Another Unpopular Iraq Perspective

[_BiB_]

Is Iraq Better Off? Ask the Iraqis

Steven E. Moore, Los Angeles Times

10/20/2004

 

 

John Kerry is playing the prophet of doom in the most important foreign policy initiative of our generation. In Pennsylvania, Kerry described Iraq as "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." In New York, he opined that murderous cleric Muqtada Sadr "holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than Prime Minister [iyad] Allawi." In Columbus, Ohio, the senator claimed to have a more accurate perspective on the situation in Iraq than did the interim prime minister, whose favorability rating of 73% among Iraqis, it's worth noting, is higher than Kerry's 48% favorability rating among Americans in the latest polls. Kerry, of course, has never set foot in Iraq.

I was there from July 2003 to April 2004, conducting about 70 focus groups and a dozen public opinion polls and advising L. Paul Bremer III, then the civilian administrator, on Iraqi public opinion. Whatever you might hear from Kerry, Michael Moore, the mainstream media and anyone else to whom defeating President Bush is more important than the fate of the Iraqi people, those who know best what's going on in Iraq — the Iraqis themselves — are optimistic about the future.

 

Iraqis consistently say in nationwide polls that the situation in their country is improving. In polls over the course of the summer, for example, more than half of Iraqis said their country was on the right track. The vast majority of Iraqis — 72% — see the same benefits in democracy as Americans do: the hope for peace, stability and a better life. Most polls show that 75% of Iraqis want to vote for their leaders rather than have clerics appoint them.

 

In a recent speech, Kerry charged that Saddam Hussein's brutality "was not, in itself, a reason to go to war." Iraqis disagree, as should any supporter of human rights. Nearly 55% of Iraqis say that toppling Hussein was worth the price of the current difficulties. These figures are easy to understand when you look at another set of numbers. In an Op-Ed article circulated this year among the more than 200 independent newspapers now published in Iraq, an Iraqi democratic activist observed that Hussein tortured and killed as many as 750,000 of his own people. Iraqis don't understand the debate about whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To them, Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction.

 

UNICEF, hardly an apologist for the Bush administration, estimates that 5,000 Iraqi children a month died of starvation and malnutrition while Hussein siphoned funds from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to build his palaces and enrich French politicians.

 

Americans are only now learning of the extent of Hussein's corruption of this humanitarian program; the Iraqis have known about it for quite some time. When asked to rate their confidence in the U.N., Iraqis gave the organization a 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 4, with a 4 meaning absolutely no confidence. In contrast, more than 60% of Iraqis tell pollsters that the Iraqi government has done a good job since the June 28 hand-over.

 

Polling in Iraq is done much as in any developing country. Interviews are conducted face to face by highly trained Iraqi interviewers. For a 1,500-person sample, for instance, 75 qada (the Iraqi equivalent of precincts) would be chosen at random, with interviews conducted in 20 randomly chosen households in each.

 

Though difficulties abound, the cooperation rate is usually more than 80% — much higher than in the U.S. Iraqis are amazed that, for the first time, somebody cares about their political opinion, and they frequently want interviewers to interview cousins and friends.

 

From 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to prevent Iraqis who want democracy from achieving it. Kerry has said he would begin withdrawing U.S. troops six months after his inauguration. Iraq's autocratic neighbors are vigorously supporting the efforts of extremists to derail Iraqi self-government. Hastily withdrawing U.S. troops for political reasons would be a mistake for which we would pay for decades.

 

A look at the nightly news confirms the finding that six out of 10 Iraqis are worried about security, but what's being given short shrift are the strides being made and the intensity of Iraqi optimism.

 

Steven E. Moore is a Sacramento-based political consultant.

[Alaska Darin]

Is Iraq Better Off? Ask the Iraqis

Steven E. Moore, Los Angeles Times

10/20/2004

 

 

John Kerry is playing the prophet of doom in the most important foreign policy initiative of our generation. In Pennsylvania, Kerry described Iraq as "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." In New York, he opined that murderous cleric Muqtada Sadr "holds more sway in suburbs of Baghdad than Prime Minister [iyad] Allawi." In Columbus, Ohio, the senator claimed to have a more accurate perspective on the situation in Iraq than did the interim prime minister, whose favorability rating of 73% among Iraqis, it's worth noting, is higher than Kerry's 48% favorability rating among Americans in the latest polls. Kerry, of course, has never set foot in Iraq.

I was there from July 2003 to April 2004, conducting about 70 focus groups and a dozen public opinion polls and advising L. Paul Bremer III, then the civilian administrator, on Iraqi public opinion. Whatever you might hear from Kerry, Michael Moore, the mainstream media and anyone else to whom defeating President Bush is more important than the fate of the Iraqi people, those who know best what's going on in Iraq — the Iraqis themselves — are optimistic about the future.

