Mar 18 2007

The Iraqi People Speak Up

Published by at 12:49 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

The Iraqis have spoken out through a new poll on their current situation and how it compares to the past. They also have some serious thoughts about their future.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

Not surprisingly, all of this is opposite of what the liberal fantasizers in the media and Congress have been peddling. Why are Dems so bad on foreign policy and national security? Because they are so wrong on the subjects. 2-1 wish to stay the course and succeed in a unified, democrat Iraq, which everyone knows would be a big blow to al Qaeda. As I mentioned earlier, I think al Qaeda’s approach of mass killings of Muslims is backfiring – big time. Stop listening to liberals and pay attention to what the Iraqis are saying.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “The Iraqi People Speak Up”

  1. kathie says:

    Maybe If we had gone into Iraq with the 500,000 troops and made everything perfect from the beginning the Iraqi’s would not have had the WILL to decide for themselves that they wanted a nation. I hate to see people die but some times you need to be put into a position to fight for what you want and weed out the people who really don’t have the nation’s interest at heart. Just a thought! Chaos looks bad on the TV screen, but some times you need chaos inorder to build something new. It allows every section of society to reaccess what is valuable and what is not. When things are too perfect it is easy to be complacent. Just another thought.

  2. dennisa says:

    The American view of Iraq is manipulated by the Left through the Democratic Party. That it is an artificial view is of no consequence to the people who promote it for political reasons. The news media, comprised mostly of Democrats, is completely willing to go along with the leftist view.

  3. Carol_Herman says:

    Too much money on the table from the House of Saud. And, their neighbors. Including the Kuwaitis. Who have no trouble at all hurting US interests. They’re arabs.

    While we have major flaws in our military! That got there with the promotions of crap like Wesley Clark. And, others who polish their own careers. And, America’s expense.

    In a sense, Bush took out Saddam and expected easy victories. The CIA had prepped Chalabi. And, George Tenet was also a very big player. None of this stuff was worth much. So on Bush’s watch it is necessary to clean out the DC stables. And, this is being done.

    Mistakes are the things you need, to lead to corrections.

    Kerry, and his ilk are not a part of the corrections. And, Americans are stll sending stinkers to congress. But it seems the seating is limited. Except for the states (like the old south, who had no trouble going to a civil war over a snit.) We’ve got the donks actually up on the ropes, these days.

    And, it also seems possible America isn’t into buying into dynasties. Not the kennedy crap. And, not the Bush shrubbery, either.

    While the Iraqis have a learning curve. Their feelings, when you poll them, are probably not far off of what you’d get if you polled the eygptians. But the eygptians are run by a despot. Modelled on the principles of pharaoh. And, there’s not much the citizens can do about it.

    Nor can they do much in the cantankerous european segments, across the pond. That’s just how it is.

    Left to their own devices few countries, if any, can come up with our system. And, few, if any, even desire to copy us. While all the others are that much worse!

    Sometimes, I think this president is a “transitional” man. He’s shown that actions speak louder than words. But being unable to put his heart into speeches, you get a shallow man. Without much capital in the bank. He is not surrounded by men who understand the dynamics of popularity, either.

    As to Reagan, Reagan owned this in his bones.

    And, if we’re lucky we’ll get a president, next, who is also fluid in his speech; whereby he can bring lots of Americans along with him during tough times.

    We haven’t really hit tough times, either. But when we do there’s plenty of insanity at the margins that the roach motels will grow gruffer.

    And, to those unlucky enough to have affirmative action programs being the pool from which they draw their talent from; they’ll be in for a long, hard-knock road. With very little support from what will emerge, ahead; as the ways lots of people gather news items. It’s not done by the old means, anymore, at all.

    While individuals who pick badly; like Martha Stewart and Libby; when they had a whole field of attorneys to choose from; will suffer the fates of those who pick badly when they go to doctors. And, things are made even worse.

