Iraqi Public Opinion

Here's Michael O'Hanlon in the winter 2003 issue of The National Interest assessing the situation in Iraq about six months after the invasion:

A third category of effort in any counterinsurgency, politics is harder to track using quantitative data. That is especially true because Iraq has local governments throughout almost all of the country at present, in addition to a national Governing Council. Hence, future progress will be dependent more on how well Iraqi leaders do their jobs and how quickly they establish legitimacy among the population than on increases in their ranks. An imperfect proxy for this is polling data showing how the Iraqi population feels about the foreign presence in its country and about the general direction of political life within the country. Here the verdict remains mixed. Recent Gallup polls show that a clear majority of Iraqis want coalition forces to stay and believe that life will gradually improve in the post-Saddam era. But the majority also feels frustrated and worried about internal political trends, and, as should be quite obvious, a sizeable minority with the potential to do great harm opposes the entire course of events.

At the time, this seemed very wise to me. Why end an "occupation" in Iraq if the occupied people wanted our troops to say? Over the past two or three years, however, Iraqi public opinion has magically vanished from the debate in Washington. The Global Policy Forum does, however, have a nice compilation.

We learn in this report that a whopping 6 percent of Iraqis have "a great deal" of confidence in US and British forces. An additional 12 percent have "quite a lot." 30 Percent say they have "not very much." And 52 percent say "none at all." The Iraqi police, the Iraqi army, local political leaders, the national government, and the local militia are all more popular than the American military. A clear majority thinks the US government, rather than the Iraqi government, is controlling the country. 46 percent of Iraqis "strongly oppose" the presence of American troops in Iraq and 32 percent are somewhat opposed. 69 percent say the American presence is making things worse. More Iraqis see Iran as having a positive influence on their country than see the US that way. For that matter, more Iraqis see Saudi Arabia as having a positive influence. More Iraqis see Russia as having a positive influence. 51 percent say attacks on coalition forces are acceptable. More people blame US forces (31 percent) or President Bush (9 percent) for violence in Iraq than blame al-Qaeda (18 percent) or Iran (7 pecent).

I don't say, of course, that the Iraqi public is correct about all of this, but that's what they think. Under the circumstances, I just don't see how a counterinsurgency mission could possibly succeed. If we had just recently invaded the country and were facing initial skepticism then, sure, maybe better policies would win people over. But we're talking about the reverse. The initial reception we got was open-minded. That was years ago. Now the US military is very, very, very much disliked in Iraq and it ought to leave and go places (home, Kuwait, Germany, Turkey) where it's welcome.

Comments

That the Iraqis have more confidence in the Iraqi institutions than in the American Army is proof that the surge is working.

Posted by gregor | August 25, 2007 10:42 AM

matt: i'm not sure the u.s. army is particularly welcome in turkey these days, incirlik notwithstanding, though i guess that's a story for another day....

Posted by greg djerejian | August 25, 2007 10:47 AM

I'd like to see some polling on what percentage of Iraqis have so much confidence that their answers to pollsters won't be leaked to the insurgency that they're willing to stake their lives on it by giving answers the insurgency wouldn't like.

I'm not saying, mind you, that I'd be happy with the answers we'd get if Iraqis felt it was perfectly safe to speak their minds. But we seriously need some humility concerning the limits of polling in places where covert insurgencies and/or secret police make speaking your mind to somebody who claims to be a pollster, and who assures you that he'll respect your confidentiality, a potentially lethal choice.

Those people gave their opinions in elections with a lot more security than some dude claiming to be a pollster, and for better or worse, I'll treat what that elected government says as a better guide to Iraqi public opinion than opinion polls.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 25, 2007 11:01 AM

gregor:
Are you sure? They'll have more faith in their local tribe leader, or in some Shite circles, they'll have a lot more faith in Al-Sadr than they would the US military. I'm not sure it is proof of the surge working.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 25, 2007 11:07 AM

Yes, but in the same poll only 35% or Iraqis want us to leave right away. 38% say the we should stay Iraqis may hate us, but they also don't want us to leave just yet. A peculiar situation, to say the least...

Posted by RC | August 25, 2007 11:21 AM

woops... the second sentence should read '38% say the we should stay until security is restored'.

