1
   

Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

 
 
Scrat
 
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 10:04 am
From the BEEB:

Quote:
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.

Quote:
<snip>Seventy percent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war. </snip>

<snip>The survey shows overwhelming disapproval of political violence, especially of attacks on the Iraqi police but also on American and other coalition forces.

About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.

Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was right than wrong...</snip>

The study was done by Oxford Research International (ORI) and was carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters.

Now, I wonder how folks here in A2K feel about being in disagreement with the Iraqis themselves as to whether they are better off today or are not.

Please share your thoughts. Very Happy
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,538 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 01:53 pm
Scrat, my dear. I don't put much stock in surveys, but I do HOPE that this one is right, so that the boys can come home and gasoline prices will go down.

I'm trying to remember what survey/poll predicted Hoover's win. Course you know the answer to that one. There were a few variables they didn't count on.

Back later to see what Bi the Bear has to say. Razz
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 02:46 pm
Letty - Iraq's gas production is currently at or above pre-war levels. I don't understand your apparent linkage of those prices to our troops coming home. ???
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 03:10 pm
Okay, Scrat. Explanation.

Many folks think the Iraq War is all about oil, right?

Sooooooo, if the people are hopeful, then that means things are going right, and Bush can have his oil without a fight, hence the prices will come down on gasoline, all will be well, and the boys can come on home.

If that explanation seems a little disjointed, it's because I'm trying to download some music by a newbie on A2K, and it's taking forever. I gotta one track mind and a dial up modem. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 03:41 pm
Your summary of that survey is a bit selective, Scrat. No, I don't have the whole thing at my disposal to post here (I'm anticipating a "prove it" response), but I heard a radio interview with one of the pollsters who organized the project.

The results were hardly a ringing endorsement of the US presence in Iraq. Some approval--yes. But various groups have widely differing opinions. And there's a very close division about the continuing US presence there...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 03:47 pm
Btw: Iraq's refining capacity as of January 2002 was believed to be over 400,000 bbl/d (although the Iraqis claim 700,000 bbl/d), compared to a pre-Gulf War nameplate capacity of 700,000 bbl/d.

From today's/tomorrow papers (here from Australian Financial Review):
Quote:
Iraqi oilmen and United States occupation officials peg Iraqi oil production in recent days at 2.5 million to 2.7 million barrels a day, roughly the same amount Iraq was capable of pumping before the US-led invasion in March 2003.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 06:23 pm
[REWRITTEN ... {Arrgh} ... TWICE. I must be very tired ... I was all confused about whether the ABC and BBC polls were the same. They are.]

ABC had news about this survey too - here's the link.

It's true - there's a message of hope and improved lives. All of 70% said things are going "good" today, and that figure holds up pretty evenly across the country. A majority (56%) says things are going "better" than a year ago, before the war, though this number drops below half in Baghdad. 71% believes things will be better a year from now.

But what was neglected in how these results were reported, was the huge ethnic chasm in how the Iraqi Kurds and the Iraqi Arabs (Shi'ite and Sunni) feel about the war and the occupation.

Overall, 48 percent of Iraqis think the invasion was right, and only 39% thinks it was wrong. 42 percent think the invasion "liberated" Iraq, while 41 percent say it "humiliated" the country. It's already true that news turns more negative when it comes to the occupation: 51 percent opposes the presence of coalition forces; 39 percent supports it. But the main thing here is about how these numbers break up.

The Kurds overwhelmingly feel liberated (82%) and support the presence of coalition forces (82%).

But not so the Arab Iraqi's. Only 33 percent of them consider the war to have been a liberation, while 48% consider it to have been humiliating. More Arab Iraqis also think the invasion was wrong than right.

And among Arab Iraqi's, only 30% supports the presence of the coalition troops - and 60% wants them out.

This is according to the same survey you're posting about.

