Puzzling Analysis

This Karen DeYoung article in today's Post leads off on a really weird note:

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

That is good news, according to a military analysis of the results. At the very least, analysts optimistically concluded, the findings indicate that Iraqis hold some "shared beliefs" that may eventually allow them to surmount the divisions that have led to a civil war.

DeYoung goes on to provide an excellent description of military efforts to assess the state of Iraqi public opinion and to explain what we know about it. But the big mystery here concerns the official analysis cited here in the second paragraph. In particular, it this silly, implausible spin or is this project being overseen by idiots? There's just no way you could construe widespread, cross-sectarian belief that the departure of US forces is crucial for national reconciliation as supporting a policy of a decades-long American military involvement in Iraq.

You very well might characterize this as "good news" since it indicates that there's at least some chance that a program of withdrawal would boost political reconciliation, but it's certainly not "good news" for the policy we're actually pursuing.

Meanwhile, it's a reminder that the policy we're pursuing is unlikely to accomplish its nominal goal of creating a stable, democratic government for Iraq. Basically, that objective is incompatible with the objective of sustaining the mission in Iraq. Insofar as the Iraqi government is responsive to public opinion, it will ask our troops to leave.

Comments

I love it. "The Iraqis are united-- they all want us to leave!" Mission accomplished indeed.

Posted by Persia | December 19, 2007 1:03 PM

Personally, I think it's extremely good news that Iraqis of all sects and ethnicities are totally united by their eternal hatred of America and all Americans.

Until recently, the Kurds were a bit of an outlier, but after our recent support for the Turkish attack on them, they've finally rejoined their brother Iraqis.

Isn't national unity wonderful.

Posted by RKU | December 19, 2007 1:05 PM

Perhaps it is time to inflict some more cross-sectarian woes upon them to promote unity. An epidemic, or the destabilization of their currency might do them a world of good.

Posted by Njorl | December 19, 2007 1:15 PM

It is good news for the US military as it means perpetual employment. The Iraqis clearly dislike our occupation and will attempt to make our stay as disagreeable as possible by inflicting casualities. The military, on the other hand, will see this as "Al Qaeda" attacks and will attempt to imprision or kill any male Iraqi who might attack them. The MSM will feed the American populus the "Al Qaeda" attack crap, thus assuring that the occupation continues. This ensures the continued hatred of most Iraqis, who will attempt to make our stay as disagreeable..., etc.

Woe be it to the Grunts, tho'.

Posted by Emrys | December 19, 2007 1:32 PM

Okay--but what about the fact that Iraqis are almosst certainly wrong that we are the problem and that when we leave they will all suck the peace pipe and bliss out together in Xanadu-by-the-Tigris? I mean, really--the suspension of disbelief here is rather severe.

Posted by elle loco | December 19, 2007 1:38 PM

Emrys:

Absolutely true!

But things will change once our domestic economy collapses, and the government can't afford to continue paying those troops, let alone all those additional tens of thousands of ultra-expensive mercenaries.

This will probably lead to quite a bit of grumbling, after which our Iraqi Expeditionary Force will angrily return home to "collect their back wages."

Maybe the surviving DC neocons will be able to find jobs as speechwriters for His Royal Highness William I, founder of the Fallon Dynasty...

Posted by RKU | December 19, 2007 1:42 PM

Matt, have you forgotten the one solid principle of nation building - unite against a common enemy? The firepower gap is such that to actually storm our bases and defeat us, rather than just wear at us with guerrilla tactics we've weirdly decided are worth the price of staying, the Sunnis and Shiites and even some Kurds will have to unite. Bush is smarter than I gave him credit for!

Or maybe not, from what I'm seeing of the fire at the White House. Doesn't the Secret Service know not to let him play with matches?

Posted by aleks | December 19, 2007 1:56 PM

Of course, during the Iran-Iraq war, soldiers on both sides affirmed vehemently that their real enemies were Israel and the United States. It would be wrong to infer from this that Israel or the United States was the cause of that war or had much power to stop it.

For that matter, if you visit, say, the Anti-Defamation League, once you get past the concrete pylons, the lobby security, the metal detectors, etc., a spokesman will assure you that American Jews are in serious danger--from evangelical Christians. Anyone who concluded from this that reducing the influence of evangelical Christians would end the need for the concrete pylons, metal detectors etc. would be a fool.

Posted by y81 | December 19, 2007 2:22 PM

The story is basically buried for the average reader- a footnote.
As for me, I find this info quite powerful for the anyone who wants to end this war. Sharp and easy to understand- the Iraqis blame us for their inability to unify due to the presence of US forces.

