Making Sense of USA Today Iraqi Poll Results

[inspectorgadget]

A poll that was sponsored by USA TODAY, ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp. and ARD, a German TV network recently occurred in Iraq from February 25 to March 5. Interviewers surveyed 2,212 Iraqi's in 458 Iraqi Communities.


Sites in each of Iraq's 18 provinces were surveyed. To ensure a random sample, interviewers were told to walk down the street and stop at every third house on the left, according to Matthew Warshaw of D3 Systems.

These are the numbers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/iraqpoll/poll1/flash.htm), and what follows are the ones that interest me the most:

How do you feel about the way the national government of Iraq has carried out its responsibilities? 53% say "Bad Job"

Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? 78% oppose

How long do you think U.S. and other coalition forces should remain in Iraq? 35% say leave now, 65% say remain "with conditions"

Do you believe the execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out in an appropriate or inappropriate manner? 50% appropriate, 49% inappropriate

69% disapprove of the way Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki has done his job

36% of Iraqi's say that bringing more US Forces into Baghdad will make life better, 38% say it will make life worse, and 26% say there will be no effect.


58% believe that in the future Iraq should stay unified, 28% say it should be split into regional states, while 14% say it should be split into independent states.

I THINK THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT: 34% say their future political system should be "Strong Leader." 22% say "Islamic State". 43% say "DEMOCRACY".

53% say the system of government they will MOST LIKELY HAVE in 5 years will be a DEMOCRACY. 24% say ISLAMIC STATE, and 22% say STRONG LEADER.

43% believe that they will most likely continue to have a single unified Iraq 5 years from now, 34% say Regional States, and 23% say INDEPENDENT states.

[inspectorgadget]

It appears that the majority of Iraqi's want democracy.

What I have a difficult time understanding is the fact that 78% oppose the occupying forces, yet 65% say they should remain with "conditions."

What would these "conditions" be?

I'm more torn than ever now about this war... I think it's such a shame that the administration botched things up so bad at the start, because it seems likely that we could have succeeded.

All that needed to happen was patience on their part, and the smarts to listen to the generals that said we were drastically underestimating the amount of forces that would be needed from the beginning (they wanted to do it for as cheap as they could get away with, so they gambled.)

Anyway, I don't think this administration is going to be able to fix Iraq... they just don't have the credibility around the world. And we NEED support from the rest of the industrialized world, I mean large scale commitment. This is so unfortunate, considering the mindset of the Iraqi people... who despite how horrifying their lives are now, 53% still believe there will be democracy in 5 years... and I bet that number was much higher 3 years ago.

[Meliora]

I've always found it odd when newscasters make claims in an authoritive tone going something like "the majority of american have such and such opinion on such and such issue" because of a poll based on 3,000 people.

[Mr Pink]

It appears that the majority of Iraqi's want democracy.

No it doesn't. Only 43% wanted democracy. The rest were split between "strong leader" and "islamic state".

[Madrigal]

You'd also have to consider the possibility that a citizen in an occupied country might be too scared to answer some of those questions truthfully.

[inspectorgadget]

No it doesn't. Only 43% wanted democracy. The rest were split between "strong leader" and "islamic state".

I said that it appears that way, as more than half expect their to be a democracy in 5 years. I'm sure that more than 43% want democracy, but no longer believe it's possible to the point where they have given up all hope and just say they want the "strong leader" or even "islamic state" so that they can be secure...

I really am not expecting such short sightedness from you guys... this poll is pretty clear to me.

Yeah and this...


I've always found it odd when newscasters make claims in an authoritive tone going something like "the majority of american have such and such opinion on such and such issue" because of a poll based on 3,000 people.

Do you seriously believe polls are in no way representative of a populations view? You're kidding me, right? Bush's approval rating today is probably completely meaningless then... I bet everyone just loves what he's doing, and the polls are just some sort of statistical anomaly day in and day out. I suppose that the ability of the press to figure out who won specific areas in elections just by asking every 3rd-5th person that walks out who they voted for is too...

