Poll: Iraqis out of patience By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group. The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. (Related item: Key findings) But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers." That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him. The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters. The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings. "I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye." 'I would shoot ... right now' Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions. POLL METHODOLOGY The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 3,444 Iraqis, the largest and most comprehensive poll in Iraq since last year’s invasion, was administered by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai. Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent’s home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate — the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed — was 98%. Two of the three governates in the predominantly Kurdish region, which has its own administrative agencies and has been largely independent from Baghdad for the past decade, did not participate in the poll. To have a full representation of Kurdish views in the poll, additional interviews in the third governate, Sulaymaniya, were conducted. The margin of sampling error for the poll is +/- two percentage points. The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people. The Bush administration has contended that the growing resistance, which has killed at least 115 Americans this month, is the work of isolated cells of former regime members or religious fanatics, often from outside Iraq. Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq. "I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people." Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans." In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do. Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them. "When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner. Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example: Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire. 58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly. 60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques. 46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women. Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water. The Defense Department, which was shown the survey results Wednesday, said it doesn't respond to polls. But in a statement, it noted that Iraqis say their lives are getting better and said that the fact the poll could be taken indicated increased freedom in Iraq. Secondhand information That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience. Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now) Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC. More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents. Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers." GROWING RESENTMENT "I'm not ungrateful they took away Saddam Hussein ... But the job is done." — Salam Ahmed, Shiite businessman Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation." He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again." The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush. Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren't shooting. Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, "sarcastic smile. You see it every day. ... We're always the last one to find out when we run over a mine." "I can see their point of view," says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. "If anyone rolled up on my street, I'd be pissed, too." Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues. Everywhere else in Iraq, it's a different story. Not surprisingly, the Sunni strongholds that benefited most from Saddam's regime are the most negative in their opinion of the new Iraq. Fewer than 20% of people in those areas call the war's outcome positive. Iraqis expected huge improvements in all aspects of their economy within weeks of Saddam's overthrow, and most say there have been at least some improvements. But a year after Bush declared major hostilities in Iraq over, the poll shows: Nearly half of Iraqis still report long, frequent power blackouts. Nearly a third lack clean drinking water much of the time. Almost everywhere except in the Kurdish north, most people are afraid to leave their homes at night. 'You can't buy love' In Baghdad, which has seen the most change — good and bad — since the war, residents say they can feel the boost to the economy that has come from foreign aid and the opening of the country's borders. While many say that they are earning far more than they did before the invasion, they yearn for the safety and stability of the past. "The freedoms they gave us are satellite television, Thurayas (satellite telephones) and mobile telephones. And you can drive a car without a license," says Resha Namir, 20, a computer science major at Baghdad University. But "I can't even go out because I'm afraid that any minute we will die. The war was not worth it." Some are more positive. Lauran Waliyah, 46, a restaurant manager and Christian who supported Saddam, says her experience with the Americans has been good. Once, when a madman with a knife entered her business, soldiers came to help, she says. "It is unfair to ask for the departure of the U.S. troops," she says. But the hostility reflected in the poll is a message that the troops understand, says Monks, the Marine lance corporal. "They don't want us here," he says. "They want to rebuild their own country. We're trying to Americanize their life. You can't buy love."
Not dumb at all, if you put yourself in their shoes. How long would you put up with a foreign army of occupiers walking down the streets of your city?
it is not dumb, ironic or stupiud Iraqi's are fiercly nationalistic and they are showing their desire for independance. They want to have their own country, formed and founded by Iraqis, not Americans. They are willing to deal with harsher conditions in the short-term in order to form their country to their own wishes. Like John said on The Daily Show, they want their own story, not one handed to them.
yeah and if we get out too soon then we'll be blamed for things going to crap. so its kind of a catch 22.
I totally agree. Not pretty. There may be a razor-thin rate at which we can pull out without two many more dead soldiers (thought there were 10 more today) and without Iraq falling into complete civil war.
Like many things in life appreciation often comes too late. If we leave and all hell breaks loose, we will be missed. And we will be blamed. Will our national sacrifice then be appreciated by the world who, in significant numbers, stood by and watched and criticized.... all the while hoping for a contract or two.
Obviously, we are not leaving Iraq any time soon. The only ones spreading that myth are the GOP talking heads who decry the fictional liberals who want to "cut and run." Besides, we ARE to blame for what happens in Iraq, WE STARTED A PREEMPTIVE WAR! On top of that, we did it based on faulty "intelligence" and exaggerated claims. The rest of the world were RIGHT when they criticized us for ignoring their concerns and the UN treaties. We have been led into this mess by an administration that has proven itself to be horrible at interpreting intelligence, awful at planning for a war, and stunningly inept at building coalitions. It is time to elect a principled, courageous veteran who has a real vision for the direction this country needs to go.
