The Iraqi View

I was talking to someone about this last night, but not making my point very clearly. Fortunately, we have Nick Kristof:

First, a poll this spring of Iraqis — who know their country much better than we do — shows that only 21 percent think that the U.S. troop presence improves security in Iraq, while 69 percent think it is making security worse. . . .

We simply can’t want to be in Iraq more than the Iraqis want us to be there. That poll of Iraqis, conducted by the BBC and other news organizations, found that only 22 percent of Iraqis support the presence of coalition troops in Iraq, down from 32 percent in 2005.

If Iraqis were pleading with us to stay and quell the violence, maybe we would have a moral responsibility to stay. But when Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying that we are making things worse, then it’s remarkably presumptuous to overrule their wishes and stay indefinitely because, as President Bush termed it in his speech on Tuesday, “it is necessary work.”

Right. Now it is true that the Iraqi government takes a different view. On the other hand, this isn't a passing whim of Iraqi public opinion -- it's been consistently expressed fro years. It's not clear, by contrast, who the Iraqi government represents. The government is the product of post-election negotiations between leaders of parliamentary factions that were elected on the basis of a strict party list formula. What's more, the political coalition led by incumbent prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafari actually won the election only to see Jafari dumped as a result of, among other things, intense American pressure.

On top of all that, it's worth being clear that Iraqis aren't merely expressing an abstract preference for our forces to leave. Iraqis say they approve of attacks on American soldiers serving in Iraq. Under those circumstances, it's obviously going to be challenging -- as in impossible -- for American soldiers to effectively provide security.

Comments

By your logic, the current administration in DC should resign immediately, as most people don't approve of it. Perhaps that's what you mean to imply. Great.

Posted by gregor | July 12, 2007 11:40 AM

Imagine governing based on poll results here: we'd have fences all along our southern border and real workplace enforcement against the hiring of illegals.

With respect to Iraq: if these poll results are accurate, one would think they would translate into action by the Iraqi government sooner rather than later - after all, the same folks responding to the poll elected the Iraqi legislature (granted on a parliamentary party list system).

This brings to mind Kaus's idea a couple of years ago, that the Iraqis should have stipulated a shorter time between elections in their constitution. Had they written their constitution so that there would be elections for the legislature every two years instead of every four, Iraqis would have a chance to make positions on withdrawal a litmus test for candidates in elections this year.

In any case, next time representatives of Iraq's government are in D.C., I'd like to see American politicians ask them publicly about these poll results.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 11:53 AM

What's more, the political coalition led by incumbent prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafari actually won the election only to see Jafari dumped as a result of, among other things, intense American pressure.

remind me again, how do you spell the Prime Minister of the elected government, is it Haniya or Haneya? all this "intense American pressure" makes me forget iof we are for or against democratic elections.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 12, 2007 11:57 AM

Seems to me that the people "running" Iraq are the corrupt elites that require the US Government to enforce their grip on power and their hand in the cookie jar.

Truly, our importation of American-style democracy has been successful in that regard.

Posted by Joshua | July 12, 2007 12:06 PM

This kind of argument won't get you far with the wingnuts. By definition the 79 percent who don't want us there are "islamofascists", since they apparently hate our freedom, and are the enemy. In fact as the number of Iraqis who want us to leave increases, the easier it will be for our troops to identify the hostiles in the Iraqi population and deal with them. So in the Kaganverse this is probably just another sign of progress.

Posted by vanya | July 12, 2007 12:09 PM

Joshua:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we didn't introduce the concept of corruption to Iraq. Also, Iraq's form of government is hardly "American style" democracy. It's more Italian style in form, though certainly Arab in implementation.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 12:13 PM

It's more Italian style in form, though certainly Arab in implementation.

well, at least it hasn't reached Israeli levels of corruption yet, but there is still time.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 12, 2007 12:25 PM

Gregor,

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but if the Bush administration had any sense of decency whatsoever, they would have, in fact, resigned by now. Not only is the administration facing heavy disapproval, but a majority of the country supports impeaching the VP and a decent number support impeaching the Pres. And this is for acts the president's office knows they are guilty of. There is a difference b/w seeing your approval ratings drop below 50% and facing this kind of national disgust.

Posted by mpowell | July 12, 2007 12:39 PM

Don't forget that the current Iraq coalition ran on a platform of getting Americans out of Iraq. Their approval numbers have gone down in relation to the amount of time that's passed without this goal being accomplished.

Posted by Scott Kern | July 12, 2007 12:59 PM

The widespread dismissal by American neo-cons and other members of the war party of Iraqis' consistent popular desire to see us (whom they, not unreasonably, read as a colonial occupier) gone is pretty, well, astounding.

All that Wilsonian "spread of freedom" stuff is proven to be BS on the part of the Bushies by this manifest inability to respect the Iraqis' right to self-determination.

I don't see how you can believe we're fighting for democracy and then defend with the next breath the will of the Iraqis being ignored and regarded as irrelevant.