Does no one have an opinion about this? Does this not make anyone stop and go "HMMMM??"

These numbers have meaning. Don't try to trivialize them... People risked their lives to get this information. Some of the interviewers were even kidnapped, although their names have not been released yet. I'm guessing they are dead.

[inspectorgadget]

You'd also have to consider the possibility that a citizen in an occupied country might be too scared to answer some of those questions truthfully.


Okay now that is a decent response... but I don't believe it's the case. They sent fellow Shiite into Shiite territory, Sunni into Sunni Territory, Kurd into Kurd Territory... They gave the people the option to just refuse to talk, and some did. 3/10 refused to say anything.

[Meliora]

Do you seriously believe polls are in no way representative of a populations view? You're kidding me, right? Bush's approval rating today is probably completely meaningless then... I bet everyone just loves what he's doing, and the polls are just some sort of statistical anomaly day in and day out. I suppose that the ability of the press to figure out who won specific areas in elections just by asking every 3rd-5th person that walks out who they voted for is too...

You misunderstood my post. I don't dispute the validity of the polls, but to base hundreds of millions of peoples overall opinion on something based on a fraction of a precent of that number of people always seemed odd to me from a statistical view. I was just making that personal observation, not trying to dispute the poll results you posted about, which I'm sure are valid for much of the Iraqi population that wasn't polled.

[Jennywocky]

Actuallly, statistically, after a certain point, if the sample is truly random and covers the demographics fairly, you should get a pretty good reading on the bulk of the population. (Part of the job of the statistician is to determine how large a sample is needed to accurately reflect the whole -- whether we're talking polls or simply a scientific experiment of some sort.)

Polls are good enough that we've used them to detect cheating in national elections for other countries.

The trick is to make sure that you are truly sampling a fair representation of the group in question.

[HilbertSpace]

Actuallly, statistically, after a certain point, if the sample is truly random and covers the demographics fairly, you should get a pretty good reading on the bulk of the population. (Part of the job of the statistician is to determine how large a sample is needed to accurately reflect the whole -- whether we're talking polls or simply a scientific experiment of some sort.)

Polls are good enough that we've used them to detect cheating in national elections for other countries.

The trick is to make sure that you are truly sampling a fair representation of the group in question.

I think the two major sources of bias are selection bias and question wording bias.

Selection bias can come from anything ranging from method of polling (telephone survey versus asking questions of people in a local market, for example), to self-selection on the part of poll subjects (I, for example, rarely consent to be polled, and I suspect a lot of people with a similar temperament do the same).

Wording bias is an insidious problem, and it attacks from both sides of the poll. From the side of the subject, the interpretation of the question affects the answer - I've read studies in which identical question sets were read aloud by poll takers who had different opinions on the subject, and the poll results correlated with the poll taker's opinions. The bias persists on the interpretation side, where people tend to interpret the response to a given question in light of their own unstated assumptions.

I'd like to see polls start using a mix of wordings for the same questions (say, three different sets of questions which are all asking the same thing, but are worded differently).

[inspectorgadget]

I think the two major sources of bias are selection bias and question wording bias.

Selection bias can come from anything ranging from method of polling (telephone survey versus asking questions of people in a local market, for example), to self-selection on the part of poll subjects (I, for example, rarely consent to be polled, and I suspect a lot of people with a similar temperament do the same).

Wording bias is an insidious problem, and it attacks from both sides of the poll. From the side of the subject, the interpretation of the question affects the answer - I've read studies in which identical question sets were read aloud by poll takers who had different opinions on the subject, and the poll results correlated with the poll taker's opinions. The bias persists on the interpretation side, where people tend to interpret the response to a given question in light of their own unstated assumptions.

I'd like to see polls start using a mix of wordings for the same questions (say, three different sets of questions which are all asking the same thing, but are worded differently).

We are way off topic. Unless anyone has some kind of genuine concern with the way this poll was carried out then I think it's about time we discuss the numbers?

