Discussion Locked

Ask an Iraqi ...

0 helpful
23 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

On more than one occasion I have been challenged to "ask an Iraqi" how the people felt about the invasion of their country. Well Gallup Polls has done just that, and here is the result:

[Washington Post, Wednesday, November 12, 2003]
More than half of Baghdad's residents said they did not believe the United States would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington, according to a Gallup poll. With the Bush administration holding consultations on the future of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, recent analyses of the poll data, which were gathered three months ago, highlight the roots within that city's populace of many of the concerns the U.S.-led coalition now faces there.
Only 5 percent of those polled said they believed the United States invaded Iraq "to assist the Iraqi people," and only 1 percent believed it was to establish democracy there.
Three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council -- whose members were appointed in July by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer -- were "mostly determined by the coalition's own authorities," and only 16 percent thought the council members were "fairly independent."
The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. The initial results were announced in late September, but additional analyses were released to the polling firm's clients in succeeding weeks. Some Gallup analyses have been published on the Coalition Provisional Authority's Web site in the past two days.
Although 52 percent of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, 51 percent said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence. The margin of error in the poll was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.
In an October 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring. But "most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its actions," Burkholder added. The poll showed that doubts about the U.S. motives for invading had led to doubts about Washington's commitment to creating an independent democratic government in Baghdad.
Forty-three percent of the respondents said they believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil." While 37 percent believed the United States acted to get rid of the Hussein regime, only 5 percent thought it did so "to assist the Iraq people," the poll found. An additional 6 percent believed the motive was to "change the Middle East 'map' as the U.S. and Israel want." Four percent believed the purpose was to destroy weapons of mass destruction, the primary reason given by the Bush administration.
At a time when the United States faces a growing security threat, the poll pointed to other possible reasons why coalition forces are being looked upon as occupiers instead of as liberators.
Almost everyone interviewed -- 94 percent -- said Baghdad "now is a more dangerous place than before the invasion," and 86 percent said that for the previous four weeks "they or a member of their household had been afraid to go outside their home at night for safety reasons," Burkholder said in his analysis. He noted that in the two months before the U.S. invasion, only 8 percent said they had experienced a similar fear.
Asked about attacks against U.S. troops, 64 percent said they were not justified; 36 percent said they sometimes were. Burkholder noted that those who believed such attacks were somewhat or completely justified -- 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively -- would translate to 440,000 adults 18 or older among Baghdad's adult population of 2.3 million.
Forty-eight percent of those polled said they did not believe that the United States will "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but not a day more," as President Bush has said. Thirty-six percent said they believed that the Americans would leave as Bush had promised.

23 replies

by maxwell edison

More numbers (British poll):

50% of the people of Baghdad believe Britain and America were right to invade Iraq, according to an opinion poll.

50% thought the war was right.

27% said it was wrong.

47% - said that they thought it was for oil.

41% said it was to help Israel.

23% said it was to liberate the Iraqi people.

26% said they felt friendly towards the British and US forces.

18% said that they were hostile

50% said they were neither friendly nor hostile.

47% expressed no preference for rule by the Americans or rule under Saddam Hussein.

29% saying they preferred the US.

9% actually favoring Saddam.

31% saying the U.S. forces should stay for a few years.

25% said that they should stay about a year.

20% that they should leave within 12 months.

13% said that they should go immediately.

36% said they would like to see a Western-style democracy.

26% wanted some form of Islamic rule "tempered by modern ideals of justice and punishment".

6% favored strict Islamic rule with mullahs in charge.

5% wanted the return of Saddam.

75% said the city was more dangerous since Britain and the US invaded.

80% that they had suffered power cuts.

49% said that there had been shortages of clean drinking water and that there had been a lack of medical facilities.

--------------

And yet another gallop poll:

47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion.

33 percent said it is better off.

67 percent, say they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion.

Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off.

62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion.

60% said they have a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council, but most see its priorities as set by coalition authorities.

50% said the coalition authorities are doing a better job now than two months ago.

14% said they were doing a worse job.

Gallup drew its sample from different neighborhoods throughout the capital.

----------

Results of another poll:

Oh nevermind. It's all to confusing, contradictory, and, of course, it all depends on how the questions were phrased.