 

Iraqis consistently say in nationwide polls that the situation in their country is improving. In polls over the course of the summer, for example, more than half of Iraqis said their country was on the right track. The vast majority of Iraqis — 72% — see the same benefits in democracy as Americans do: the hope for peace, stability and a better life. Most polls show that 75% of Iraqis want to vote for their leaders rather than have clerics appoint them.

 

In a recent speech, Kerry charged that Saddam Hussein's brutality "was not, in itself, a reason to go to war." Iraqis disagree, as should any supporter of human rights. Nearly 55% of Iraqis say that toppling Hussein was worth the price of the current difficulties. These figures are easy to understand when you look at another set of numbers. In an Op-Ed article circulated this year among the more than 200 independent newspapers now published in Iraq, an Iraqi democratic activist observed that Hussein tortured and killed as many as 750,000 of his own people. Iraqis don't understand the debate about whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. To them, Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction.

 

UNICEF, hardly an apologist for the Bush administration, estimates that 5,000 Iraqi children a month died of starvation and malnutrition while Hussein siphoned funds from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to build his palaces and enrich French politicians.

 

Americans are only now learning of the extent of Hussein's corruption of this humanitarian program; the Iraqis have known about it for quite some time. When asked to rate their confidence in the U.N., Iraqis gave the organization a 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 4, with a 4 meaning absolutely no confidence. In contrast, more than 60% of Iraqis tell pollsters that the Iraqi government has done a good job since the June 28 hand-over.

 

Polling in Iraq is done much as in any developing country. Interviews are conducted face to face by highly trained Iraqi interviewers. For a 1,500-person sample, for instance, 75 qada (the Iraqi equivalent of precincts) would be chosen at random, with interviews conducted in 20 randomly chosen households in each.

 

Though difficulties abound, the cooperation rate is usually more than 80% — much higher than in the U.S. Iraqis are amazed that, for the first time, somebody cares about their political opinion, and they frequently want interviewers to interview cousins and friends.

 

From 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to prevent Iraqis who want democracy from achieving it. Kerry has said he would begin withdrawing U.S. troops six months after his inauguration. Iraq's autocratic neighbors are vigorously supporting the efforts of extremists to derail Iraqi self-government. Hastily withdrawing U.S. troops for political reasons would be a mistake for which we would pay for decades.

 

A look at the nightly news confirms the finding that six out of 10 Iraqis are worried about security, but what's being given short shrift are the strides being made and the intensity of Iraqi optimism.

 

Steven E. Moore is a Sacramento-based political consultant.

78767[/snapback]

Facts suck.

[Peter]

As President Bush said, Iraq has a better right track/wrong track than we do.

 

Isn't that sad.

[RCow]

That piece is mess. Who is Stephen E. Moore? Looks like a RNC intern slapped it together.

 

So, it's the media's fault it that Bush's Iraq policy looks like a disaster for the US? Bush should be re-elected because the people of Iraq are "better off"?

That's not what many Republican senators have said lately.

 

Are we to measure the success of US security and foriegn policy because Iraqis say they are better off? Would the people in Sudan be better off if we sent troops and billions in aid? Should we poll the Sudanese people and ask them if they want our help? What about a few other nations?

 

BTW, did you notice he proudly proclaims 60% of Iraqis say the interim Gov't is doing a "good job" but rated the UN "only" 2.9 on a scale of 4. That's 72.5% approval rating.

[_BiB_]

That piece is mess.  Who is Stephen E. Moore?  Looks like a RNC intern slapped it together. 

 

So, it's the media's fault it that Bush's Iraq policy looks like a disaster for the US?  Bush should be re-elected because the people of Iraq are "better off"? 

That's not what many Republican senators have said lately.

 

Are we to measure the success of US security and foriegn policy because Iraqis say they are better off?  Would the people in Sudan be better off if we sent troops and billions in aid?  Should we poll the Sudanese people and ask them if they want our help?  What about a few other nations?

 

BTW, did you notice he proudly proclaims 60% of Iraqis say the interim Gov't is doing a  "good job" but rated the UN "only" 2.9 on a scale of 4.  That's 72.5% approval rating.

79207[/snapback]

 

Iraqis gave the organization a 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 4, with a 4 meaning absolutely no confidence.

[RCow]

79211[/snapback]

 

Touche, my mistake.

 

Still, who cares what Iraqis think? Is that how you will measure the success of US foriegn policy? Is that our litmus test? Do you really think the Administration has done a good job for America?

[chicot]

Facts suck.