That means two things. One - the US can count on the Kurds. But the survey is not reassuring at all when it comes to the groups it must win over - and has been having the most problems with thus far: the Arab Sunnis and especially the majority of Arab Shi'ites. Two - it will be extremely hard to keep these groups together on a peaceful basis when their views on the most basic of matters are so diametrically opposed.

Consider this: faced with a choice between centralised government, "regional states with a federal government," and independent states, 12% of Kurds opts for independence and another 58% for federalism. But an overwhelming 90 percent of Arabs prefer a centralized model.

Thus, if it wants to appease the Arabs, the US would have to push for centralism - but then it will anger the only reliable allies it has in the country, the Kurds. Push for federalism, and the 60-30 split against the coalition troops will deepen even more precariously among the Arabs.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 06:25 pm
Copy/paste from the other thread:

Consider this:

Quote:
According to the poll, 48 percent of Iraqis think the war was justified; 39 percent think it was wrong. Fifty-one percent oppose the presence of coalition forces; 39 percent support it. That about corresponds with the ambivalence that John Zogby found last August. Except that that's not the whole story.

The only reason those anemic pro-U.S. numbers are as high as they are is because they incorporate the massively pro-war, pro-U.S. feelings of Iraqi Kurds. When the poll disaggregates how Iraqi Arabs feel, the numbers shift substantially against the U.S., something that "World News Tonight" didn't mention in its coverage of the poll. That's not so surprising in itself, since Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq have spent the past year feeling a combination of awe, frustration, and humiliation toward their occupiers. But the depth of the split is breathtaking, and it carries two implications. First, with just over three months to go before the handover of power to an interim Iraqi government, it appears the United States has lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds. Second, the gulf between Iraqi Kurd opinion and Arab opinion presents a daunting challenge to creating a united country--particularly when the temporary constitution points the way toward balkanization.

For instance, look at the numbers on support for the invasion. Iraqis as a whole split in favor of it by 48 to 39 percent. But factor out the Kurds--87 percent of whom back it--and the picture gets more complex. Iraqi Arabs are somewhat against the war: 40 percent say it was right, while 46 percent say it was wrong. There's no religious breakdown, so we don't know how many of those respondents are Shia and how many are Sunni, which would be very helpful information. But as it is, consider that in total, 42 percent say that the invasion "liberated" Iraq, while 41 percent say it "humiliated" the country. The Kurds split on that question 82-11; for Arabs, 33 percent consider the war a liberation, while 48 consider it humiliating. That's on top of the fact that across all regions of the country, people report that their personal lives are better now than before the war, and they expect them to improve--which suggests that regardless of how they personally feel affected by the war, Iraqi Arabs believe it was unfortunate for the nation as a whole.

Security is overwhelmingly the highest priority among Iraqis. Sixty-four percent rank it as their top concern, with the next contender, holding elections, garnering 8 percent. Yet only 18 percent say coalition forces should remain "until security is restored." Thirty-six percent say they should only stay in Iraq "until an Iraqi gov't is in place"--and the poll is painfully unclear on whether that means the interim government scheduled to take over July 1 or a permanent, elected government next year. On the question of U.S. troops, the ethnic breakdown is significant as well. Kurds support the presence of coalition forces by a margin of 82 percent to 12 percent. Only 30 percent of Arabs feel the same way--and 60 percent oppose the U.S. troop presence. No statistic here bodes particularly well for U.S. plans to negotiate an open-ended basing arrangement with a sovereign Iraqi government.

Nowhere is the Arab-Kurdish split starker than on the question of Iraq's future political structure. The questions were not very nuanced: Respondents were offered the option of "unified country, central government in Baghdad," "regional states with a federal government," and "divided into separate independent states." That doesn't allow for evaluating the varieties of federalism available. But an overwhelming 90 percent of Arabs prefer a centralized model, with only 5 percent favoring a federal Iraq, which helps account for the anti-federalist protests among Iraqi Arabs this weekend. Among the Kurds, 26 percent want centralism. While that's certainly a vastly higher figure than I imagined--and only 12 percent opt for independence--Iraq's Kurds back the federal model by 58 percent.