Statistics, you distort them your way, and I'll distort them my way.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics

-Mark Twain

By the way, what was your point, and what do you think about all these numbers?

by jardinier

For rather obvious practical reasons, polls can only address a sampling of the population. A census will give a more accurate result, but is an elaborate procedure which obviously would be impossible in a country like Iraq in its present unstable and unpredictable situation.

Why did I post this particular poll, knowing full well that it will differ from other polls? Because it was the first one I stumbled upon. I do not have the luxury of spending half my life poring over news reports in search of inaccuracies. So why post any poll at all? Because it at least gives SOME input from the people of Iraq, and cannot be summarily dismissed as deliberately biased reporting. I am SICK TO DEATH of hearing from certain sources that the invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian exercise staged for the benefit of the people of Iraq. [now that it has been accepted that the other alleged reasons, such as WMDs, where unfounded anyway.]

by oz_media

or so I've been told recently, people didn't think Iraq had WMD (uh...sure) they also didn't think that this was a mission for any other reason than to rid Saddam's regime and create a democratic government in Iraq. That's what the People of Iraq wanted! They wanted America to invade thier country and then build a nation that mirrors the ideals of American society.

Oh yes, Santa's coming soon!!

by jimhm

What was the polution of the pole? What was the mean, mode and SD? Without details of the pole statictics will make truths appear as lies and lies appear as truths.

Also - I didn't see anywhere in there the question - Were they happy that Saddam and family are no longer in power...

You still haven't asked an Iraqi -

Statics - are BS unless you have all the facts of the population and measures of the pole.

But keep trying

by jardinier

dust off your military uniform and get the f**k over to Iraq and tell us what is really going on? I'm sure you have the mental capacity and skills to interview every single Iraqi so that finally we will know the truth of the situation.

But mind now that you don't get killed. I believe Iraq is rather a dangerous place to be at this time.

by jimhm

First - only a brainless twit wanker could come with "I believe Iraq is rather a dangerous place to be at this time." Should we call you Ms Obvious. Lets see can you come up with some others - Getting shot hurts. Bullets and Bombs Kill.

I don't think you have a clue about the world or you are even over the age (mental or physical) of 12 or 11.

Attack on stupid things wanker, and not on the topic.

To justify statical analysis - you need the questions asked, the population, the mean and std-devation of each question, number that responded to that question. I guess you haven't gotten to that in grade school yet hum.

So I will just disregrad you comments - and have a nice day.

by jardinier

read the posting correctly in the first instance, and noted: "In an October 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring," then there would have been no reason for this name-calling nonsense.

I have not commented on your grammar, nor would I have commented on your spelling if you had not declared yourself to be an expert on the correct procedure for conducting a "pole." The fact that you twice mispelled this word rather undermines your credibility as an expert on polls.

There would be no need or reason to conduct a widespread scientifically based poll in Iraq while the country is in such a state of flux.

Your assertion that you know the proper techniques for conducting a poll are meaningless if they cannot be applied. At least the three polls listed give some indication of what some Iraqis think, and there is a reasonable degree a commonality in the responses.

Surely this gives a broader picture than one or two camera shots by journalists asking the opinions of one or two individuals, which could be slanted anyway whatsoever.

If you don't like the way the polls were conducted, the obvious thing to do would be to email the organisations which conducted the polls, expressing your concern at the ambiguity of the published results.

And as for "dangerous" place, I would have assumed that you would recognise flippancy or satire when it is so obvious.

Nonetheless you are a Vietnam vet and I will always respect you for that.

by jardinier

(a "pole" is a long, usually wooden object). You may also attempt to explain what you mean by "polution" -- (perhaps this a "dirty pole,") but apparently your reading abilities are also somewhat limited. Note the following statement CLEARLY included in the poll: "In an October 28 analysis, Richard Burkholder, Gallup's director of international polling, noted that most Baghdad residents thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they are enduring."

Note also: "The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4."

Perhaps you can recommend a more reliable system of gaining, within a reasonable time-frame, the general attitudes of a large group of people.

by plublisher

Hi,
But does it really matter what anybody thinks or says in this situation?
The Iraqi's are not helping themselves as far as I am concerned; they either get content with what exist for them and join hands with whoever wishes to help rebuild Iraq or allow extremists to keep it the way it is now.
Although, when sadam was there, none of these existed; but you have to taste the cost of freedom to know what it means to be free.
Lives are being lost on daily bases and people are talking oil. What has oil got to do with Iraqi's peace?
Have a nice day.

by oz_media

"The US is preparing to install an American chairman on a planned management team of the Iraqi oil industry..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,943952,00.html

(you'll need to remove spaces but leave the commas, my tinyurl isn't working this morning.)