Posted by RC | August 25, 2007 11:26 AM

Matthew

Please, you have to show better understanding of what has been happening in Iraq than to use a poll taken February 25 - March 5, 2007. Simply by reading Michael Yon’s dispatches from Iraq one would have learned that the mistakes of our previous strategy easily would be responsible for the polling numbers you cite. Previously, our troops would leave our bases to engage the insurgency, then after driving them out, return to their bases. The insurgency would simply come back into the neighborhoods. Not only would there be civilian casualties, but life often became more harsh when the insurgents returned. Our strategy has changed under Petraeus. The surge wasn’t simply about bringing in more troops to Iraq. It was about bringing more troops so we could change our strategy. The emphasis is no longer in chasing the insurgents who could melt away into the populace and then return once we were gone. The new strategy is to drive the insurgents out of a neighborhood and then establish outposts in those neighborhoods. In other words our emphasis is now on protecting the populace. We do not leave. We are finding that when the populace realizes we are not going to leave, that they become cooperative with our troops. As we settle into these neighborhoods, we bring resources to help rebuild infrastructure, allow markets to reopen, and have local political structures reestablish themselves. This type of development doesn’t get air time on to the nightly news when there is always a suicide bombing, a helicopter crash, or a roadside bomb explosion to report. Progress in Anbar began earlier this year because of the tribal sheiks aligning themselves with us. Yet, the major work of the surge did not begin until the launch of Operation Phantom Thunder on June 15 after the full complement of troops for the surge had finally arrive at the beginning of June. Presently, there are many sources reporting the progress that is being made under that strategy now that the surge is finally being implemented. So Matthew, before you start using polling numbers from February-March to support your position today, go get current polling numbers. If those numbers are similar, then it gives some validity to your argument. But if those numbers have changed, then maybe a reassessment is in order.
The fact of present progress does not mean that the tide in Iraq has turned enough to guarantee “victory” if we continue the surge. War is fluid. The enemy adapts. The problem with much of the Iraq discussion in the United States is that many have already decided upon their “narrative” of the war. They view information from Iraq through the prism of their “narrative” which means they only see what fits what they already believe. My goodness, I am constantly teaching my 7th grade math students to “question everything”. That certainly means questioning our own assumptions and positions as well. And I certainly teach them how to recognize how easily statistical information can be misused. I have come to expect better from you Matthew.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 25, 2007 11:34 AM

Richard Foster:
If things are so great, why do Iraqis get barely a few hours of electricity a day? How come the water system barely works, if it all?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | August 25, 2007 11:42 AM

Brett B: "Those people gave their opinions in elections with a lot more security than some dude claiming to be a pollster"

It's worth remembering that the party they overwhelmingly voted for ran on a platform of getting rid of the occupiers.

The idea that we can measure what Iraqis want by what that government now does is about as accurate as measuring the opinion of Democrats and independents who elected the current Congressional majority by what the Democratic leadership has shown itself willing to do.

Posted by Nell | August 25, 2007 11:45 AM

i needed a laugh this morning, and richard foster, thanks for providing it: "simply reading michael yon." yes, there's a helluva source for ya. that's where i stopped reading richard foster, life being short and all.

at least brett bellmore makes an effort to think about reality, although i'd say his thought experiment isn't particularly persuasive.

Posted by howard | August 25, 2007 11:49 AM

Being lectured about "humility" by Iraq War dead-enders would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | August 25, 2007 11:57 AM

Nell, I'm not saying it's a particularly good measure, just a better measure than polls. If you have no good source of information, then you just don't, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.

Even here in the US, where no sane person fears that their family will be murdered if they give the wrong answer to a pollster, we're well acquainted with the fact that polls have their limits, that people don't accurately answer some kinds of questions. Think about how much less reliable polls must be in places where that fear is perfectly reasonable.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 25, 2007 12:07 PM

Yankee Go Home.

Posted by someotherdude | August 25, 2007 12:11 PM

Brett Bellmore,

If the average Iraqi believes the insurgency/local militia is so omnipresent that they would give answers to please them, then the American occupation is in more trouble than we think.

Posted by someotherdude | August 25, 2007 12:15 PM

At the time, this seemed very wise to me. Why end an "occupation" in Iraq if the occupied people wanted our troops to say?

Because the legality of that occupation was at best ambiguous, and at worst nonexistent.

Posted by Just Sayin' | August 25, 2007 12:19 PM

To make the point clearer: say you are beating a child, and the child takes a sadomasochistic pleasure in the beating. It is still child abuse, and you still could go to jail. Just because someone wants you to do something illegal to them does not make the action legal.

Posted by Just Sayin' | August 25, 2007 12:21 PM

They view information from Iraq through the prism of their “narrative” which means they only see what fits what they already believe. My goodness, I am constantly teaching my 7th grade math students to “question everything”. That certainly means questioning our own assumptions and positions as well. And I certainly teach them how to recognize how easily statistical information can be misused. I have come to expect better from you Matthew.

Hey, Richard Foster, do you address everyone with that superior, patronizing tone, or do you use it only for blog-comments and seventh-grade math students?

Posted by James Gary | August 25, 2007 12:30 PM

If you leave there will be trouble.
If you stay it will double.
You should stay and you should go.
I just want to let you know.

Posted by gregor | August 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Matt, you should of course note that this poll is vastly worse than it looks for the occupation because it doesn't break out the results—IOW take out the Kurds and the number of pro-occupation Iraqis would probably be within the margin of error.