As for the kind of government Iraqis want: 48 percent desire democracy; 28 percent a strong leader "for life"; and 21 percent an Islamic state. Broken down between one year and five years, the top preference--a massive 47 percent--is for a strong leader over the next year; this number drops to 35 percent after five years. Conversely, 28 percent want democracy in a year, but 42 percent want it in five. Not surprisingly, those who want an Islamic state, 10 percent, want it as strongly in one year as in five. No ethnic breakdown on these questions is available.

There's a lot more in this poll than what's listed above. One surprising result: While only 2 percent want to see the Governing Council in place in a year's time, 39 percent express confidence in it. (By contrast, "religious leaders" are trusted by 70 percent of Iraqis, and the CPA by 28 percent.) Yet the most important thing the poll tells us is that in our first year of control, we have resoundingly failed to live up to the expectations of the Iraqis. That's not to say we haven't helped, as the figures about Iraqis considering themselves better off than before the war demonstrate. But their sense of personal advancement has not translated into significant feelings of good will for the U.S., at least among Iraqi Arabs. And with only a few months before the transfer of power, there doesn't seem to be much we can do to turn that figure around.

More ominous is the massive discrepancy between how Arabs and Kurds view their present political situation and their visions for the future. As I've written for the past week, the TAL sets the country on precisely the wrong course--heightening ethnic divisions rather than diminishing them. But even if the TAL opted for an administrative federalism, the psychic divide would still be present--and it would still be formidable. Overcoming this divide is the central question facing Iraqi politics.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 07:09 pm
Another cause for concern must be the level of trust in the various occupational or occupationer-sponored institutions.

Code:How much confidence do you have in [name of organisation]?

"a great deal/quite a lot" "not very much/none at all"

Iraqi Governing Council 39% 53%
The CPA 28% 62%
US and UK occupation forces 25% 66%


Note: in a list of 12 organisations/etc, the US and UK occupation forces is the single least trusted one. Asked how much confidence they have in them, 43% of Iraqis said "none at all".

So who do they trust?

Well, Iraq's religious leaders - 70% trusts them at least quite a lot; 42% even a great deal. And the police makes for a good second.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Mar, 2004 10:25 pm
Letty wrote:
Okay, Scrat. Explanation.

Many folks think the Iraq War is all about oil, right?

Sooooooo, if the people are hopeful, then that means things are going right, and Bush can have his oil without a fight, hence the prices will come down on gasoline, all will be well, and the boys can come on home.

If that explanation seems a little disjointed, it's because I'm trying to download some music by a newbie on A2K, and it's taking forever. I gotta one track mind and a dial up modem. Rolling Eyes

I don't think it's so much disjointed as that it just makes no sense. Whether or not people are hopeful isn't a factor of supply or demand. (Or if it did affect demand it would likely create an increased demand which would raise prices, not lower them.)

My point is that I don't think the current price of oil is a function of the state of the war in Iraq--or at least not mostly about that--I think it is a function of Opec's decision to cut production.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:27 am
OK!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 11:08 am
(Just expressing appreciation for another enlightening explanation from nimh. Thanks.)
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 11:14 am
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.

It's a shame that thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's weren't able to participate in the survey because they are dead or severely wounded. Crying or Very sad

I bet the Iraqi orphans and widows don't feel their lives have been 'improved' either.

Nah, I don't put much stock in that poll. I think, if anything, it's terribly inaccurate.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 11:41 am
Just a note. I read no suggestion from anyone that we take out Saddam, and then head straight home. It can't work that way. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to finish what we started. Divorcing our "presence" from the liberating action itself, while interesting for a poll, is absurd in reality. They are either happy we showed up at all or they're not. Regardless of how you view the numbers; I believe the majority of Iraqi's are glad we showed up.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 11:47 am
doglover wrote:
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.

It's a shame that thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's weren't able to participate in the survey because they are dead or severely wounded. Crying or Very sad

I bet the Iraqi orphans and widows don't feel their lives have been 'improved' either.