78988[/snapback]

 

Facts? Most of that piece is made up of the results of Iraqi opinion polls. I recall you taking me to task for quoting opinion polls showing that a majority of Iraqis wanted a withdrawal of coalition forces. You can't have it both ways. Either opinion polls mean nothing, in which case there's very little of substance in that piece or they do mean something, in which case you have to accept that most Iraqis want an end to the occupation. Which is it?

[Alaska Darin]

Facts? Most of that piece is made up of the results of Iraqi opinion polls. I recall you taking me to task for quoting opinion polls showing that a majority of Iraqis wanted a withdrawal of coalition forces. You can't have it both ways. Either opinion polls mean nothing, in which case there's very little of substance in that piece or they do mean something, in which case you have to accept that most Iraqis want an end to the occupation. Which is it?

79262[/snapback]

It's pretty much both. I'm sure the majority would like us to leave and I'm sure the majority are happy Saddam is gone and there is some hope on the horizon for a better tomorrow.

 

I don't need a poll to tell me either one of those things. Nor am I surprised that opinion polls reflect those sentiments, as they are each broad based answers - not specific.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Still, who cares what Iraqis think?

 

What happened to being concerned about what other people think of us? Or does that only apply to European countries?

[RCow]

What happened to being concerned about what other people think of us?    Or does that only apply to European countries?

79424[/snapback]

 

Penalty. Ten yards for inserting words in another's mouth.

 

I did NOT say anything regard to what Iraqis think of the US. That is not the issue here. The reason to invade Iraq to spend untold billions and sacrifice thousands of American lives to improve the Iraqis standard of living. Bush is now claiming the war of terror is on track because the standard of living in Iraq went from a D minus to a C minus.

 

If Bush really wants to make a nation's citizens happy and improve a standard of living he would invade Sudan.

[_BiB_]

Penalty.  Ten yards for inserting words in another's mouth. 

 

I did NOT say anything regard to what Iraqis think of the US.  That is not the issue here.  The reason to invade Iraq to spend untold billions and sacrifice thousands of American lives to improve the Iraqis standard of living.  Bush is now claiming the war of terror is on track because the standard of living in Iraq went from a D minus to a C minus.

 

If Bush really wants to make a nation's citizens happy and improve a standard of living he would invade Sudan.

79500[/snapback]

 

Where the hell are you geting that from?

[Mickey]

Facts? Most of that piece is made up of the results of Iraqi opinion polls. I recall you taking me to task for quoting opinion polls showing that a majority of Iraqis wanted a withdrawal of coalition forces. You can't have it both ways. Either opinion polls mean nothing, in which case there's very little of substance in that piece or they do mean something, in which case you have to accept that most Iraqis want an end to the occupation. Which is it?

79262[/snapback]

How many were polled in Falluja?

 

It is not possible to take a "random sample" in Iraq right now and random sampling is one of the least accurate polling methods, it is about as accurate as an internet poll. These polls then are just "some evidence" to consider, neither dispositive nor worthless.

[RCow]

Where the hell are you geting that from?

79527[/snapback]

 

From the Adminstration's mouth.

 

We are there to help the Iraq people and make them happy, remember? That was after the excuse of WMDs, ties to Al Quada, a imminent threat and a dozen other reasons were disproven and discarded.

 

You can't seriously contend this Adminstration message not on the news every frickin day. Oh, by the way, that entire article is straight out of the RNC message center.

[DC Tom]

From the Adminstration's mouth. 

 

We are there to help the Iraq people and make them happy, remember?  That was after the excuse of WMDs, ties to Al Quada, a imminent threat and a dozen other reasons were disproven and discarded.

 

You can't seriously contend this Adminstration message not on the news every frickin day.  Oh, by the way, that entire article is straight out of the RNC message center.

79872[/snapback]

 

Problem is, the administration's message has been all over the friggin' map. The justification you quote is only one of maybe a dozen I've heard.

 

So is your quote the administration's message? Yes...and no. Depends on which day of the week it is. Again, their marketing sucks.

[_BiB_]

Funny, it says Los Angeles times.

 

You guys just can't get your hands around ANYTHING that isn't "Bush Bad". I know it's an article on polling, but the sad fact is all that ever gets talked about is what's wrong.

 

Anytime anyone implies that there are things going on in the world that ain't so bad, because we might actually be doing something right, some of you (and you are a bandleader in this regard) trip all over yourselves to post a contrary.

 

And, as I've stated before-I'm not pro Bush. My focus is narrow, based mostly on National Defense. I have a good feel for what works and what doesn't. I also don't think the rest of it matters much if you can't execute your programs because the world economy is in chaos, or Chicago got blown up, so an effective defense policy is very important.