Posted by Some dude | August 25, 2007 1:25 PM

The best part is that Richard Foster doesn't attempt to even stab at a guess of how Yon's observations would change the polling numbers to any degree. The truth of the matter is that when you are militarily occupying a country and the majority of the population wants you gone, that's imperialism. The tone of his post might hold some merit if the surge was an extra 200,000 troops, but it's only an extra 30,000 troops. The surge is simply speeding up the time until the Pentagon is ready to say that our ground forces back has broken, which they estimate will be around April. The truth of the matter is that our policy in Iraq is confused. So we support former insurgents and Sunni tribal leaders in al-Anbar against AQ, but we still support the Shi'ite government and military that is controlled by militias that kill innocent Sunnis. This contradiction cannot last long without biting us in the ass.

Posted by Reality Man | August 25, 2007 2:08 PM

Also, if you want the surge to work you have to do two things 1) think up a magical new Iraqi government that doesn't take the summer of during the surge that was designed to help that very government reach a new multi-ethnic political consensus and 2) support a draft two bring in at least 200,000 more troops into Iraq to do this occupation right. If you aren't willing to do this, you're just pissing in the wind and aren't willing to make the hard choices to ensure a greater chance of success. I realize that both of these points are fantasy and thus support withdrawal. Pro-war dead-enders who aren't willing to support a draft are just giving us the worst of both worlds.

Posted by Reality Man | August 25, 2007 2:13 PM

“Hey, Richard Foster, do you address everyone with that superior, patronizing tone, or do you use it only for blog-comments and seventh-grade math students?”

No, I do not address people in that manner James. And I apologize, for rereading my comments I can see how they could be understood in that way. Maybe, it comes from my frustration with the lack of dialogue in our country. We seemed to have lost the ability to talk with one another, instead we seem to talk at one another. This is what I mean by narratives. We listen to the other only to hear a word from which we can then attach our narrative. Look at Howard’s comment. He dismisses my comment after only reading the second sentence because his obvious dislike for Michael Yon. But whether one likes the reporting of Yon or not, what does that have to do with Yon’s criticism of our military strategy from 2004-2006 that was alienating the very people we were there to help? Joe Klein's conscience states “If things are so great” before bringing up lack of infrastructure services to dismiss my comments. But I never said things are great. In fact, I believe the very opposite. In the areas being affected by the surge, the situation on the ground is getting better. Recognizing this is far from saying things are great.

My B.A. is in History and Religion. My graduate work was done at an Ivy League Divinity School. I say this only to give perspective to what I am about to say. The Hebrew prophets revealed that God measures the character of a people by how they treat the least among them. They prophesied against the people of Israel or Judea for the injustices being done. God’s message they revealed was that while only a few were guilty for the wrongs being done, all were responsible. For those of you who may be non-religious, please do not go off on an anti-religious polemic. Even a work of fiction can give us perspective about life. It is a question of how do we judge character. The United States invaded Iraq. We did not have to do this. There were other options available. Our leaders took us to war, and that war has created the insecure situation that the ordinary Iraqis must live in. For most of us Americans, we can not imagine living in the conditions in which they have to live. But we created the situation by invading the country. Our leaders are guilty for this, but we, as citizens of this country are responsible. We have made so many mistakes along the way since we invaded Iraq. I don’t know whether we are capable of fixing our mistakes or not. I am not that smart. But we are an extremely resourceful country with many intelligent and caring people. I live in New Orleans and know first hand the generosity and hard work of countless Americans who have come to assist our city. If we as a country were united in our resolve to be responsible in helping to bring security to the Iraqi people, then we may have a chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, so much of the discussion I hear today shows very little concern for the Iraqi people. Too much of the discussion is wrapped up into political arguments to be used to gain political power within the United States. In other words, people are calculating how to use the Iraq situation for their own advantage rather than focusing on the people we have invaded.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 25, 2007 2:37 PM

"f the average Iraqi believes the insurgency/local militia is so omnipresent that they would give answers to please them, then the American occupation is in more trouble than we think."

Um, just how high DOES the risk of your family being murdered if you give the 'wrong' answer, before it's not worth being honest with some loon who corners you and starts asking questions, consuming your time without any compensation? Cost/benefit, and there ain't no benefit to begin with.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 25, 2007 3:01 PM

Richard, that's self-justifying bullshit. The Iraqis don't want us in their country, which is why they're killing our soldiers. We do have a responsibility for security, which is why we should bribe and bully the UN and other governments into cobbling together a security force with some semblance of legitimacy to take our place. But whatever propagandists like Yon have to say has nothing to do with this one way or the other.