Nah, I don't put much stock in that poll. I think, if anything, it's terribly inaccurate.

Not to mention the far larger numbers who were unable to respond because Saddam and his ilk slaughtered them. Your moral high ground is muddied by things like context, cause and effect, comparing the cost of action with the cost of inaction... stuff you probably don't care to consider, but which must be considered. When they are, your comments are rendered hollow nonsense.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 11:50 am
You forgot to say something Scrat; Checkmate!
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 12:04 pm
:wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 12:25 pm
doglover wrote:
Nah, I don't put much stock in that poll. I think, if anything, it's terribly inaccurate.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Regardless of how you view the numbers; I believe the majority of Iraqi's are glad we showed up.


Well, its when people from both sides of the debate start discounting a poll's results because they dont see what they had expected to find, that one starts believing a poll ... :wink:

Seriously tho, re: Bill's point, two things:

- The poll does give data about whether they were "glad you showed up". The relevant questions here are:

*Q5: "From today's perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in Spring 2003?"

Absolutely right 19.6% +
Somewhat right 28.6% = 48,2%
Somewhat wrong 12.9% +
Absolutely wrong 26.2% = 39,1%
Difficult to say 12.7%

*Q6: "Apart from right and wrong, do you feel the US-led coalition force invasion:"
Humiliated Iraq 41.2%
Liberated Iraq 41.8%
Difficult to say 17.0%

So basically according to this poll, back in March at least, there was a plurality of Iraqis "glad you showed up" - but not a majority (over 50%). Which suggests that the Americans were enjoying a rather delicate favour among the Iraqi "man in the street".


- As for your second point, that ..

OCCOM BILL wrote:
divorcing our 'presence' from the liberating action itself, while interesting for a poll, is absurd in reality."

.. you have a point there, of course.

Yes, even if Iraqi public opinion would have loved to have the liberation, but without the occupation, that doesn't necessarily make it practically feasible. Just like Americans (or Dutch) can indicate in every poll that they want lower taxes, higher spending on education and health care and a lower deficit, but that dont make the combination any more of a feasible policy. Totally true.

Yet I would say that it would at least be important to acknowledge that this is, in fact, the way Iraqis feel. 51% opposed the presence of Coalition Forces in Iraq - 31% did so strongly. Only 13% "strongly supported it. And that was before the latest escalation of violence, which, with its bombing of a mosque, regardless of whether that was justfied or not, most probably didnt make the troops more popular among Iraqis.

If you don't keep this in mind - if you keep looking at the scene, whether you're Rumsfeld or Bill Occom, from the assumption that they're all really glad you're there, you're going to make misestimations and misinterpretations - in Rumsfeld's case dangerous misestimations.

Again, public opinion is fickle, and even if 51% opposed the troops in principle, only 15% wanted them to "leave now". A majority wanted them to stay until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored. So there your assumption is confirmed, Bill, that you're expected to "finish what you started".

But when deciding what "finished" means, when that is, and how best to get to that point, you have to keep that other fact - of a majority of Iraqis in principle opposing your presence, and some 4 out of 10 of 'em feeling humiliated by it - in mind. The image that the silent majority is solidly supportive and grateful is a dangerous fiction, that could lead to some greatly misunderstood strategic steps.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 01:19 pm
This poll is really fascinating, it is. I've been posting stuff from it again in the other thread. Here's one more interesting snippet:

Quote:
Q11 - Which countries/organisations should play a role in the rebuilding of Iraq? You may mention up to three countries/organisations in order of importance.

[Top ranking countries by total of first-third choice:]

Japan 35,9%
United States 35,7%
France 21,6%
United Kingdom 21,5%
Germany 16,7%
United Arab Emirates 8,6%
Saudi Arabia 7.6%
Kuwait 6,7%
Russia 6,1%

[Note that the countries of "the West" (or North, in any case) do a lot better than fellow Arab countries ... and that, on the other hand, America's nemesis, France, does better than America's most loyal ally, the UK, while America itself is outdone by the more "neutral" Japan ... nimh]

Q12 - Which countries/organisations should not play a role in the rebuilding of Iraq? You may mention up to three countries/organisations in order of importance.