[demagogic_schizoid]

You misunderstood my post. I don't dispute the validity of the polls, but to base hundreds of millions of peoples overall opinion on something based on a fraction of a precent of that number of people always seemed odd to me from a statistical view. I was just making that personal observation, not trying to dispute the poll results you posted about, which I'm sure are valid for much of the Iraqi population that wasn't polled.

So you really think a sample of 3000 Iraqis would be vastly unrepresentative? It's surely going to give a general idea of what people think even if the percentages aren't spot on.

[meshou]

There are all sorts of ways the numbers could be off, but none anyone has actually proved through any research.

I'm sure they're inconvenient enough to somebody to go about debunking, so we'll hear shortly if they stand.

In any case, Iraq is a clusterfuck, and her citizens know it. And that's about it.

[Carebear]

It appears that the majority of Iraqi's want democracy.



No it doesn't. Only 43% wanted democracy. The rest were split between "strong leader" and "islamic state".


I said that it appears that way, as more than half expect their to be a democracy in 5 years.


Why didn't you say expect instead of want in the first place then?




I'm sure that more than 43% want democracy, but no longer believe it's possible to the point where they have given up all hope and just say they want the "strong leader" or even "islamic state" so that they can be secure...


What's the point of bringing the poll results in the first place if you've decided they aren't true, and start making stories about why people really mean something completely different from what the poll shows?




I really am not expecting such short sightedness from you guys... this poll is pretty clear to me.

I really don't understand how you expected people to intuitively understand and accept the way you misinterpreted the poll and made your own fantasy poll, but sure... it's probably short sightedness on our part. :p

[Carebear]

I'm more torn than ever now about this war... I think it's such a shame that the administration botched things up so bad at the start, because it seems likely that we could have succeeded.

All that needed to happen was patience on their part, and the smarts to listen to the generals that said we were drastically underestimating the amount of forces that would be needed from the beginning (they wanted to do it for as cheap as they could get away with, so they gambled.)

Well, the reason why people opposed the war even before it started, was that the only scenario where the US could have succeeded, was where the US replaced Saddam with a new dictator to keep the country stable, and even that would probably have failed, as he would have been seen as an American puppet and would meet much tougher opposition than Saddam did.

The reason why Saddam wasn't taken in 1991, was that nobody saw how to remove him without Iraq dissolving in civil war. The reason why he was taken a decade later, was that the neocons arrogantly convinced themselves that wouldn't be a problem, because... well... because... because everyone wants freedom... uhm... and democracy... uhm... and... uhm... security? (They were probably right by the way, just that the freedom Iraqis wanted was freedom from the unnatural construct called Iraq and freedom from occupation, the democracy they wanted was the right to choose theocracy if they wanted, and the security they wanted... "well, there's no security in any case, so let's at least get rid of one of the agressors".)

Had anyone listened to the generals, there'd be no invasion of Iraq in the first place.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Well, the reason why people opposed the war even before it started, was that the only scenario where the US could have succeeded, was where the US replaced Saddam with a new dictator to keep the country stable,

What's that based on? The US has removed other leaders before without doing this. For example Germany was occupied and this didn't happen. There is no reason why it has to happen in Iraq. People choose their own futures. It's not set in stone that Iraq has to be a failed state forever.

[Carebear]

What's that based on?


Ok, sorry. I guess using "people" was a bit vague. What I meant was that those academics, newspaper articles and protesters who opposed the buildup for war in Iraq in Nov 02 - March 03 often stated that they saw no way of avoiding a civil war and dissolution of Iraq if Saddam was forcibly deposed.



The US has removed other leaders before without doing this. For example Germany was occupied and this didn't happen.

Germany had a completely different history in every respect The arguments against war in Iraq concerned the situation in Iraq specifically, not the US ability to remove leaders in general. Many anti-war people saw no way of removing Saddam without Civil War breaking out, and they didn't believe the US had understood this, as none of the plans seemed to address the issue. If you need a European analogy to Saddam and Iraq, Tito and Yugoslavia works better than Germany.



There is no reason why it has to happen in Iraq. People choose their own futures. It's not set in stone that Iraq has to be a failed state forever.