    Did Bush lose because he let Libby take a beating? Well, yes. But he had no talents available to him that would have addressed the wrongs. And, in DC, Bush does his best when he treats the White House like a grand hotel. Great food, any time day or night. An ability to host parties with the best of them. And, of course, chocolates on the pillows.

    But Bush has to avoid engagement with a hostile press; because he’s no snake charmer. And, he’s not even adept at even minor interviews. All canned stuff. (Not very different than the fare you get over at NBC, when Little Timmy Russert goes out to lie.) Lying is probably harder to do, folks, than you think. And, that stuff always bites ya in the ass, down the road.

    When will you know the future looks good? When the Iraqis can defend themselves. When they grow a police and justice system that’s respectable. And, that will appear very strange in the Mideast. It will also take awhile.

    While the oil can’t get shipped without American protections.

    And, the idea that we’d pull out of Iraq, or the Mideast in general, is unrealistic. While the donks are still fighting Bush. They’re not concentrating on 2008. And, they’re not picking up votes.

    Nobody knows the best outcomes. But running from the Mideast isn’t one of them. And, letting the muzzies breed variations of their hate-filled religion is also stuff that’s far worse than any threats from global warming.

    Too bad Bush doesn’t have a team worth saving. Whoever comes in in 2008, IF he comes in not owing too many favors to dogs, will, in fact, have a better chance to build a better and stronger America.

    To fight better we’ve got to do a lot less pussy-footing. And, a lot less kowtowing to the tents in Riyadh.

    Again. We got hit on 9/11. Bush made the right moves. But got caught short. ONE: Because he’s a friend of the Saudis. TWO: Because the CIA was backing the Saudis and at the same time was trying to defeat Bush. (That’s the nature of DC.)

    THREE: The CIA needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom.

    FOUR: When Wesley Clark couldn’t get to square one, it became obvious that anyone in the military who pinned their careers to the donks, and the UN, were in for a rough ride. What’s that like? When the spinning swivel chairs achieve orbit.

    Education is in the same boat.

    The good news? Every generation tosses out the crap from the one before. And, while things during the 19th century, were actually very progressive; the language was stilted. And, the GIBBONS, which was thorough, still needs updating. While science move forward on a different track. And, the soft-sciences are a sham.

    You add to this the propensity of people to live longer and to want fewer kids; and you know some of the milestones are here to stay. Very hard to push females into marriages by the time they are 16. So they can keep the birth rate ahead of the death rate; now that we know lots of stuff not available to our ancestors. Or even our grandparents.

    We just have to devise ways that the puzzle pieces get to fit together, more smoothly.

    The Bush presidency is a start. And, the next guy up will probably also be a GOP’ster. With a desire, I’m sure, to steer more towards the middle than the extremes.

    For the extremes? There’s no way out. They’ve substituted something for religion. But it doesn’t sell like popcorn. And, it tends to roil up the mainstream, too.

    The next guy IN also has to be a lot more comfortable surrounded by bright guys. Again, it’s Bush’s mistake to go for the suit and tie, look. Coupled to polteness. Coupled to NO ROOM AT THE INN FOR BRAINS.

    For some reason? Some day the donks are going to miss this Bush the most. Lucky for us he at least did something about Saddam. And, the Iraqis are finding out what a hard place it is, if their own islamic crazies run loose with bombs.

    And, Miliki got elected. Iraq gets to face more purple-fingered days to come. And, sooner or later, they’ll catch on to the dynamics of hard work. No hard work? No progress.

  4. crosspatch says:

    “Stop listening to liberals and pay attention to what the Iraqis are saying.”

    I keeping telling people the same thing about al Qaida. They say they will fight us for generations if need be, that they fully expect several defeats, that the eventual goal is a global caliphate with the entire world under sharia law and the total elimination of secular government. They don’t care if it takes 100 years or 200 years, they aren’t going to give up.

    They are out to destroy the very idea of democracy and the people legislating their own laws with which to govern themselves and they don’t care if it takes a century to do it. The notion of equal rights for women would be stamped out. It would be permissible under their proposed system to rape a women traveling alone and then for her family to kill her for dishonoring the family.

