A poll of 1,150 Iraqi adults published yesterday by WorldPublicOpinion.org presents a complex view of the occupation and insurgency. As reported on Wednesday by the Associated Press, the results of the poll show increasing animosity towards American soldiers, with about six out of 10 Iraqis surveyed supporting attacks against coalition forces and seven out of 10 wanting them to leave within a year. On a slightly more positive note, Iraqis seem to hold no love for Osama bin Laden, as more than nine in 10 professed to having an unfavorable opinion of the al Qaeda leader.
Afterwards, a horde of bloggers debated the meaning of it all.
The Democracy Project writes, “As a teenager expressing his or her independence is welcomed, even though often shrouded in surliness, the latest poll of Iraqis’ desires for independence from any external presence in their affairs should be welcomed.”
Some commentators found reasons to remain upbeat.
“So the Iraqi’s hate Al-Qaeda, absolutely hate them.” remarks Flopping Aces. “Good news, since this would also be the opposite of what the Democrats are screeching about lately with the NIE that was leaked out recently. Mainly that our presence in Iraq is breeding more hatred, while in fact it appears Al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq is the one breeding the hatred.”
“To sum up - Iraq is coming along better than the news project,”adds the History News Network. “Indeed, more and more Iraqis believe that they will be soon ready to stand on their own two feet. This optimistic assessment may to a large degree reflect their disappointment in the efficacy of the American forces but, all in all it is a positive development.”
Others, however, offered their own assessments with considerably less enthusiasm.
Blogs Balloon Juice, “Jalal Talabani doesn’t completely agree with the Iraq people on this. Rather than a complete pullout, he merely wants greater than 90% of Americans to leave, with just enough staying behind in Kurdistan to discourage the Turks and Iranians.” Juice continues, “Of course it goes without saying that America knows what is good for the Iraqis better than the Iraqi people do. Why else would we airily dismiss the strategy favored by three quarters of the Iraqi people? This freedom thing must be new to them. Give it time.”
The blogosphere was teeming with questions about the poll’s results. Answers, however, were slightly more scarce.
“What are we still doing in Iraq?” asks Citizens Against Lies. “Does the deluded Bush administration really think you can kill all the terrorists via fighting them in Iraq?…What is our mission there? What would victory be defined as? No one has the answers to any of these questions, and in fact we’re not even supposed to be asking the questions.”
Finally, the poll inspired one pundit to question the relationship between occupation and ownership.
“Whose country is Iraq, anyway?” inquires Dr. Chadblog. “If it’s the Iraqis clearly then the occupation should end since 7/10 want the US to set a deadline within a year and leave. But in reality, it’s not the Iraqis country and their opinion doesn’t matter much; it belongs to a bunch of politicians in Washington. They are the deciders.”
Dr. Chadblog concludes: “It’s their country, the Iraqis just happen to be living in it.”
Some screwy liberal wrote:
"Whose country is Iraq, anyway?" inquires Dr. Chadblog. "If it's the Iraqis clearly then the occupation should end since 7/10 want the US to set a deadline within a year and leave. But in reality, it's not the Iraqis country and their opinion doesn't matter much; it belongs to a bunch of politicians in Washington. They are the deciders."
padikiller: Why can't liberals wrap their heads around the concept of "occupation"?...
Military occupation occurs when the majority of the population of an occupied country is is either unable or unwilling to see that its government cooperates with the occupying country.
In this case... The US wants murderous Islomafacists in Iraq to be defeated or killed, and it needs a semi-stable Iraqi government to arise that refrains from dabbling in Saddam's genocidal pasttimes while dealing advantageously with the US....
A large part of the population of Iraq wants us to leave so that the genocide can run free again...
SO THE FRICK WHAT?....
The REASON we are occupying Iraq is that the Iraqis aren't capable of running their own country...
The questions asked by this silly poll are utterly ridiculous...
It's like asking a ten year old if he wants his mommy to go with him to the PG13 movies at night... He'll say "no"... However his wishes are not only irrelevant, but also counter to his own interest.
Occupation is ALL about getting what WE want... Not about the Iraqis getting what THEY want... The interests of the Iraqis are only important to US to the extent that they conincide with OUR interests.
PERIOD.
Of course, ideally, it would be nice if the Iraqi people could read up on Locke and Rousseau, thus enlightening themselves sufficiently to realize on their own that their best interests are served by our military forces... Forces that, in serving OUR interests, also nobly protect the Iraqis from jihadist terrorists and despotic thugs.
But ultimately, the ONLY reason we are in Iraq is because the Iraqis are largely incapable, at present, of governing themselves in a manner that helps US.
And WHAT is wrong with that?!...
It's always amusing to me to see liberals griping about the so-called three-year old "occupation" of Iraq...
When the FACT of the matter we still occupy both Japan and Germany... Both of which surrendered in 1945- more than 60 years ago.
Posted by padikiller on Thu 28 Sep 2006 at 07:04 PM
I am amazed at these repeated comparisons of the Iraqi people to children. What in the world are you people thinking? I can't see this kind of smug condescending superiority doing anything but harm to our position there.
Posted by Dianne Hackborn on Fri 29 Sep 2006 at 12:40 AM
Dianne Hackborn wrote: I can't see this kind of smug condescending superiority doing anything but harm to our position there.
padikiller responded: I don't think it "smug" to acknowledge the admittedly harsh reality of our occupation of Iraq. Sometimes the truth hurts.
The fact is that the Iraq people are simply incapable of governing themselves properly. Even THEY say so.
That's why we're doing it for them.
The analogy between a populace incapable or governing itself and a child incapable of governing himself is a fair and illustrative one, isn't it?
Posted by padikiller on Fri 29 Sep 2006 at 11:26 AM
padikiller: "The analogy between a populace incapable of governing itself and a child incapable of governing himself is a fair and illustrative one, isn't it?"
No, it isn't. Children aren't made up of millions of adults, many of whom are capable of governing themselves. A child is immature for biological reasons which are largely immutable; a nation-state is 'immature' for military, economic, and infrastructural reasons that depend on mutable political choices. Analogies between individuals and groups made up of those individuals are usually bad, as there are too many differences.
Let's also note, padikiller, that your "reasoning" is so broad that it could be adopted by the British in 1776, by slaveowners, by China to justify occupying Tibet, etc. Nice company.
Posted by MRooney on Sun 1 Oct 2006 at 11:00 AM