate us. Whatever.
Ah, but we are doing things differently, and the poll says more people think we’re making things worse that did so previously. Would you like the bull to stay in your china shop, if only he’d do things differently?
The choices aren’t just between how things were done pre-surge and how they are done now; it could be different from either way. It could be desired that the bull do a nice tango. I’m not asserting that such a desire is reasonable or prudent, it’s just a perception that isn’t contradicting the other results.
– Don’t really know what you’ve posted Hubris, and since that comment was not directed at you, not sure why its material.
– Overall, what I will say is that anyone who tries to poll a population of people who are living in a slaughterhouse, and have been for many generations, and then tries to draw anything but the most weakly supported contentions from said polls should get into another line of work.
Let me translate for you, BB:
When Kennedrunk says “The majority of Americans” he really means “The vast majority of my drooling syncophants who kiss my ass and bring me snack cakes.”
I hope that helps.
In reverse order,
Hubris:
On the ‘net, you never know who is “in the room” at any given time. And you may not even know someone’s gender (e.g., cynn). And threads can become all manner of cross-discussion. So I tend to refer to people by name. It’s meant to clarify, not annoy.
BJTexs:
I’m discussing the poll because Hubris mentioned it. I agree that the extent to which policy should be guided by them is a separate issue. Even so, as you acknowledge:
I agree, but I would also suggest that it’s a reason why Iraqi public opinion matters (while also agreeing that the election polls are more important, same as in the US). I’m just noting that public opinion polling and the interpretation of polls is as much art as science, as any pollster would say.
To take a different type of example, consider that the ‘surge” has to some degree moved the “hot spots” around, both within Baghdad, and from Baghdad to neighboring provinces like Diyala, and — as AQ is pressed further, into more remote areas. To the extent that this is true, it could be anticipated that Iraqis in new “hot spots” are going to tell a pollster that security is worse, because it likely is, in the short term. Some (and note I am not naming Hubris here, because I don’t know the mind of Hubris on this) will just look at the topline number and conclude the “surge” isn’t working, when it fact it is a predictable result of the “surge” in action.
Similarly, as I have suggested on other occasions, the chaotic state of the Iraqi gov’t in August is not necessarily a failure of the “surge,” but a predictable result of the “surge”/turn-around in Anbar. The Sunnis in particular have had to rexamine their position and political leverage with AQ diminishing one one hand, but new alliances (however temporary) with the US on the other. And the same is then likely true of the Shiites; those who think the new alliances with Sunni tribes and insurgents weakens the Shiites may conclude that they want the US out sooner and act accordingly.
Public opinion polling — if done well, and if it accounts for any cultural differences in how Iraqis may answer poll questions — may be useful in advancing US policy. Which is different than suggesting it should generally dictate US policy. My apologies if my prior remarks were construed to the contrary.
Like what? How do you suppose we could stay there and do that these people would find to be acceptable?
If the opinions registered are unreasonable or imprudent, what weight should we give them?
Karl:
There was no criticism intended or implied. While the discussion is interesting and useful I wanted to lay out my feeling that this and other polls are way down the food chain when it comes to making impoortant decisions. Sort of a pre dawn strike against the inevitable troll swooping in and tossing those numbers around like so many water balloons. Hubris, I am not calling you a troll and appreciate your contribution to the discussion.
Group hug?
Please continue and I’ll just shut up now…
Like what? How do you suppose we could stay there and do that these people would find to be acceptable?
There are virtually infinite combinations of potential options.
If the opinions registered are unreasonable or imprudent, what weight should we give them?
I am not saying that they are a roadmap for policy. We should give those opinions considerable weight when assessing the assertion that “[t]he Muslim street DOES see us as liberators and protectors in Iraq. And it sees we have a common enemy in al-Qaeda.”
Gotta run to pick up the kids, thanks for the discussion.
BJTexs:
I didn’t take your comment as criticism; you were making a separate point and one with which I am largely in agreement. And I agree that Hubris is not a troll.
The US being in Iraq is seen as better than the alternative, but the US is not seen as a protector. OK. Iraqis are a proud people, so they may not be as blunt as Hubris would like. But how they behave when there’s a distinct cost attached beats a cost-free response to a pollster.