    The problem is the left keeps attempting to analyse what they think the threat is rather than listening to them when they stated pretty clearly what the threat is. Same problem in this case. Rather than listen to the Iraqi people, they think they know what is “really” going on. Basically it what happens when you get narcissists running things. They think they know all the answers but they always fail in the long run. Our narcissistic media and Democratic Party needs to get a little less full of itself and take stock in what is really happening on the ground and not what’s happening inside their heads.

  5. DubiousD says:

    The links to the actual survey results are here:

    Some excerpts:

    Q1. President George Bush has announced that he will be sending 20,000+ troops to Iraq in the coming months? Why do you think he is doing this?

    Only 33% of Iraqis agreed with the statement: “to bring security and
    stability back to Iraq”. 22% believed that Bush was only sending troops there so he could use Iraq as a staging ground to attack
    neighbouring countries such as Iran/Syria. 9% believe Bush actually intends to overthrow al-Maliki’s democratically elected government and another 5% still believe Bush intends to take over Iraq… well, just because. So only 33% of Iraqi adults surveyed see the surge as an attempt to instill “security and stability” while another 36% are buying into crackpot conspiracy theories. (Another 27% didn’t know or didn’t answer.)

    Clearly, then, the battle for hearts and minds isn’t going so hot. Maybe the Iraqis would find Bush more persuasive if he put the flight suit back on.

    Q2. And thinking ahead, do you believe that the security situation in Iraq will get better or worse in the immediate weeks following a withdrawal of Multi National Forces?

    29% said “a great deal better” while 24% said “a little better”. That’s 53%. Only a combined 26% thought the security situation would get worse if coalition forces leave.

    Q4. Which of the following comes closest to your own opinion about the state of Iraq at the moment?

    27% agreed that Iraq was in a state of civil war. However, this varied from region to region. In Salahadin province it was 48%, Dohuk 45%, Kirkuk 49%, Diyala 47%, Ninewah 47%, and Al Anbar 67% (no surprise there). Interestingly, in Baghdad it was only 28%.

    Another 22% agreed with the statement that “Iraq is close to a state of civil war but not in one yet”.

    Too soon to gloat. With Petraeus in charge now and the surge well underway, hopefully now things will start to turn around.

  6. Terrye says:


    The point is that this survey shows an improvement over the last one done just a few months ago. If the security improves then we should continue to see such improvements. The trend is in the right direction.

    Now if you want to nitpick out the negative, you can, that is what you folks always do…but that does not change the fact that the situation in Iraq is showing an upward trend of late.

    And btw, just how many surveys did anyone do on public opinion among Iraqis when Saddam was in there? Oh yeah, people were not allowed to even talk to Iraqis without armed minders standing there taking down names.

  7. Did the HTML get screwy? I wonder if Congress will listen to the voice of the Iraqi people, or if Peolosi will pull for cut-and-run at any cost.

  8. dennisa says:

    To demonstrate my earlier point, the USA Today/ABC News report on their Iraqi poll is all gloom and doom. Why am I not surprised?

  9. Carol_Herman says:

    Ya know, it’s actually hard to hear what the Iraqis are saying, because most of us don’t talk in arabic.

    On the other hand? Two brothers, both sunnis, and middle-class, post up at IRAQ THE MODEL. Where you get a feel that things are getting lots better.

    If you’ve been to InstaPundit? You’ve seen Michael Totten’s quick post. He’s earning his living as a consultant, now, in the Kurdish area of Iraq. Where he says ALL IS PEACEFUL.

    What the Iraqis have to learn? To get along with each other. And, Maliki seems to be gaining a handle on this. While Sadr? Ran to iran.

    Bush has more than a year and a half. And, he’s on the right track with General Patreaus. WHO DOES SPEAK ARABIC. And, who seems to know both the powers America has in her arsenal. And, the mind set of a lot of Iraqi politicians.