No, I guess there's no reason why it has to happen in Iraq, but this far, it still seems to be happening just as predicted.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No, I guess there's no reason why it has to happen in Iraq, but this far, it still seems to be happening just as predicted.

Depends how long-term your view of history is and how much you trust the western media.

[C.J.Woolf]

It appears that the majority of Iraqi's want democracy.
The majority of Iraqis are Shiites. If democracy means "tyranny of the majority", then Shiites would be all for it. They'd be for a unified Iraq too -- ruled by Shiites.

That would be payback for centuries of Sunni rule. But the Sunnis and Kurds are not so keen on it.

[Carebear]

Depends how long-term your view of history is and how much you trust the western media.

No, it doesn't. This far it's happening just as predicted no matter how long-term my view of history is. And I challenge you to find media that is more positive about the situation in Iraq than western media.

[SensEye]

That's a pretty depressing poll. It seems across the board the perception is things are getting worse since 2005.

These results where telling to me:

Q18 And which one of these systems will be best for Iraq in five years time?

Strong leader: a government headed by one man for life
26% (2007)
18% (2005)
Islamic state: where politicians rule according to religious principles
22% (2007)
12% (2005)
Democracy: a government with a chance for the leader to be replaced from time to time
53% (2007)
64% (2005)
Refused/don?t know
- (2007)
7% (2005)

It seems support for democracy is waning rather than waxing.

Q23 Who do you think currently controls things in our country; is it the Iraqi government, the United States, somebody else, or no one?

Iraqi Government
34% (2007)
44% (2005)
United States
59% (2007)
24% (2005)
Somebody else
4 % (2007)
17% (2005)
No one controls things
3% (2007)
6% (2005)
Refused/don?t know
- % (2007)
9 % (2005)

If I was a US Taxpayer, I would not be too impressed with the ROI of my $300+ billion (and counting) investment.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No, it doesn't. This far it's happening just as predicted no matter how long-term my view of history is.

A lot of countries have benefitted in the long-term from civil war.

I don't know about non-western media. I don't think the stories I am fed are remotely positive though, and much less positivie than the accounts of heard from many people who have been in Iraq themselves.

[Carebear]

A lot of countries have benefitted in the long-term from civil war.

Hahaha, that's the lamest argument in a long while. Sure, even a civil war can have unexpected positive long-term side effects I guess, but I don't think the neocons said: "Hey, let's stir up and get stuck in a civil war in Iraq. You never know, maybe we'll benefit in some surprising way in the long term. It's a miraculous mystery bag, full of all kinds of surprises."


In other words: There is a reason why people try to avoid civil war.



I don't know about non-western media. I don't think the stories I am fed are remotely positive though, and much less positivie than the accounts of heard from many people who have been in Iraq themselves.

Ok, if western media gets you down, I think you should avoid non-western media too. :)

What kinds of accounts have you heard from people who have been in Iraq themselves? What people? Which areas? And what do they have to say about the statistics?

[demagogic_schizoid]

In other words: There is a reason why people try to avoid civil war.

Obviously. But there are reasons why people fight civil wars, otherwise this one wouldn't be being fought, would it? War is bad partly because it is a symptom of a situation so bad it led to war, not just because of the damage it causes itself. Sometimes it's the solution to a problem. Of course people want to avoid it. I'm sure people wanted to avoid the French Revolution and the English Civil War. But at some point, if the Conservatives in the Islamic World will not budge to liberal movements - like the Royalists in England anf France refused to - they will have to be fought. I realise that the Iraq civil war doesn't divide simply along those contours, but at the time no civil war which is now viewed as a simple case of progress vs reaction did. People always used ethnic or religious arguments to recruit different groups. Cromwell certainly did. But at some point, the absolutist monarchy in Britain had to be overthrown, whatever the price. I'll say the same about the conservative ruling classes in the Middle East. Now is now the right timing? I don't know. But the idea of a civil war in itself does not mean we should just give up - just because something is hard doesn't mean it's doomed to failure.