That strikes me as a great analysis and summation. Arabs are nothing if not proud and bombastic, and if you ask them about something they’ll give the answer they think they ought to rather than the answer they might personally feel in private. Sort of like Americans. And people everywhere. Opinion polls are pretty worthless overall, they don’t give you what people really think, they give you what a tiny sample of people had to choose between at the given time and place.
I think it’s a rule of law thing. The Iraqis were huddled together under this totalitarian umbrella for a really long time. So they developed all sorts of intricate anthropologically interesting alternative methods of dispute resolution, since going to a totalitarian government guy for redress is an unwise thing to do. This is why they end up sort of not looking at AQ or the coalition as liberators, because both stand outside their systems of justice, which are still very much extant. We got rid of the umbrella, but the alternative system is still in play. I doubt the Iraqis have any desire to be liberated from it, and for sure there’s not likely to be a consensus about that.
The challenge in Iraq is to insinuate the rule of law into these systems in a minimally disruptive way so that a civil rights ethos can emerge and embrace a pluralistic society. I know a lot about this anthropological stuff cause I watched the entire first season of Bones, and I’m halfway through the second, so I might have even more insights to share later.
Hubris,
I am not relying on “anecdotes” – I am relying on rather alot of IO work done by MNF-I.
I think it was Michael Yon who noted that Iraqis on the street are not shy at all about verbalizing opinions…. particularly in animated airing of grievances.
If I was an Iraqi and got a chance to vent via a poll to a western outlet…. no chance of repercussions… I’d bitch about everything.
I expect the Iraqis to always want us to leave, and I’d like to see the numbers trend first towards us staying for security reasons, and then shift towards 95% wanting us out.
– “The Iraqi’a are just doing it for the oil”
– Witness the troll heads exploding……
Further thoughts on polling Iraqis from Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., who served as Deputy Director for Assessments in the Joint Strategic Planning and Assessment office at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in 2006–2007:
Such polls should not be used to conduct policy, but rather to inform on trends in the population.
And those trends would be: how people answer polls. Just as standardized tests measure how well you take tests more than anything, not how smart you are.
In fairness, but I’m not sure to who exactly, even with flawed methodology a poll can be insightful simply looked at directionally, like Karl was doing. Meaning when asked the same question later did the measures go up or down. But I would look more to bias on the part of those conducting the poll rather than to the respondents. I mean, it’s the BBC. Come on.
Incidentally, the only thing Bin Laden is running from is a demon with a acid coated, fishhook-needled cactus and rape on its mind.
No. I don’t really believe that. About using the data directionally. I see people do that all the time with market research, but there’s been too many times that I’ve look at the same data in a larger span of studies and found that what appeared to be a trend, just wasn’t. You can do normality tests and these other things I would have to look up if it’s kind of borderline, but usually you can see that the numbers are just bouncing around, and you have to suspect that it’s a sampling issue. And also, this was the BBC.
Re: The sampling.
In my first comment here, I link back to my Pub post on the poll, which points out one of the major issues with the sample. There are others. And the Johnson link also discusses some of the sample problems you’re going to have in Iraq generally. My basic position all along is that the sample problems are going to limit greatly what you get out of it. Bad sampling is bad sampling, regardless of who might benefit from it in a partisan sense.
None of that changes the fact that the poll has been done and has been cited widely and that people like Hubris (who I’ve already stipulated is not, imo, a troll) are going to place weight on it — in all likelihood more weight than it deserves. There’s very little chance that the public is going to suddenly become much more educated about the limitations of polling, so it’s just one more thing you have to deal with, like the weather.
As for the bias of the BBC affecting the poll, it’s possible in an indirect sense. The first-order problem here is that the poll is not directly conducted by the BBC. As with so much of what passes for journalism in Iraq, the polling is actually being done by stringers, with little to no way to check their work.
I agree Karl – my #74 was just meant to walk back my #72 is all – I agree that you have to argue the data on its own terms once it’s out there, which you did and did well at #28.
The sampling problem you noted should have been a red flag for the Beeb, and combined with the unverifiable methodology issues lead me back to where I started: GIGO. I don’t see much to be learned from this, but I see plenty to spin.