    The Iraqis are sure better off than the Lebanese! The Syrians! The Jordanians! And, the Egyptians. And, way better off than anyone in Gazoo. Let alone the 4.5 million palestinians stuck in Libya. Since they’re being given “exit visas” with no rights of return.

    I have no idea “where” you put 4.5 million people. Probably, inside a number of hateful european countries. Or gazoo. But they’d need passage through eygpt. Quite a problem for them. But not for me.

    As to the “calls” to bring our troops home; it’s not coming from people, here, who get respected. Sort’a like hearing from the fwench.

    And, we can certainly survive those requests, ya know? Panty wetters. Not even smart enough to horde DEPENDS.

    I guess you could imagine that the media apparatus, also stuck on the red ink. Caused by paying millions to the untalented; not just Katie Couric. That you see them making stabs at “changing.” Drudge interviewed Mike Allen, on his radio show, yesterday. As if you’ll change your habits to pick up a “new toy” the left thinks will fool you into thinking they’re a news source.

    On the other hand? Drudge is using Breitbart’s for breaking news stories. And, he’s adding “politico.” Which means? Drudge is betting on people following news items through links. Whenever they want to open their window; and see what stenches flow in.

  10. DubiousD says:

    I don’t who the “you folks” Terrye refers to are. I’m a Republican who voted twice for Bush (as the lesser of evils) and who also supports the GWOT, and that includes the war in Iraq. But I’m also a person who recognizes, unlike certain rabid Bushies on this board, that much of the current mess we find ourselves in was created by Bush and his administration.

    * Bush appointed Colin Powell as Secretary of State, a decision far more damaging to the war effort than ten Donald Rumsfields. (The 4th ID in Turkey, hint hint).

    *Bush invaded Iraq with no backup plan to train the Iraqi army and police.

    *Bush failed to anticipate the insurgency, even though suicide bombers were already killing coalition forces within a week of Saddam’s statue falling. Our initial failure to shift operations from traditional combat to what experts like to dub “assymetrical warfare” prevented us from killing the insurgency when it was still in its infancy. (Just as our failure to attack with the 4th ID prevented us from attacking the Sunni insurgents while they were still wearing Iraqi uniforms.)

    *We completely botched post-war private contracting, and I’m not talking about that Mephistopheles of the Left, Halliburton. For over a year private contractors were prevented by law from subcontracting local Iraqis firms. Even when that legal loophole was finally plugged, by-and-large the rebuilding of Iraq was left to outsiders and to our own military. Meanwhile, millions of humiliated Iraqis sat around unemployed (and in the Middle East, saving face is a very big deal) and this led to a swelling of support for the native insurgency.

    *While Bush’s team did eventually formulate a plan to train the Iraqi security forces, they failed miserably in their attempts to train an Iraqi police force. The reason: unlike the new Iraqi army, which was trained by Coalition forces, the training of the new Iraqi police was tasked largely to private contractors and foreign “allies” like France.

    Make no mistake, a huge factor in the violence today is the lack of an effective police force. When the golden dome exploded and violent reprisals became of a fact of everyday Iraqi life, according to every report I’ve seen the Iraqi security forces responded well to the crisis while the Iraqi police either took no action to curb the violence or else even participated in the violence themselves.

    *Bush spent three years coddling al-Sadr, allowing him to consolidate power among the Shia ranks.

    *And once again, it behooves me to point out that Bush has done a disastrous job selling the GWOT to the American people. You can’t put all the blame on Democrats for eroding support when the truth is Bush adamantly refuses to address the issue on national TV. He’s the POTUS, he can go prime time anytime he wants and directly address the citizens without fear of interruption or having his words edited out or being interrupted by Helen Thomas. I’d venture say WW2 families were more likely to see FDR address them directly in a movie newsreel than today’s families are likely to see Bush address them directly about Iraq even though we’re in a telecommunication age.


    To put it succinctly, the Democrats are the Titanic and Bush is the leaky lifeboat. Yes, the lifeboat is preferable, but even if the lifeboat’s taking on water, that is an issue that needs to be addressed.