"So far, U.S. oil companies have been stuck on the sidelines of the Iraqi oil rush. Even if Saddam wanted to enlist U.S. firms in the rebuilding of Iraq?s oil infrastructure, U.N. sanctions ? as well as U.S. laws ? have barred American oil companies from dealing with Baghdad.
But some analysts say it?s unlikely that American firms will be left empty-handed if the U.S. follows through on threats of military action."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp#BODY

Ok everyone, light the pilot light, let the flames begin. Don't forget to ignore answering my post, just take shots at me instead, it's much more credible.

by maxwell edison

I took a detailed look at the numbers and claims cited by the report you posted, and compared them to the numbers and claims of the two polls that I cited. Interesting results indeed. But, for the most part, they just led to more questions. What do you make of it all?

----------

Your report said:

50% of Baghdad's residents did not believe the U.S. would allow the Iraqi people to fashion their political future without the direct influence of Washington.

Good, I wouldn't want it any other way. They certainly need some help doing something that's never been done before, don't you think?

----------

Your poll stated that only 5 percent believed the United States invaded Iraq to assist the Iraqi people.

The British poll I cited claimed 23% said it was to liberate the Iraqi people.

Makes one wonder how the questions were asked, how the answers were chosen, what were the other possible replies to the same question, and so on.

----------

Your report claimed that only 1 percent believed the U.S. motives were to establish democracy, implying, I suppose, that 99% thought their were motives other than the establishment of a democratic government. Consider that another British poll discovered that 36% said they would like to see a Western-style democracy.

This one has to make one very suspicious of that 1% number. Color me skeptical on that one. After all, "establishing a democracy" in the middle east is one of the primary things touted by the Bush administration over and over again.

----------

Wait a minute, your report went on to say that 52% of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq, but 51% said Washington would not allow Iraqis to do that without U.S. pressure and influence.

How can both the 1% AND 52% number be right?

Let me go back and read that again. Did I read it correctly?

.......wait........reading it over again........

Yep, that's what it said. What a contradiction. Or am I missing something here?

----------

Your report said that 43% percent believed that U.S. and British forces invaded in March primarily "to rob Iraq's oil".

You put "rob" in quotes. I wonder if the poll question really used that word. What do you think? The British poll I cited had a similar number, 47% said that they thought it was for oil, but what about the wording of the question, the other choices of answers, and so on.

I don't think anyone would deny that establishing the free flow of the country's oil resources to help finance the future growth and prosperity of Iraq is not part of the overall long-term plan. But to "rob" them of their oil? Does anyone really believe that?

----------

Your report said that 94% thought Baghdad is a more dangerous place than before the invasion, and 86% said that for the previous four weeks. The British poll that I cited found similar results saying that 75% said the city was more dangerous since Britain and the US invaded.

Well sure it's more dangerous. I'm surprised the number wasn't that 100% thought so. The reasons, however, should be obvious.

But to put that in proper perspective, 62% think that ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion, and 67% say that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off.

So I suppose we can surmise that they believe the current "dangerous" environment is well worth the potential payoff. Is that how you read it?

----------

Polls - you gotta' love em'.

by john_wills

Do the Iraqis really need U.S. advice on democracy? They have had a pseudodemocracy, which implies that they know what democracy should be like (they don't know what the consequences would be, but no-one does: democracy is unpredictable). Really there was no reason not to have an election 6 weeks after the conquest, because all the administrative machinery was in place, unlike in Afghanistan. There is no need for all the palaver about a new constitutional document: the British and the Israelis manage more or less competently without such a document, and the Third French Republic also did so for a few years. Whatever Iraqis think, the U.S. did not invade to introduce democracy, and may not even intend that as a side-effect.

by road-dog

is like calling Saddam "President". Their "electoral" process was nothing other than an affirmation that people will place an X next to a name if not doing so constitutes a death warrant.

Their elections were a sham, Saddam was a despot.

The polling places were also the places where food ration tickets were handed out. Those places are tainted with the stench of Baath party corruption and fear of reprisal.

