ABC News reports on the latest poll results from Iraq [Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss].Violence is the cause, its reach vast. Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It's worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.And how do they feel about the troops who are there to help them?
The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.
The survey's results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.That's not a good sign. But at least they're better off than they were under Saddam Hussein, right?
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.It's time for the foreign troops to leave. Get out as fast as possible.
Forty-two percent think their country is in a civil war; 24 percent more think one is likely. Barely more than four in 10 expect a better life for their children.
Three in 10 say they'd leave Iraq if they could.
[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic]
7 comments :
Isn't it interesting, then, that a different poll conducted by a different entity produced a very, very, very different set of results? Whom to believe, whom to believe?
Me, I don't believe any of it. Neither should you. Polls are so easy to rig that they're ultimately meaningless. I'll stick to eyewitness testimony from those on the spot: the soldiers and the bloggers. They say there's still lots of problems, but things are getting better, and will continue to get better as long as the Coalition doesn't cut and run.
Fair enough, one can't simply accept results lkie this at face value. As far as I'm concerned though, accepting news reports at face value is equally as naieve. The reports we get from local journalists here in South Africa are very, very different to the one's received in the states. We only see unhappy Iraqi's dying or grieving all the time. The media is a finely tuned propaganda tool for any agency with enough pull. If all you have to trust is your own intuition and reason, would you accept the whole of Europe invading America, because they disagree with Bush's policies?
Don't get me wrong, we pity you, but at least we have the decency to allow real freedom. No one asks for America to stick their finger in this pie.
Yes, America is the current world power, and for that reason is expected to act with responsibility and maturity. Instead big brother has taken to violence and a bully-mentality, and even if America has honorable intentions, their methods are anything but.
You misunderstand, Priya.
The reports we get from local journalists here in South Africa are very, very different to the one's received in the states. We only see unhappy Iraqi's dying or grieving all the time.
This is all our regular news services ever show us, too. I'm not joking or exaggerating when I say the only positive reports I ever see about Iraq come from blogs run by soldiers, soldiers' allies (generally known as milbloggers), and Iraqi nationals (yes, it's possible to blog from Iraq, and there are a lot of them who do), and secondhand through other sources who read those blogs. If you don't read conservative blogs, you will get only bad news about Iraq.
If you do read conservative blogs, you'll get the picture I described before: there are still lots of problems, but things are getting better and will continue to get better as long as the Coalition doesn't cut and run. The bloggers agree that the worst enemy we face is not the insurgency. It's the constant stream of negative reports that spews from virtually all world news services.
America is the current world power, and for that reason is expected to act with responsibility and maturity. Instead big brother has taken to violence and a bully-mentality, and even if America has honorable intentions, their methods are anything but.
In some circumstances, force is the only method that has a chance of working. Recognizing that fact, and disdaining the use of methods that are guaranteed to fail in favor of ones that have a chance of success, is a responsible and mature attitude to take. It's true that the aftermath of the invasion was badly botched, and that if things had been handled better four years ago we wouldn't be where we are today. But it's also true that the vicious infighting among the western nations, with fool peaceniks demanding that we negotiate and compromise with an implacable foe, gave the enemy hope that we could be forced to leave before they were fully beaten and Iraq was a safe, stable, free nation. I don't know for certain what would have happened if every nation that has felt the lash of islamist terrorism had stood together behind the rebuilding of Iraq and the punishment of the insurgents' foreign allies, but I'm quite certain things would be better than they are now.
Oh, as an afterthought: this morning one of those conservative bloggers I mentioned took a look at the raw numbers in the ABC poll and discovered that there's a pretty obvious problem with interpreting the numbers: Shia and Kurds say one thing, and Sunnis say another, to such an extent that averaging the three groups' responses together is thoroughly deceptive.
wolfwalker,
Thanks for the link. It is, indeed, puzzling that the polls differ so much.
You say,
I'll stick to eyewitness testimony from those on the spot: the soldiers and the bloggers. They say there's still lots of problems, but things are getting better, and will continue to get better as long as the Coalition doesn't cut and run.
That may not be very reliable evidence. Instead, let's look at the article you posted where it says,
One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.
So, only 26% think that the situation will get worse when the "Coalition" (what a joke) cuts and runs. Doesn't that count as eyewitness testimony in your world?
"No one asks for America to stick their finger in this pie."
Actually, IIRC most asked America to keep away, for various reasons.
I wonder how many terrorists have been bread and trained by this operation, and how much economical means have been created for them elsewhere in response. It is probably always a good thing to remove a dictator (if there is no chance that the society will remove him), but I'm not sure it was beneficial if the main point was to block terrorism.
Isn't it an american saying that one should keep the eyes on the ball? It is easy to see that Saddam and nonexistent WMD's wasn't it.
In reality it's all flawed. We all, as scientifically-minded people (or scientists, but I can't say I'm a scientist) know how eyewitness testimony/anecdotal evidence is not reliable because of a whole slew of biases and stuff, and neither are polls because they can be so easily manipulated and vary so greatly even when little changes are made.
What we should be looking at are real statistics, such as the people who don't have water or food or the numbers of deaths a week or whatever.... but of course those are hard to get without polling and stuff like that...
May I ask then,in the opinion of all who commented, who decides which regime is fair for a country and which is not? Who decides when a dictator should be overthrown, and when they should be left to create chaos as they please?
If there were no WMD's, and the only remaining argument is that the people were suffering and needed to be "saved", so why then does a country like Zimbabwe, which at this point is in as much turmoil, not merit intervention from the superpowers?
Only if a disfunctional country poses threat should it be invaded? Yet, where is the threat, beyond what has only been perpetuated by the invason itself.
Countries that are disfunctional and cause harm to their own people, but not others can be left to rot. Can they only be inveaded when there is suffiecient evidence of planned terriorism? Oh, and of course gaining access to valuable resouces does not affect the motive in any way. I am sure Zimbabwean women and children, suffering under their current presidency, add to their prayers evey night that their country does not strike oil. One tyrant is enough, they do not need foreign invaders adding to the atrocity that is their life.
Post a Comment