Posted by Some dude | August 25, 2007 4:21 PM

R. Foster: It is patently obvious that pretenses of concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people coming from the Bush administration are simply pretenses to continue the occupation. U.S. government actions of the past 5 years do not show any genuine concern for the welfare of the Iraqis, and that is not going to change. Hence, our lack of patience with the "6 more months" school of right-wing nonsense.

One easy test of sincere concern for the Iraqis: are we willing to draw in the U.N. and neighboring nations such as Turkey, Iraq, and Syria to help solve the problem, at the price of scaling down or ending our own illegal occupation? Are we willing to use diplomacy and reach for genuine compromise, even if we have to give up some control in the bargain? No? There's your answer.

Posted by mq | August 25, 2007 6:44 PM

Richard Foster is as clueless as Petraeus about the strategy.

That strategy MIGHT have helped - four years ago.

It is now four years too late.

And it's not even close to a certainty that it would have worked four years ago.

The bottom line: the strategy does not seem to have significantly reduced the level of interagency violence even in Baghdad where it was targeted. And the insurgency simply moves elsewhere when it is targeted in a given location.

And the US simply doesn't have the half million men it would take to apply this strategy in even all of the major areas of Iraq.

To suppress an insurgency AT ALL, you need ten combat troops for every insurgent. Right now, with the insurgency probably in the neighborhood of 50-80,000 men (especially if you count the militias themselves, and not just the Sunni and Al Qaeda insurgents), you'd need a million or more US troops to handle them.

It's ridiculous to even conceive of this strategy working at this point in the conflict. Petraeus either knows this and is playing along with Bush for the sake of his military career or he's an idiot that doesn't understand his own counterinsurgency manual AND/OR the facts on the ground.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 25, 2007 7:50 PM

"In other words, people are calculating how to use the Iraq situation for their own advantage rather than focusing on the people we have invaded."

Uhm, would those "people" include George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocons and Christian Zionists?

Thought not.

"I don’t know whether we are capable of fixing our mistakes or not. I am not that smart."

Then don't cite military strategies you don't know squat about.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 25, 2007 7:55 PM

R. Hack:

“Uhm, would those "people" include George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocons and Christian Zionists?”

“Thought not.”

You asked a question and then you presumed to know my answer. You presumed wrong. Of course I include Bush, Cheney, etc. in with those who are using the situation to their own political advantage. You don’t really believe that the Republicans who are moving to the other side are doing so because they have finally seen the light of the Democratic argument, do you? Most of these Republicans are up for re-election and are reading poll numbers. They care more about how their constituency will vote rather than what would be best for the Iraqi people. And by the way, just so you will know, I did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. I hold the Bush administration negligent in the manner in which they have conducted this war. Their actions have led directly to the insecure and chaotic situation we presently have in Iraq.

My concern is with the situation that my nation has created by invading another country. They didn’t ask us to invade. I believe we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. The focus of our national discussion should be on how we can help bring about security of these people until they are able to provide for their own security. Instead, the focus seems to be on how is the best way for us to get out. Some Dude and MQ, while both making presumptions about my position which are not true, at least recognize our moral responsibility and offered positive suggestions. All I heard from you was criticism of present policy. What’s your plan? Or do you not believe that we as a nation have a moral responsibility? Do you believe it is acceptable to invade another country and then when things do not work out as we would like, that it is ok for us just to leave and let the populace of the invaded country suffer the consequences of our actions? How we answer such questions tells us about the character of a people.

Posted by Richard Foster | August 25, 2007 10:39 PM

I live in New Orleans and know first hand the generosity and hard work of countless Americans who have come to assist our city. -- R Foster

Oh, great. Here's a little hint: if you, as an American, show up to "help" in a foreign country, it is really not a good idea to say: "We're going to do for your country what we did for New Orleans!"

Posted by brooksfoe | August 26, 2007 12:37 PM

Richard, me and you, we are the problem. Our military's presence in Iraq is why the Iraqi people have no security. They understand this and this is why they consistently support an orderly US withdrawal. Putting US forces into Iraq created and continues to constitute the vast majority of problems in that country. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people the only thing that will help this completely screwed up situation is for the US troops to pull out completely. We should immediately try to replace our troops with UN or Arab League forces. If neither institution wants to stick their hand in the meat grinder then it is time for us to pull ours out. There will be many very bad repercussions from our withdrawal but we have to accept those as additional responsibilities that we bear as a people and a nation for allowing this bloodbath to be initiated in the first place. As a people we will be dealing with the world's lowered security and regional instability created by this incredible inhuman blunder for at least the next fifty years. Once you've crashed the car you fix it by paying a repair shop to do the work not by continuing to ram it into the wall. At this point the only possible positive that can result from this murderous farce would be a national repudiation of reckless foreign adventurism in the guise of 'pre-emptive' war, but I doubt that will ever happen.

Posted by Less Izmore | August 26, 2007 12:59 PM