Rasmussen: 54% Favor Leaving US Troops to Stabilize Iraq

Can it get any more bizarre that this?!

What does this say about the times we are living in? You don’t need anything more than simple common sense to understand that the US troops are to a significant extent the source of the instability in Iraq. Radicals from all over the region are going there specifically to attack the Americans and destabilise anything the Americans are trying to do. I hope this isn’t news to anyone, but the man on the street there very much dislikes America. Consequently the war has come to be about American intervention/occupation in the ME, and not about freeing the people of Iraq. If this administration cared at all about the people of Iraq they would hand over control of the Iraq operations to the UN and get the US troops out of Iraq. They are nothing more than lightening rods that are drawing radicals to Iraq. They are needlessly bringing an external war to Iraq, and with it death and destruction to innocent Iraqis. Saddam was a terrible guy, but if he is removed only to leave something worse then you have hurt the people, not helped them. Even an idiot can understand this it’s so simple.

Can’t win the war on terror without stabilizing Iraq?! We know clearly now that the two are unrelated. Heck, we knew that before the war started. Saddam was not only secular, but even by moderate Islamic standards he and his family were wonton sinners and infidels. He was not even close to being a zealot for establishing a Muslim state. He even had a “Christian” minister in his cabinet. In the end Saddam didn’t even have enough connections outside Iraq to even get himself out, never mind being part of some international terrorist organisation. …and still a significant percentage of the American public has been convinced that he was part of some radical Muslim terrorist group?! If the American public is susceptible to that kind of clear and transparent disinformation then we are living in very very dangerous times indeed.

 

This is why most polls are stupid. There are what, 275 million people in America?? And they poll 1,000 and since 540 say one thing as oppossed to another, most Americans must also think that way.

 

Depends on the poll.

If it is done right and follows scientific methods, polls with a small sample size of a few thousands can be accurate to within 3-4%.

 

It says that Rasmussen is a really bad polling service, which they are. There are only a couple of really legit polling services in the US and Rasmussen is not one of them.

Scott Rasmussen is actually a conservative commentator and writer, so it is hard to gauge his polls with any degree of accuracy when it comes to politics.

 

I have no experience or knowledge polling, but I just can't fathom 1,000 people being a big enough sample size. I mean there are at least 1,000 different boxes you could fit people in (black, white, asian, european, hispanic, jewish, christian, muslim, gay, male, female, liberal, republican, old, young, rural, urban, college educated, blue collar, white collar, etc, etc, etc and any combination therewithin) to have it be even somewhat accurate. I'd certainly be surprised if even 15% of the 1,000 people surveyed share at least 50% of my views - again, there are too many different views to take a stance on...just my highly non-scientific opinion.

 

Yes, I am. The only polling organization I have even marginal faith in is Gallup. Beyond that, the only one's that really have merit are one's done by individual groups hired by political organizations because their tracking is much more detailed.

Rasmussen has been criticized by many pollsters for having flawed and inexact methods. I remember reading an article where a noted pollster referred to him as the Fox News of polling.

 

Good read
http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp

 

I wonder what the % of Iraqis who want us gone is. I'd guess, uh, overwhelming majority?

Isn't democracy one of the post-war ever-changing justifications this administration came up with? If so, shouldn't Iraqis' desire be respected by us, especially this beacon of freedom and democracy administration? Oops, my bad, our style of freedom and democracy only flow one way in our pre-determined style. Anything else is just wrong! And anyone who dares to question it is unpatriotic!

 

I'm going to disagree on a couple of points, though I agree on the important stuff.

Yes, the Iraq war had absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror and I personally believe that Bush&Co. had decided long, long beforehand to invade and used lies and fear tactics to rally support.

However, that was then and this is now. Right now stabilizing Iraq is indeed connected to the war on terror- because if we don't succeed in creating a secular democracy there, and especially if we leave and civil war erupts (which it will) then we're going to have another Afghanistan- a country of death and war and bloodshed and hatred, where hate-based fundamentalist religion can take hold and terrorist organizations can find hundreds, thousands of recruits. The sick irony of it is that where it had nothing to do with terrorism before- by invading, Bush made it so. Just sick and wrong. But of course, he's the candidate that will make our country safe.