 

Senator Kerry does not have anything resembling an effective Defense/Security platform. None, nadda. I'm sure you will go to his campaign site and tell me why he does, and why I'm wrong. I don't care. The man would make a lot of people happy, you all miss the good old days of Bill Clinton and everyone is entitled to do whatever feels good, but Kerry will be dangerous for America.

 

Why? Because in very simple terms he cares way too much about what "people" think.

[RCow]

Funny, it says Los Angeles times.

79883[/snapback]

 

Los Angelas Times? I've almost given up explaning that because a commentary piece is in a so-called liberal newspaper it doesn't mean it's friggin journalistic news. It's the same as pointing to a Molly Ivins piece in the Washington Times and someone says "this is what the conservative Times said."

 

Commentary is commentary. The guy is a Republican political hack who's "opinion" is straight out of the RNC.

 

You and others trip all over yourself to say it's all the media's fault and that the Democrats have made up the fact that Bush's Iraq policy is a disaster. When "evidence" to the contrary is presented it is NEVER qualified -- posters never admit that the piece has a political campaign agenda to re-elect Bush (though Kerry supporters do the same). That's what most commentary pieces do -- and those we don't know by name even try to disquise their opinion as journalistic fact. VERY few commentators have credibility (Friedman is one).

 

You no doubt have a lot of defense experience and knowledge but there are just as many people I personally know and respect on security and national defense who have a very different opinion than you. That doesn't make you wrong and them right but it certainly doesn't help when you post articles written by a Republican political hack as evidence that the Iraq policy is an overall positive. It's just not credible.

 

Moreover, it's a bit bewildering to hear that reason you think Kerry is dangerous is because he cares what people think. My Lord, the Apocolypse is upon us. President's who care what people think -- don't we all know that Republican president's are infallible gods, a defacto Sons of the Almighty, all knowing with the devine hand that will guide us through difficult times.

 

I fear Bush because he truly believes God wanted him to be president. He's incapable of introspection, he is "resolute" because he does not have the ability to reason. He's the proverbial captain of the Titanic who stands with great resolve to stay the course and not listen to those limpwrists who suggest a new heading. Bush cannot admit a mistake or say he has learned a single lesson. I want a President who does value the opinion of others and is strong enough to admit when they are wrong.

 

Bush: Strong, resolute and dead wrong.

[_BiB_]

Los Angelas Times?  I've almost given up explaning that because a commentary piece is in a so-called liberal newspaper it doesn't mean it's friggin journalistic news.  It's the same as pointing to a Molly Ivins piece in the Washington Times and someone says "this is what the conservative Times said." 

 

Commentary is commentary.  The guy is a Republican political hack who's "opinion" is straight out of the RNC. 

 

You and others trip all over yourself to say it's all the media's fault and that the Democrats have made up the fact that Bush's Iraq policy is a disaster.  When "evidence" to the contrary is presented it is NEVER qualified -- posters never admit that the piece has a political campaign agenda to re-elect Bush (though Kerry supporters do the same).  That's what most commentary pieces do -- and those we don't know by name even try to disquise their opinion as journalistic fact.  VERY few commentators have credibility (Friedman is one).

 

You no doubt have a lot of defense experience and knowledge but there are just as many people I personally know and respect on security and national defense who have a very different opinion than you.  That doesn't make you wrong and them right but it certainly doesn't help when you post articles written by a Republican political hack as evidence that the Iraq policy is an overall positive.  It's just not credible. 

 

Moreover, it's a bit bewildering to hear that reason you think Kerry is dangerous is because he cares what people think.  My Lord, the Apocolypse is upon us.  President's who care what people think -- don't we all know that Republican president's are infallible gods, a defacto Sons of the Almighty, all knowing with the devine hand that will guide us through difficult times. 

 

I fear Bush because he truly believes God wanted him to be president.  He's incapable of introspection, he is "resolute" because he does not have the ability to reason.  He's the proverbial captain of the Titanic who stands with great resolve to stay the course and not listen to those limpwrists who suggest a new heading.  Bush cannot admit a mistake or say he has learned a single lesson.  I want a President who does value the opinion of others and is strong enough to admit when they are wrong.   

 

Bush: Strong, resolute and dead wrong.

79927[/snapback]

 

I'm sure many would disagree and also, on the other hand agree, but I respect you for that post. I really do. I'm serious,

 

I also have to deal with things, real world, real time. I don't think more than a few have caught my drift. We are in a war, and most of America doesn't get that. Prosecuting a war most often doesn't do well for campaign adds. You fight wars to win. This is a very, very bizzare war-because we have never been faced with this type of adversary as a primary. You think this stevestojan is easy? Cool, you work it.