I also don't think it's quite fair to take the Iraqi Gov't formal request for our departure as the benchmark of Iraqi opinion, since the Maliki Gov't is de facto limited to the Green Zone, is often below quorum, and it's ruling coalition (or the SIIC part, anyway) is our explicit ally.

Posted by Ben Cronin | July 12, 2007 1:04 PM

Mrs. Jafaari:

"well, at least it hasn't reached Israeli levels of corruption yet, but there is still time."

I wasn't referring to corruption with the Italian example, but the unstable parliamentary system Italy has (which happens to be similar to Israel's). Your point that corruption in Israel is worse than that in Iraq is noted though. I'm sure that whatever miseries the day brings in Iraq, Iraqis are comfortable knowing things could be worse -- they could be Israelis, after all.

Scott:

"Don't forget that the current Iraq coalition ran on a platform of getting Americans out of Iraq."

Your funny above makes me think again of Kaus's point about the time between elections. Imagine if, like the Iraqi legislature, our Congress only had elections every four years. In that case, although popular opinion might be in the same place now, Republicans would still control both Houses of Congress, and you'd be stuck with that until '08.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 2:02 PM

"By your logic, the current administration in DC should resign immediately, as most people don't approve of it. Perhaps that's what you mean to imply. Great.

Posted by gregor"

Someone needs to look up the difference between serving out a term and leading an unpopular foreign occupation. When you are occupying someone else's country, especially against their will, you are engaging in imperialism. When the British maintained imperial rule over us, we rebelled to kick them out. The British at least also had given us virtual representation in Parliament. Who are the virtual representatives of the Iraqi people in our Congress? Imperialism, at its very core, is wrong, whether it is carried out by Americans, Romans, Ottomans, Russians, Japanese, etc. All empire fall and they fall badly. Do you want the US to be a powerful liberal superpower or an empire? You can't have both.

Posted by Reality Man | July 12, 2007 3:40 PM

I know many of you are compassionate and probably want to do something, however small, to help those in Iraq. If that's you, grab a credit card and click here: Hearts for Baghdad. You can help bring quality medical care to more Iraqis -- free health care, no less! No money-grubbing insurance companies.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 3:46 PM

If that's you, grab a credit card and click here...

I've heard too much shady stuff about the "Spirit of America" organization (like this, for example) to feel comfortable sending them any money. I'll stick with the USO as my charity of choice.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 4:56 PM

Steve,

Can you tell me in your own words what you find "shady" about Spirit of America, instead of linking to a three year old blog post?

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 5:21 PM

Can you tell me in your own words what you find "shady" about Spirit of America, instead of linking to a three year old blog post?

Not really. Maybe they're an awesome charity and they've just gotten a bad rap. But I'll play it safe and stick with organizations I know I can trust, because I'd hate to be snookered. By the way, 2005 was two years ago, not three.

Are you in a position to vouch for the good work they do, or are you just passing on a link? Because I certainly don't claim any personal knowledge of my own.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 5:47 PM

"Are you in a position to vouch for the good work they do, or are you just passing on a link?"

Considering that I have met Marine officers who have worked with the charity during their tours in Iraq, I'd say yes. I also met the charity's founder Jim Hake in New York, and got good impressions from him as well.

Even if I hadn't had those personal interactions, I would find it significant that knowledgeable people with firsthand experience of the charity such as Own and Bing West vouch for Spirit of America.

If you don't feel like donating to help fund a clinic for Iraqis, that's fine, but before you cast aspersions on a charity that has helped a lot of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, you should at least make an attempt to know what you are talking about.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 11:15 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to suspect that something's fishy if I want to, since it's my money.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 11:25 PM

Fred,

I am the author of that 2005 link. I spend a long time looking closely into the activities of the Fadhil brothers (three Iraqi bloggers) and Jim Hake's Spirit of America, and I have a host of posts and URLs on my blog for anyone wanting more information.

What does it matter if the post is old? The astonishing facts that it details have never been resolved:

Paul Wolfowitz and Jim Hake brought two of the Fadhil brothers to the Oval Office for an October 2004 meeting with Bush. The other Fadhil brother was left behind, making angry accusations that Hake's organisation was using them for propaganda purposes, failing to account for charity donations, faking charity projects in Iraq, and then offering massive bribes to keep the Fadhils quiet. I guess the bribes worked, coz he shut up soon after and apologized for the fuss.

I know Spirit of America does some PR stunts with US soldiers, but it is all pure propaganda aimed at US consumers of the war. The CIA call this shit PsyOps. It's not charity: it's a scam to make Bush's pro-war base feel good about killing innocent people.

Posted by gandhi | July 13, 2007 8:20 AM

Didn't Al Maliki recently say we can leave anytime we want? I think the Shia are getting impatient waiting for us to get out of the way so they can get their ethnic cleansing going.

Posted by Don | July 15, 2007 3:05 PM