I agree that many 'jihad warriors' are flocking to Iraq to battle the Great Satan, America. However, if you think that if we pull out our troops, the jihadists will just go away, you're gravely mistaken. A civil war Iraq won't just be the new Afghanistan- it will be an Afghanistan with the worlds second largest oil reserves. Many different parties will be involved in the struggle for power. Remember, they're right between Iran with the Mullahs and Syria, not to mention the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Kurds wanting to separate from south Turkey, the Sunnis and Shiites, etc.

I absolutely can't understand why anyone that cares about the lives of Iraqi civilians would want us to withdraw our troops. There is going to be civil war when that happens- sh*t, it might happen with us there. And if it happens, it will be absolute, total carnage and bloodshed. What's the body count right now? A bit over a thousand US soldier and estimates of 3 to 6 thousand Iraqis dead? That will be nothing- nothing compared to the bloodshed when civil war breaks out. AK47's and RPG's and mortars are available like bubble gum. Unlike the guerilla tactics used now against a superior armed opponent, we'll have week long battles between evenly matched armies with tons of casualties and plenty of civilians caught in the middle. Two weeks, one month of civil war and we'll all be pining for the days when we had the occasional guerilla attack and car bomb.

I don't like saying this but we have to do this right, and the only way to do it right is to have a massive presence there. Tons of soldiers on the ground. If anybody thinks we're unopopular now, then wait and see if we leave Iraq to crumble into civil war- we will be totally despised, and rightfully so for making a mess and then not cleaning it up.

 

Okay, cute, I'll put in a smiley.

I don't like saying it because it means committing a lot of our boys there. Many of them will die. Getting it right is important of course- but the road ahead is nasty.

And it's Bush's fault that it's nasty. It didn't have to be like this.

 

is it saddam's fault we're shooting them?

 

Jeff:
That makes sense. The answers to the questions give the impression that the questions were based on faulty premises, i.e. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes No Check one.


Nolan:
I’ll agree with much of what you’re saying, clarify some points, offer some suggestions on what to do, and more importantly offer some project management based ideas on how to think about the problem in ways that will work toward a best possible solution.

I almost completely agree. We have to deal with what exists now and the threat this situation poses, but the way we got here is also a significant element in this situation. I agree with you that the Bush administration lied to the world, and used some extremely underhanded techniques to manipulate both its own people and governments around the world. That has a major impact on things such as trust and respect, and those factors play a major part in the degree to which a person or a country will buy into an agreement and carry through with it. I’ll get into more specifics later on.

We wouldn’t withdraw the troops without having a better solution. But even with that said, I’m sure some would argue with some solid basis that the American presence is slowly and steadily making things worse. If that’s the case then even more marginal alternate solutions start to become worth thinking about.

Agreed with one completely off topic correction. The US government just reclassified Alberta’s oil sands as recoverable oil (a sensible decision given that we’ve been mining them since the 60’s ) and that reclassification makes Canada #2 behind Saudi Arabia. Just a bit of trivia that is almost completely irrelevant to what we’re talking about .

The estimates I’ve heard are between 13,000 and 15,000 Iraqi dead. And let me clarify, I’m not proposing pulling out without thinking about and addressing the potential consequences. That’s just as bad as going in without thinking through the consequences. It would be the same kind of short sighted thinking. In planning a complex project with lots of stakeholders and lots of high risk issues you need to think big picture and long term. What are you aiming at? What is the preferred end result for Iraq? What will the surrounding area look like, i.e. all of the stakeholder countries and groups. Now, how can you realistically get from A to B? That’s the starting point. Now you run through some scenarios and you will undoubtedly come across some previously unidentified problems and opportunities, and you also inevitably have to adjust you picture of the end result based on this broader understanding.

I disagree with your solution because I think it doesn’t lead to the desired end result. As you have correctly pointed out, Iraq now has the potential to be a terrorist breading ground, and that potential is largely based on the hated and perceived illegitimacy and oppression by the US. So, not making this worse and indeed diminishing it is a major success parameter. This is a key, a fundamental goal of the project if one is trying to address terrorism.