I don’t care about what people are supposedly telling pollsters so much as their behavior. People who think we are the suXxor don’t help us with intel, fight along side us, or act particualrly happy to see us even. I have had locals in far away lands literally save my life (mines, a cliff at Ashrafkhel, brrrr…) ’cause they didn’t think too darn badly of us killbots, er, occupiers? Ummm, Americans – and I have been on the chilly end of locals who didn’t really care for me (the death threats from the fine folks in Qarabaghi-Robat were my first hint). Most often, I don’t need a BBC stringer to tell me what people think of us. My metrics have been turned in weapons caches, cooperation in finding the bad guys, working on reconstruction that benefits everyone – not just one fat cat, hospitality extended, children’s reactions to you on patrol, and the like. If you drive through someplace and they lob rocks, hide, etc., I don’t need a wonk to tell me that something just ain;t right here.
Behaviors in Iraq have changed. Unfortunately, all of CENTCOM’s efforts to let the world know this fall on mostly deaf ears.
Argh, damme! Avast ye italics.
Major John:
Agreed, per my #40, as quoted in #65. Actions speak louder than words.
a cliff at Ashrafkhel…
How cool is that? Way cooler than a Starbucks at Laurel Canyon I’m thinking.
happy,
First time I really thought I was dead. And it was so absurd that I actually laughed before yelling down to the interpreter standing next to the farmer … “did he say MORE mines or ‘some’ mines. It is very important which one he said!” (and it struck me so funny I actually laughed for a moment – maybe you had to be there, seeing me on this cliffside all frozen in place. It had a very “Blackadder” feel to it).
Naturally, it was “more mines” that were on the path up the cliff. At first they thought I had stepped on an AP mine, but it was just the sound of my sphicter slamming shut.
A latte sounds nice after all I think. I’m not wired for the cliffs of Ashrafkhel. Would it were. But no.
Trust me, I’d have preferred to have a nice venti coffee of the day m’self.
Said for a long time, a democratic stable Iraq is the first step to building a relationship with Muslims and bringing the religion as a whole to the 20th century. Its hard to not root for a country where the people risk their lives to vote.
Its hard to not root for a country where the people risk their lives to vote.
Amen, Matt.
As well as for a country where people risk their lives to allow people in foreign lands to risk their lives to vote.
Godspeed, MJ, and all our heroes.
You know who you are.
USA! UAS! USA!
A quick note: While I appreciate general issues (the overall environment) and methodological issues (survey distribution vis-a-vis different groups), I still don’t understand why one would find them less valuable than individual data points (e.g., people chanting “al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allahâ€Â) or small collections of data points (e.g., accounts from one soldier or reporter, or groups of soldiers or reporters) when assessing overall public perception or opinion. While everyone is eager to point out the potential problems with surveys, they don’t seem to look at the potential issues with other sources of information, whether it be bias related to a desire for a positive outcome or the fact that the cited impressions are much less certain to be representative of the population as a whole than a survey that uses skewed percentages of different ethnic and/or religious groups.
You assume that because we don’t spell out “the potential issues with other sources of information” each time we deal with a topic, we “don’t seem to look at” such potential issues.
This is wrong.
In fact, it is because we tend to see such “potential issues with other sources of information” as a given that we feel no need to point them out constantly, lest each post begin with a billion disclaimers evincing our understanding of the nature of anecdotal evidence, data points, trending, etc.
Whereas you seem to thrive on pointing out how nobody seems to understand his or her blindspots, allowing you to come to the rescue with your careful and dispassionate assessment of our biases.
In doing so, you seem to underestimate those whom you are given to criticizing, while overestimating your own intellectual standing in comparison to these blinkered ideologues.
No sale.
In doing so, you seem to underestimate those whom you are given to criticizing, while overestimating your own intellectual standing in comparison to these blinkered ideologues.
I really don’t get why you take this personally and introduce subtext to my comments that simply isn’t there; whenever I comment I’m careful to criticize the argument rather than the person. If you look over my comments in this thread, I don’t think you’ll find me making any statements regarding the intellectual standing of you, other commenters, or myself. On the other hand, you are quick to make (incorrect) assumptions regarding my motivations.
I’m not looking for a billion disclaimers; rather, I think the same rigor that is applied to analyzing the survey should be applied to the other sources of information that suggest something different. But that is just because I think I’m so smart, everyone else is so dumb, I am the dispassionate rescuer, etc., so whatever.
Off to Chuck E. Cheese’s, may God have mercy on my soul.