[Top ranking countries by total of first-third choice:]

Israel 36,8%
Iran 19,5%
Kuwait 16,9%
United States 14,1%
Turkey 13,4%
Syria 12,6%
United Kingdom 11,9%
Jordan 10,8%
Egypt 9,0%

[Note that all of Iraq's neighbours are included in this list ... :wink: nimh ]
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2004 03:45 pm
A couple things for clarification.

1) I firmly believe 90% of every population frowns upon unnecessary violence, recognizes the difference between collateral damage and murder, and given a choice would prefer to live in a relatively free democracy over ANY totalitarian regime. Do not bother stating examples where it doesn't appear so, because I will only counter with the silent majority.

2) Voicing an opinion that you are unhappy with what's going on is not synonymous with wanting it changed. 90% of the people I know will happily state things don't like about Bush's Presidency, but I fully expect him to be re-elected. We'll have to wait and see on this one.

3) The propaganda machines are working overtime trying to make the United State's actions appear worse than they are. The human beings who reside in Iraq will no doubt see a change from totalitarian rule to democracy as good thing in retrospect. The closer it comes to reality, the more support it will receive. Again, regardless of the motives, Iraqi's will inevitably be better off for our efforts.

4) Those who are losing their unearned "position" will of course fight to keep their status. As the futility of their fight becomes clearer; they will be forced to accept the options as accept or perish. This is inevitable. Perhaps Setanta or one of the other historians can site an example of a ruling class willingly, peacefully succumbing to the will of the masses, but I can think of none. It is something that had to happen sooner or later, so don't lay it all on the doorstep of the Whitehouse. Our actions definitely ignited the fire, but we didn't build it. I totally believe that the ongoing power struggle, with the world's most powerful referee in the middle, is the best possible scenario to exact the minimum loss of life during this difficult transition. It can't be avoided save letting one group continue to oppress the others.

5) The vast majority of debate on our presence there is now in vain. I think most everyone recognizes the need to see this through. Regardless of whether we should have started; we do need to finish. The world is watching and if for no other reason, I believe the accusations of exploitation will prove false. I believe there is a greater profit in finishing this job in altruistic fashion (regardless of original intentions) than proving the doubters correct. Does anyone doubt that if we can establish a democratic Iraq, help them join the civilized world and bring their economy up to par; that the other peoples in the ME will wish to follow? I suspect that many people get so intense about pointing out the problems with Bush's plan (or lack thereof), that they fail to acknowledge the benefits if it should prove successful. The percentage of people that don't believe peace is possible makes me ill. Give a human being an honest shot at a decent lot in life and he will not strap bombs to his chest. The flip side of that coin is; allow him to be hideously repressed and he will consider anything that he's convince will help his family. Poor hungry people will always rebel.

6) Please don't take any of my statements or beliefs as underestimating the risks involved. I live near Riviera Beach (shown on "Cops" a lot) and can tell you that 95% of the people who live there are good people. Assessing the dangers in terms of Crimes per capita, the other 5% make it one of the most dangerous places in America. The blind eye turned by 95% of the population is neither indicative of endorsement nor lack of caring. People are sheep; and sheep scare easily. While that silent neighbor will not call the cops on the crack dealer next door; no one will be happier when he goes to jail. If (when) the area is cleaned up and the evil 5% are rendered impotent; the other 95% will be dancing in the streets. Forgive them if they don't start cooperating on day one of the crackdowns. It is simply too dangerous until they become convinced that success is inevitable. They've had their hopes crushed before, and some have paid a severe price.

I have no illusions about the tough times ahead. I also have no doubt that HUMAN BEINGS will benefit from the effort.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 03:45:50