As for a Constitution, that is essential. There are many factions who will attempt to turn Iraq into either a theocracy or a dictatorship. The only way to prevent either is an established Constitution containing the framework of basic rights and government limitations.

As for the US "functioning" without a Constitution, there are virtually no parallels between the Continental Congress and Iraq's interim ruling council.

Imagine how we would have done if King George was lurking around the countryside ordering assassinations of the founding fathers, as well as any Mayor, Governor, Academic, or Policeman who was a federalist. Now throw in militants coming in from Canada and Mexico attempting to create a theocracy based on radical Catholicism. Then imagine that all of the pressures leading to the Civil War were coming to a head at the same time, where northerners and southerners were killing and oppressing eachother for a millennium or so. Add a dash of insurrection in the form of French minorities who want to have their own country or to become part of Quebec.

That's what Iraq is like, when taking into account the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Baathists, and Islamic fundamentalists.

Interim stability, Constitutional ratification, free and democratic elections. In that order...

by oz_media

You made some good points and I agree with you that these sources are no more credible than any other, they are all somewhat slanted I'm sure.

You did question: "How can both the 1% AND 52% number be right?"

I also double checked the quote but saw a small difference in the statements.

A) "1 percent believed the U.S. motives (for invading Iraq) were to establish democracy,"

B) "52% of those polled said they thought the United States was serious about establishing a democratic system of government in Iraq,"

Statement "A" was referring to the REASON for the US invasion. According to the news I've seen it wasn't a reason for the invasion until AFTER the invasion, the original advertised intent was to rid them of WMD.

Statement "B" Refers to America being serious about establishing a democracy. Not neccessarily a reason for the invasion but a belief in Americas intent.

(that's my take anyhow)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

by oz_media

"The US is preparing to install an American chairman on a planned management team of the Iraqi oil industry, providing further ammunition to critics who have questioned the Bush administration's agenda in the Middle East.

The administration is planning to structure the potentially vast Iraqi oil industry like a US corporation, with a chairman and chief executive and a 15-strong board of international advisers."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"according to Nathaniel Kern, a Middle East analyst at Foreign Reports, Inc. in Washington.
?It?s in terrible shape,? he said. ?The pipelines are leaking lakes (of oil), refineries are dumping toxic waste. It is a broken down industry.?

"Iraq?s vast oil reserves remain a powerful prize for global oil companies. Iraq is sitting on an estimated 112 billion barrels of crude, a pool of oil second in size only to Saudi Arabia?s 264 billion barrels. (By way of comparison, proven U.S. reserves total about 22 billion barrels; the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds about 600 million barrels.)"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Even if Saddam wanted to enlist U.S. firms in the rebuilding of Iraq?s oil infrastructure, U.N. sanctions ? as well as U.S. laws ? have barred American oil companies from dealing with Baghdad.
But some analysts say it?s unlikely that American firms will be left empty-handed if the U.S. follows through on threats of military action.
?If you turn up and it?s your tanks that dislodged the regime and you have 50,000 troops in the country and they?re in your tanks, then you?re going to get the best deals,? said Credit Suisse First Boston oil analyst Mark Flannery. ?That?s the way it works. The French will have three men and a 1950s tank. That?s just not going to work.?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"American oil companies are also hoping to benefit from the industry?s unusually strong ties to the White House. PRESIDENT BUSH, HIMSELF THE FORMER HEAD OF A TEXAS OIL COMPANY, HAS PURSUED AN NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY THAT RELIES ON AGGRESSIVELY EXPENDING NEW SOURCES OF OIL"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah, 1% is a little more reasonable. ;-)

by fluxit

a people who have been supressed and lacked adequate education for over 20 years.

We are treating these people as though they are well educated and capable of understanding the precepts of democracy.

You know children have quite a different view of thier parents when they are told to go to school and to be civil. But then when they are parent they do the same to thier own children. Perhaps this is the case here. They are not a mature Democracy or society.

by onbliss

..it is like one of those scenarios where the 'locals' think any amount of bickering among themselves is far better than an intervention from 'outsiders'.
So it does not really matter if the 'outsiders' are invading/conquering (as in the colonial past) or extending helping hands.

by oz_media

I don't think that someones lack of education is a reason to not listen to their wants and beliefs. If someone apparently more educated than you told you to follow his political angles, would you listen? Of course not, unless you are a very simple man.