Again, I disagree. You don’t make direct statements about particular people, true; instead, you offer sweeping generalizations about what the mass of people here do or don’t do (or, if you prefer, have or have not done) — which is, of necessity, juxtaposed against the corresponding notion of what they should be doing, according to you, to protect themselves from your observation that they don’t “seem” to have any understanding of their own failures to recognize their own blindspots. So rather than arguing against the person, you argue against a great big collection of people who you define against what you have concluded they don’t “seem” to do. I have answered that generalization by noting that just because people don’t begin each comment/post/rejoinder with a series of disclaimers testifying to their knowledge that certain types of evidence is not necessarily probative doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about it.
This is addressing the argument, not the person. But since it is you making the argument, I have addressed my response to you specifically. And I’m left wondering why it is you would make such assumptions about others here, who — though, again, you don’t make any direct statements about their rhetorical awareness — you clearly believe haven’t thought through the implications of the way they argue so thoroughly as you have.
That sets up an implied comparison, even if you don’t “seem” to notice that this is what you’re doing.
You brought up the issue of polling. So in return, people responded with a discussion of polling methodology, etc.
What confounds me is your suggestion that “the same rigor that is applied to analyzing the survey” hasn’t been applied to “other sources of information that suggest something different.”
That it hasn’t been done here, in the comments to this post, in response to your prompts about surveying, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done. But by maintaining that it needs be done here — or else the same rigor hasn’t been applied — you are making the claim that unless people perform their tests of rigor under your auspices, they haven’t done so period. Else how else could you make the claim that that same rigor has not been applied?
If you wish to argue that I’m wrong about your motives, you are free to do so. Perhaps I’ve mistaken presumptuousness for a Berkeleyian philosophical bent. If so, my error.
Unfortunately, all of CENTCOM’s efforts to let the world know this fall on mostly deaf ears.
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
well, and we are talking about a bunch of killbots that just want to keep their jobs, so of course they’re going to say whatever the Chimperor tells them to.
And I’m left wondering why it is you would make such assumptions about others here, who  though, again, you don’t make any direct statements about their rhetorical awareness  you clearly believe haven’t thought through the implications of the way they argue so thoroughly as you have
I just have a feeling about the perspective of the Protein Wisdom street from my observations. I kid!
As for not being consistently specific and qualifying with a “seem,” I’ll plead guilty. I actually do that (if unconsciously) to avoid coming off as attacking someone. Specifically, I think that Strata’s post regarding the “stunning turn around” was based on scant, insufficient evidence (even in comparison to a potentially problematic opinion survey in a war zone), and the link to it was made without qualification as tacit agreement. I didn’t see anyone pointing this out, although in fairness I commented early on; I suppose it’s possible that I interrupted what was going to be a discussion of the fragility of the underpinnings of Strata’s argument.
Of course, I perceive this comment thread as a delightful ride on a unicorn through a field of lollipops; who is to say what it really is.
– Quite apart from the debate over what the proper metrics should be in determining the effectivesness, or lack thereof, of the surge, or the facts of said surge in its effectiveness once merics can be agreed to, is a bagk story I find much more telling. The depth and truth of the success or failure needs must await the development of events on the ground over time, particularly since there does seem to be changes in the political wind in evidence.
– No, what I find telling is that any change at all can have occurred, and still with far less forces than are really needed to ensure an acceptable outcome. Which begs the question of “Where might we be in the process at this point, had we gone about this the way most leading experts thought we should in the first place?”
– When you see hackery like Cholmes making the statement that “Clinton had an exit strategy when he went into Bosnia”, it sounds like a gaggle of monkeys fighting over banana’s. Yet such a dreadful comparison of a bombing war, where exit means you return your planes to home base, to that of an intensive involvement with boots on the ground in a multi-secular slaughter house with all the reponsibilities that entails, goes by unchallenged, and is punctuated by Wesley Clarke endorsing Hillery, who has even less idea of a future course for Iraq and the WOT than Hannity. It can be depressing if you let it be, but it would appear that the difference is that one side doesn’t need a timely resolution at all costs to get elected.
well, and we are talking about a bunch of killbots that just want to keep their jobs, so of course they’re going to say whatever the Chimperor tells them to.
One has to guess that’s what the radical left would say.
not so much, really. saw a few clips of the weekend protests in D.C. I’m pretty sure I heard that one. well, I’m paraphrasing. I’m much more pithy.