Iraq is the "Pottery Barn" rule come to life. We own Iraq. We will be blamed for the bad things that happen and we will get credit for the good things that happen. Because this was a preemptive war, we own it.
Hey the world will have to wait for contracts until after the line of Republican faithful has been emptied.
I understand what you're saying, but I find it kind of ironic that it could really be our fault in any significant way. Now that their greed is unchecked by a tyrant (Saddam not US), they can't live civilly.
giddyup, you neglect the issue of responsibility. If you invade and occupy a country, you are responsible for providing security. If you fire all the policemen and the entire military, it is incumbent upon the occupier to provide security. I don't think the Bushies have withdrawn from the first Geneva Convention treaties yet. edit: and even if they had, for the guys who said they were bringing accountability back to the white house, it's a copout to claim otherwise. At this point Kerry should run on that slogan - bringing accountability back to the white house.
Can you blame them for wanting to rout out corruption. Haven't they just announced that they are re-hiring ousted Baathist police and military-- an acknowledgement that their routing out may have been over-exhuberant. We are providing security for the nation-- training their own citizens-- and the Baathists, Fedayen, and Al Quaedans are trying to kill them off along with innocent Iraquis. I wonder how many innocent Iraqis they have killed compared to those we have killed? Keyword is innocent.
I am ignoring the innocents since that is covered in another thread on its own merits. That we are twelve months after we conquered the entire country and it's not safe for anyone to go out after dark means we screwed the pooch early, middle and late on security. Twelve months of overexuberance would get most people fired in the real world, but not with the Bushies. Not enough troops early. Disbanding the army and police early. Nothing changes for twelve months except we seem to have an awful lot of expensive contractors providing *security* for other contractors, and a measly battalion or two of native security forces. The guerillas are better at arming themselves than we are at equipping the native security forces. The only ones that show up are desperate for work, and the only ones that fight, want to fight their sectarian enemies, i.e. Kurds versus Arabs.
Lou Dobbs, of CNN, interviewed President Reagan's Director of the National Security Agency, Ret. General William Odom, tonight. Here's the transcript and it has some surprising comments in it from General Odom: DOBBS: My next guest says the United States has failed in Iraq and it should leave immediately. General William Odom directed the National Security Agency under President Reagan, served on President Carter's National Security Council. He is the co-author of a new book called "America's Inadvertent Empire." And General Odom joins us tonight from Washington, D.C. General, good to have you with us. RET. GEN. WILLIAM ODOM, AUTHOR, "AMERICA'S INADVERTENT EMPIRE": Thank you. DOBBS: There are many people who know you, who have great respect for your service to the nation, including your military service, who are shocked that you would say, it's time to withdraw from Iraq. Why have you -- how have you come to that conclusion? ODOM: Well, I reached the conclusion before we went in that it was not in the U.S. interest. And I actually -- I didn't publish anything. But I at least said to people who asked me that the issue wasn't whether we would be greeted as liberators when we came in, but how we would be treated six months after we're there. And the idea that we could create a constitutional regime that would be pro-U.S. in a short period of time there struck me as pure fantasy. I must say, I found it hard to believe that the administration internally could make that argument convincingly to themselves. And I've just sort of been quiet since. But it seems now there is enough evidence where I can at least say not that I told you so, but that it really doesn't pay -- I would like very much to be wrong on this, but I don't see how it pays the United States to continue to go down this path. And to understand that, you have to really I think analyze it at the Iraqi level, the regional level and particularly the international European level. DOBBS: Well, let's talk about it, if we may, first, from the standpoint -- there are those who will be listening to you say this and say, my God, we've got to support our troops. Irrespective of the ultimate strategic decision about withdrawal and at what point or whether we achieve success and at what point. Are you concerned about this kind of discussion first and foremost having an impact on American troops in Iraq? ODOM: The word I've heard from what was written about me in the "Wall Street Journal" is that the troops seem to like it, or at least the ones who I have. You know, the troops are not dumb about this business. They were not very happy, if you remember. Some of them even spoke out, naming the secretary of defense last year about his policy there. And because we have vastly too few army troops to do what the administration wants to do over there, they're really feeling the pain. So I don't think this kind of discussion would create that reaction among the troops. In fact, quite the contrary. DOBBS: As you say General, they're the ones who feel the pain and it is their blood that is, unfortunately, being spilled. Let's talk about Fallujah, if we may, from first the tactical standpoint. Your suggestion, your consideration as to what it means for the future of Iraq. The Pentagon cannot confirm that a deal is in place, or chooses not to. We are told it is being handled by a tactical level in which generals from Saddam Hussein's army would be moved in with an Iraqi army, U.S. marines