I think these people were asked to express how THEY FELT about the situation. The problem here is too many people rely only on fact in order to make up their minds and don't believe in sharnig thier personal feelings. This ends up with one person posting some statements and others simply agreeing. How about what you felt BEFORE reading the statements?

The Poll on Iraq was a closed question poll that generated YES or No answers, that's how polls are conducted.

If someone knocks on an Iraqi's dooor and asks them if they agree with Bush's motives for war, they either like what they see in the front yard or they don't bottom line. They don't need to read NEWS propaganda to HELP them make up their minds, they are there.

In North America, we don't see what is really happening in Iraq, just what the media wants us to see and sell us on. This causes us to feel exactly hoe the media wants us to about a given situation, whether happy or sad. It's controlled response and has been around wince WWI (or even the dawn of time for that matter).

If the British were to ask you how you felt about your president and you said you loved him, do you think they would be right in saying, Mr. Miami has been through a substandard education system in the United States so who is he to say what is right or wrong, he doesn't know any better?

Look at yourself and turn the tables BEFORE assuming your opponent is below you.

Disregard for this is why we feel free to make changes to a foreign governemt so it conforms with our ideals.

This poll would be very interesting if taken before the war and compared to the responses now.

by oz_media

I don't think that someones lack of education is a reason to not listen to their wants and beliefs. If someone apparently more educated than you told you to follow his political angles, would you listen? Of course not, unless you are a very simple man.

I think these people were asked to express how THEY FELT about the situation. The problem here is too many people rely only on fact in order to make up their minds and don't believe in sharnig thier personal feelings. This ends up with one person posting some statements and others simply agreeing. How about what you felt BEFORE reading the statements?

The Poll on Iraq was a closed question poll that generated YES or No answers, that's how polls are conducted.

If someone knocks on an Iraqi's dooor and asks them if they agree with Bush's motives for war, they either like what they see in the front yard or they don't bottom line. They don't need to read NEWS propaganda to HELP them make up their minds, they are there.

In North America, we don't see what is really happening in Iraq, just what the media wants us to see and sell us on. This causes us to feel exactly hoe the media wants us to about a given situation, whether happy or sad. It's controlled response and has been around wince WWI (or even the dawn of time for that matter).

If the British were to ask you how you felt about your president and you said you loved him, do you think they would be right in saying, Mr. Miami has been through a substandard education system in the United States so who is he to say what is right or wrong, he doesn't know any better?

Look at yourself and turn the tables BEFORE assuming your opponent is below you.

Disregard for this is why we feel free to make changes to a foreign governemt so it conforms with our ideals.

This poll would be very interesting if taken before the war and compared to the responses now.

by john_wills

Do the Iraqis really lack adequate education? They seem to have schools for all their children, and presumably the children mostly learn to read and write. They listen to foreign newscasts a lot more than US people do. They have never experienced democracy, but their experience of pseudodemocracy has told them what real elections would be like - although they may have mistaken ideas about the results of democracy.

by john_wills

I did not say that the previous elections in Iraq had been democratic but that they were pseudo. We do not know how the pseudodemocratic settlement, changed merely to make it democratic, would develop. Only in a democratic environment should the Iraqis decide how they want their constitution to evolve.
Nor did I compare the Iraqi situation to any US situation: the parallels I gave were the UK, the Israeli state and the Third French Republic.

by road-dog

I was speaking to the level of pseudo we're talking about. I define pseudo democratic as an election between two candidates who are roughly the same, no real difference between checking box A or box B. IE our big government republicans and huge government democrats, or the Soviet choice between communist A and communist B. You're going to get boned, the only real difference is how badly.

I don't see the Iraqi electoral proces as pseudodemocratic, because the entire election is a sham. If anything, it was a tool to force Iraqis to acknowledge Saddam's ascendancy. This goes beyond being democracy "with a twist", it probably will make democracy harder to implement, because the process is tainted so badly in the minds of Iraqis. I just hope that the Iraqis have the national stability to vote their collective conscience.

I'm not going to pretend to know this conclusively, as I cannot draw any personal parity to a "vote for me or die" scenario.

I chose the US for the second part because I know the history best. I was not intending to circumvent your logic, but trying to better phrase my observations.

This discussion is closed to new replies.