What should have been done initially was to plan for a complete withdrawal of US troops in the policing stage. Having them there during this time was a guaranteed loser, so stupid it’s mind boggling. I don’t think any other army could have taken out Saddam as quickly and easily as the Americans did. At the same time no other army would have been worse to leave in the country as a homing beacon and target practice for all those in the greater region who what the project to fail, and who just want to take shots at the Americans, and there are a lot of these latter ones for a number of different reasons. What you need in a police force is a group that has the appearance at least of neutrality. This is common sense, is it not? The American army would not have had that to begin with but considering further, as you have correctly pointed out, the lies and deceit with which this war was launched, not only the man on the street in the ME but the whole world is now absolutely convinced that this US administration had ulterior motives. It has a hidden agenda and therefore clearly its army is as far from neutral or trustworthy as it gets.

The problems this creates are both numerous and huge. In order for any policing act to succeed anywhere in almost any circumstance you can think of you need to have the support of the people. It is ultimately Joe average, or Mohammad average, who will either report the criminals or turn a blind eye to them or even aid them. Think of a neighbourhood where there is a lot of gang activity. The police need people to believe in them and to report the criminals in order for the police to be effective. If the people don’t trust the cops they won’t report them and the gangs will rule. Well, very few people in Iraq trust the US army, for the reasons we’ve outlined. This makes them, like the police in any such situation, almost guaranteed losers.

What is needed is a neutral police force, one the people trust and can believe in. For starters we can think about UN forces who would clearly have nothing to gain other than to help stabilize the situation. We could also work on a broad based alliance of countries in the region, all the key stakeholders. At this point some of them may be thinking that they have more to gain by waiting for this all to crash, for the Americans to be discredited, and for their opportunity to exert their influence over the scraps that remain. But, if momentum for such a coalition could be generated then countries would be faced with either being in or out of this group that would be helping to police and usher Iraq into a new stabilised state, and having a say in some parts of how that happens. There are lots of subtle and not so subtle details to this. Obviously you couldn’t have the Turks policing the Kurds, but perhaps you could have the Turks policing the southern areas and the Egyptians policing the Kurdish areas. The deployment, who and where, would have to be carefully thought through but you get my idea. This would help put such a coalition in a position to have their reputations resting on the success of the project. In other words they would come off as looking good and as having exercised responsible power over the rehabilitation of a country of their people in their region, something that would have powerful symbolism in an area that still feels the yoke of imperialism, both past and present. Otoh, if they fail they lose face and perhaps lose the ability to be architects in the emerging new identify of the Arab world. I hope you get my general idea. I’m not suggesting that all the real power be handed over to such a group, but I am suggesting that it would be put in a situation where they would stand to gain significantly in reputation and perceived power (not material gain), through the success of the project, and whereby they would lose same if they fail. Such a group could also keep track of each other to keep anybody from playing any games that would jeopardise the success of the group. The UN could also be credibly involved and even central, but the reputation of the US is shot to **** and I don’t think anyone else would be involved in such an agreement if the US had any significant power in it. They could possibly be coerced into being involved but the whole thing would be tainted because no one on the street in the ME, or Calgary for that matter, trusts the motives of this administration anymore. They lied to us and we won’t trust them again. (Thankfully in this internet age it’s much easier for us non-Americans to understand that it’s really just this administration and not the US as a whole. That’s a huge factor, IMO, in this and many other issues to come.)

More detail could be added but hopefully this gives a general idea of big picture project management style thinking and the continual refinement of the chain of details and events (more specifically this is for large, high uncertainly, high risk, one off type projects) and maybe the result of even this brief exercise is a useful idea or two. If we ran though this a few more times, always keeping in mind the larger pool of stakeholders and the long term, big picture, success parameters, we would discover/uncover even better ideas. It’s a process that really works, but it relies on one’s ability to question one’s own background assumptions, to learn, and to do the work to think through to the big picture solutions.

It’s easy to jump to black and white conclusions. They are evil. We are good. Let’s round up the good guys and go get the evil guys. But that level of simplicity, and ego, only ends up getting blindsided and ending up lost and confused, where we are now with Iraq, for example. There’s no free lunch. You have to do the work and be humble and learn and keep learning in order to get to the good solutions.

 

If you play on the freeway and get hit by a car, whose fault is it? It absolutely is Bush’s fault for not understanding, at least to a much higher degree, what he was getting into.

 

It is Bush's fault that the situation is out of control. He was warned of these possibilities and he failed to take his own advice...

"the force must be strong enough so that mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

-George W Bush - 2000 Presidential debates against Al Gore.