withdraw. This sounds -- give us your characterization, your assessment of what is going on. ODOM: It's very confusing to me. I don't know why they would do that. Maybe there are reasons we just don't know from afar with the information we have. But I don't see how turning it over into an Iraqi general now that we have been working with for a good period of time is a wise thing to do. It might tamper things down in Fallujah temporarily. But my judgment about whether to continue down this path isn't based on whether we could stop the violence in Fallujah right now, but suppose we did. We're still on a downward course. The battles we're seeing right now are with the residual parts of the old Baathists Sunni regime, we haven't begun the big fight yet with the Sunnis except with Muqtada al-Sadr. And that may give you a little idea what we can face at that level. DOBBS: As you know, General, there are those who say that if we do not bring Fallujah, Najaf to successful conclusion, if we are indeed, not successful in Iraq itself in bringing about at least the incipient form of democracy for Iraq, that we have simply invited greater problems for the western world in terms of radical Islamist terrorism and that we will be paying a very high price in the future. How do you respond? ODOM: Well, I said those things before we went in. I said we'll make it safe for al Qaeda and that we'll please Iran enormously, because they hated Saddam. I think Osama bin Laden couldn't be more pleased. I'm concerned about putting our resources against al Qaeda and stabilizing the larger region. And what I think this is doing is undercutting the U.S. international authority for stabilizing the region at large. And we've let the tactical focus on Saddam completely unhinge our military commitments from a larger strategic interest of stabilizing that region and defeating al Qaeda. And you've got this brilliant military, which has performed marvelously. It is unprecedented in military anals what they've been able to do. But military power, unless it is directed to some sensible, achievable political end, has no purpose. What I see here is an unhinging of our military capabilities from our political strategy. And that's what I think we have to pull back, pay the price for, in order to keep from wasting more resources, regain the support of our allies and then try to take charge of a larger region in a way where we're not dealing on just our resources with the rest of the world standing off and enjoying our pain, but with the rest of the world cooperating with us. DOBBS: General William Odom, thank you for being here. Always good to talk with you. ODOM: Thank you. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/29/ldt.01.html I highlighted parts of the interview for those who like to skim, but the whole thing is very surprising. This is very a very smart military man with deep experience. I saw the interview on CNN with Dobbs, one of their more conservative anchors, and couldn't believe what I was hearing, considering who Odom is. Food for thought, to be sure.
I can save the conservatives the trouble of rebuttal, "this general, Clark, Zinni, and Shinseki and all those West Point educated know nothings have no idea what's going on at the ground level. The soldiers there love it and feel appreciated. It's just not being reported because of a conspiracy in the American press."
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/...mand=viewone&op=t&id=66&rnd=598.4773668652888 By David H. Hackworth In blood-spattered Iraq, seasoned American soldiers and extraordinarily capable retired U.S. Army sergeants currently employed by the Vinnell Corporation have been busting their butts trying to forge a post-Saddam Iraqi army. It’s probably the most daunting task either of these outfits has ever faced – and both have plenty of experience turning rabble into effective fighting machines. Today’s gold standard in this type of exercise is the U.S. Army’s molding of the South Korean army, which pound for mean pound has become one of the best-trained and disciplined armies in the world. This time around, the master plan calls for standing up 27 Iraqi battalions by the end of the year. Four battalions have graduated, but the 1st Battalion is already on its second commander. The first CO got bounced after only a few months for wheeling and dealing the way it used to work under the previous regime and the way it worked for countless centuries before Saddam Hussein shot his way into dictatorship. Although Uncle Deep Pockets has sunk almost $100 million into this effort, none of the units is considered combat-ready. On average, all have about 25 percent of their soldiers on leave and 20 percent AWOL at any one time. A Vinnell trainer says: “No one wants to rate them combat-ready because this is too risky – it would mean somebody’s career slides down the tubes if one of these units got whipped. However, no one wanted to rate them not combat-ready either, because that would imply that all the money, time and effort devoted to these units had been wasted.” Yet our high brass has been stating that the training of the Iraqi army is already a tremendous success. Nothing is being said about most of the Kurds refusing to serve because of their feelings toward the Arabs. Nor that a lot of the men volunteering for the Iraqi army are of poor quality and seem to be signing up only for a quick buck: They join for a few weeks and then quit after they’ve picked up a few dinars. In one day alone last month, 139 NCO School candidates handed in their quit slips because they were Arabs who couldn’t get along with Kurds or visa versa, or they didn’t like the training or were just homesick and headed out the front gate. It’s rush, rush, rush to field an Iraqi army – regardless of quality – to replace our overextended forces. Otherwise, there’s no way we'll ever be able to execute our nonexistent exit plan. . . .
