Iraqis Say Go

Via Kevin Drum, new polling from the Project on International Policy Attitudes indicates that Iraqis would overwhelmingly like to see the United States leave Iraq on a definite schedule within a reasonably short time frame. The full report is here. "Seven out of ten Iraqis overall—including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)—say they want the United States to leave within a year." In Baghdad, the center of our current military efforts and the place where fears of an upsurge in violence were the US to leave are most realistic (Baghdad residents share this concern), support for departure is, if anything, somewhat stronger with 80 percent of the Baghdad Shia saying they'd like to see us leave.

As Kevin notes, one can debate whether this is really the correct policy judgment on the part of Iraqis. Perhaps in some sense things would be better if they simply welcomed their foreign overlords.

That said, as he also points out, it really doesn't matter. Whatever it might be possible for US forces to achieve in principle, we're not going to be able to do anything useful in the face of this kind of overwhelming opposition to our very presence. People won't cooperate with our troops meaningfully or be interested in American views on what kind of steps the Iraqi government should or should not be taking. Most of all, you certainly can't build a democracy with an unpopular occupying army staying in a foreign country in the face of hostile public attitudes. Insofar as the Iraqi government does cooperate with our forces and does take our suggestions, it's only going to find itself discredited by association with us. The situation is untenable, and we need to leave. What's more, we need to start planning to leave as soon as possible so we can figure out a plan that's orderly and reasonably safe, rather than finding ourselves needing to do it in a panic 30 months from now.

Comments

As far as I know, only one MSM member has ever asked the biggest elephant-in-the-room question ever:

Why the f**k are we in Iraq?

Posted by Vast Left | November 21, 2006 9:36 AM

If we leave now, Iraq will immediately come under the influence of Iran and Syria. I suspect that this will occur in time even if we remain in Iraq. The unstated problems with an early exit involves oil and Bush's close friends in Saudi Arabia. What will happen to Iraq's oil reserve and how will it affect the international price of oil? How will Saudi Arabia react to the US exit from Iraq leaving Iraq under the control of Syria and Iran? Of course these issues should have been addressed before we entered Iraq.

Posted by Clem | November 21, 2006 9:37 AM

Perhaps in some sense things would be better if they simply welcomed their foreign overlords.

For a while, they did. But after a few years of your loud guest shitting your bed, your hospitality tends to wear out.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 21, 2006 9:41 AM

"What will happen to Iraq's oil reserve"

That's none of our business. Let the Iraqis sort it out - it's their oil after all.

Posted by ran | November 21, 2006 9:54 AM

Iraqi math: NOT A PUPPET = INSURGENT/TERRORIST.

We're there for oil, we've always been there for the oil. But the Iraqi's were supposed to be grateful and *let us help them with their too much oil problem.* We can't just leave without it and no one has the guts to take it. I suppose the long haul strategy is just kill anyone who tries to get between the US and the oil and is NOT A PUPPET.

Posted by masterson | November 21, 2006 10:30 AM

Whatever it might be possible for US forces to achieve in principle, we're not going to be able to do anything useful in the face of this kind of overwhelming opposition to our very presence. People won't cooperate with our troops meaningfully or be interested in American views on what kind of steps the Iraqi government should or should not be taking.

As the snapshots show, attitudes change over time. There's no reason to think that the changes reflected in this poll (which, BTW, has an EXTREMELY small sample) must be permanent.

Posted by Al | November 21, 2006 11:02 AM

Those choosing "as security improves" went from 57% to zero in 9 months? If that's true, I am flabbergasted.

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 21, 2006 11:08 AM

I should clarify - the smaple of Baghdad Shias, which is the top graph Matthew posted is small. The overall sample is not.

PIPA is also the group that did that bogus study about Fox viewers. Not saying that this study is similarly flawed, but still, you have to wonder about PIPA's credibility.

Posted by Al | November 21, 2006 11:11 AM

The strangest thing about the poll is that 60% of Baghdad Shias approve of attacks on American troops but only 32& want us out in 6 months.

Posted by Peter H | November 21, 2006 11:12 AM

Peter: Maybe they want more opportunities to attack us. We're turning that corner!

Posted by norbizness | November 21, 2006 11:46 AM

The thing that stands out most for me in the graphic is that fully 68% of Iraqi Shias do not want us to leave within 6 months, but do want us to leave in the broad time frame falling between 6 months and 24 months.

Presumably that 68% then want us to do something between now and six months from now. What is it they want us to do? Do they want us to whip the insurgency? Do they want us to hold off the insurgency while they finish the job of ethnically cleansing Sunni neighborhoods? Do they want us to sell arms to Shia militias (or militias under the guise of the Iraqi army)? Something else?

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 21, 2006 12:57 PM

I think that the biggest danger is that the entire region will degenerate into civil war. The Sunni-Shia enmity is not confined to Iraq. Consider Iran coming to the support of the Shias and some coalition of Arab states supporting the Sunnis. Worst case scenario is that the entire middle east blows up in our face. Think that the oil embargo was bad?

Posted by neilhorn | November 21, 2006 1:05 PM

We need to make sure the "go long" option in Iraq doesn't segue right into "go on" to Iraq...

Tank of gas: too much.
Prescription refill: too much.
Iraq war: WAY too much.
Dick Cheney on bending the rules: priceless.

According to Sy Hersh in the New Yorker, Cheney and his neocon colleagues still hope to hit Iran with military strike despite a Democratic Congress, and may have the means to pull it off. What do we have to do to keep him from pursuing a military option in Iran? Drive a wooden stake through his heart?

Posted by Madison Guy | November 21, 2006 1:14 PM

Peter: that finding is actually consistent with polls going back to early 2005. Consistently, more Iraqis approve of attacks on US forces than want US forces to leave. I don't really understand the response, but I can imagine similar results from questions to Americans: the number of Americans who want to fight more aggressively in Iraq might be higher than the number of Americans who want our troops to remain in Iraq, for example, as many Americans might simultaneously want to fight harder and to get out. Or Iraqis may consider themselves in a three-way war against the US and against their sectarian opponents, so that Shiites may want to fight the Americans but also want the Americans to remain and help them fight Sunni insurgents, while Sunnis want to fight the Americans and also want the Americans to remain and help them fight the Badr Brigades.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 21, 2006 11:46 PM

A clearer analogy: a majority of Israelis might say they approve of IDF attacks against Fatah, but also say they want Fatah to hold power in the Palestinian Authority, since Fatah is a counterweight to Hamas.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 21, 2006 11:49 PM

I was going to make a comment about my earlier comment, but apparently management is still withholding it.

Makes it less than conversational.

Posted by Gary Farber | November 22, 2006 1:13 AM

The first point was that the PIPA data wasn't new. The second point extended.

Posted by Gary Farber | November 22, 2006 1:15 AM