For those posting here it is as the WaPo intended- a footnote.

Posted by Bird | December 19, 2007 2:26 PM

I found this article confusing. It quotes a civilian poller who says the various Iraqi groups will go at it once the US leaves.

"Warshaw added: "In Iraq, I just don't hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say 'We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can't truly dominate.' ""

Yeah, they want the US to leave so they can wipe out the other side.

I don't understand why the minority Sunnis feel this way unless, it's just they're so pissed about getting tossed out of power after dominating the Shia for years, that they'll cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak. And yet they've heard the Saudis say they'll come full-in on the Sunni side if the US leaves.

Posted by Peter K. | December 19, 2007 3:06 PM

Matt: "Insofar as the Iraqi government is responsive to public opinion, it will ask our troops to leave."

They already have. The Iraqi government has said that the current UN Mandate allowing the US to act as the occupying force will not be renewed at the end of next year and may be terminated earlier than that at the Iraqi government's request.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 19, 2007 3:09 PM

This strikes me as the most incredible bullshit I've seen lately, which is going quite far given that I'm a pretty regular reader of this blog now. It seems the major lesson here is that doing polling in a war zone among people who have a different language, culture, and history, and utterly opaque agendas, is a fraught business.

After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, of which Iraq was a Client in Good Standing, there were bloody power struggles from Yugoslavia and Albania through Moldova, Abkazia, South Ossetia, to Tajikistan and beyond. Literally hundreds of thousands died. In every single case, the real issue was power/money, and in every single case this was disguised as some kind of religious or ethnic issue. Now I'm not saying that this is exactly the case in Iraq, but the odds are it is, and the stakes are a hell of a lot higher than in the other places. The one sure thing is that the idea that the US is "the primary root of the differences between them" is risible nonsense.

The US did not organize the Anfal genocide against the Kurds, and although we bear a lot more responsibility for the slaughter of Shiites after Desert Storm, we certainly weren't behind the Sunni's ages-long oppression of them. And it was Al Qaeda operatives, probably from Saudi Arabia, who blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

In my view, Iraqis had an even more inflated opinion of US omnipotence than the Bush people did. They imagined that if things were lousy in the wake of the collapse of the Ba'athist regime, it must be because that's what we wanted. There's probably some of that left, and in point of fact it likely serves long-term US interests better to have three relatively weak, self-occupied Iraqs than a single totalitarian one bent on regional domination. But we're not clever enough to have set that up intentionally, even if Iraqis may not know it yet.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 19, 2007 3:25 PM

It could be as simple as that the military wants out of Iraq regardless of what Bush/Cheney want.

Posted by Th | December 19, 2007 5:22 PM

Nothing unites a diverse group of people as much as a common enemy.

Posted by FS | December 19, 2007 9:30 PM

The idea that it is good news for the U.S. that all Iraqi groups blame the U.S. fits the schizo rightwing mindset to a t. After all, this is the same group that spends 3/4ths of its time raging about Islam and mulling genocide for Muslims, and the other 1/4th proclaiming their concern for Iraqis if the U.S. leaves. Long ago they fell into a dream of resentment, and as Freud noticed about dreams, there are no contradictions in them - contradictory elements rub shoulders there. The rightwing is going to be pissed, though, when the nation finally stops paying for its wet dreams.

In order to be fair and balanced, the press now has to report complete contradictions with a straight face, otherwise, the right will howl about the liberal press - which for some unexplained reason is supposed to be bad, even though, of course, the readers of the Post as well as the NYT are almost certainly center-left, and an ideological grouping that demands respect for its disrespect for the truth table ... shouldn't get it.

Posted by roger | December 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Powell: "This strikes me as the most incredible bullshit I've seen lately, which is going quite far given that I'm a pretty regular reader of this blog now."

Powell doesn't read his own stuff, apparently.

Anybody who can't comprehend how much the Iraqis hate the US now is simply a completely delusional psychotic - or a paid (or worse, stupid unpaid) shill for the neocons or Zionists.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 20, 2007 12:06 AM

Another pointless and fact-free post from The Amazing Hack. Time to let the other guys at the halfway house use the computer, Dickie.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 20, 2007 1:41 AM

He didn't say that the Iraqis didn't hate us, he said we weren't the cause of them hating eachother. Read before you reply.

Posted by aleks | December 20, 2007 8:30 AM