Ok, if western media gets you down, I think you should avoid non-western media too. :)


What kinds of accounts have you heard from people who have been in Iraq themselves? What people? Which areas? And what do they have to say about the statistics

My "uncle" (dad's cousin) was in Basra. He said the British troops had better relations with the people of Basra than they did with the Americans. He's not a geo-political analyst, he wasn't even a huge fan of the war,but he's tired of it being construed by the media here as some kind of Nazi occupation or genocide when the vast majority of the time there is still co-operation and a lot of hope from most Iraqis that their country can progress as a result.

[Carebear]

Obviously. But there are reasons why people fight civil wars, otherwise this one wouldn't be being fought, would it? War is bad partly because it is a symptom of a situation so bad it led to war, not just because of the damage it causes itself. Sometimes it's the solution to a problem. Of course people want to avoid it. I'm sure people wanted to avoid the French Revolution and the English Civil War. But at some point, if the Conservatives in the Islamic World will not budge to liberal movements - like the Royalists in England anf France refused to - they will have to be fought. I realise that the Iraq civil war doesn't divide simply along those contours, but at the time no civil war which is now viewed as a simple case of progress vs reaction did. People always used ethnic or religious arguments to recruit different groups. Cromwell certainly did. But at some point, the absolutist monarchy in Britain had to be overthrown, whatever the price. I'll say the same about the conservative ruling classes in the Middle East. Now is now the right timing? I don't know. But the idea of a civil war in itself does not mean we should just give up - just because something is hard doesn't mean it's doomed to failure.

Ah, ok, I get what you're saying now, and in theory you're might be right, but in this particular case (and the Middle East in general really), the main problem is radicalism, fundamentalism and opposition to western influence, and any kind of war will only destabilize the moderate voices and increase support for the radicals, especially if one of the sides is actively backed by western powers. (Not even getting into the backing by Saudi-Arabia and Iran.)

Returning to what I originally said: Many opposed war in Iraq because they saw no way of avoiding civil war and saw that such a war could destabilize the entire Middle East and increase radicalism.

I don't see how the US could have avoided this (except maybe through a new dictator or preferably by not going to war at all, but rather deal with Saddam in less violent ways), and thus don't believe that they could have "succeeded" like gadget says, even if they'd done a much better job early on.



My "uncle" (dad's cousin) was in Basra. He said the British troops had better relations with the people of Basra than they did with the Americans. He's not a geo-political analyst, he wasn't even a huge fan of the war,but he's tired of it being construed by the media here as some kind of Nazi occupation or genocide when the vast majority of the time there is still co-operation and a lot of hope from most Iraqis that their country can progress as a result.

Ah, yes, I forget that some people would be surprised or shake their heads in disbelief when hearing your uncle's account. The occupation-bit is blown way out of proportion by some elements of western media (and torturing people and taking pictures of degradation didn't ecactly help the public view of american operations). Of course they have good relations with most locals etc.

If you disregard the extraction of the jews early on in the second world war, the same is true of the Nazi occupation in most places. Polite young Germans getting to know the locals, falling in love with a local gal... I know many people would meet such stories with disbelief as well, but it was equally true in very many cases (at least in Norway). (I'm not comparing the Nazi occupation with American occupation, simply pointing out that on a local level, things normally boil down to people relating to people, not ideologies etc.)

Still, as you say, he's not a geo-political analyst, and if you take a more geo-political approach, you soon see that even if Iraq is far from being hell on earth, the situation in the country is steadily getting worse, American forces are meeting more resistance, loosing more people, bombs go off more frequently and kill more civilians (or police) etc.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Ah, ok, I get what you're saying now, and in theory you're might be right, but in this particular case (and the Middle East in general really), the main problem is radicalism, fundamentalism and opposition to western influence, and any kind of war will only destabilize the moderate voices and increase support for the radicals, especially if one of the sides is actively backed by western powers. (Not even getting into the backing by Saudi-Arabia and Iran.)

Returning to what I originally said: Many opposed war in Iraq because they saw no way of avoiding civil war and saw that such a war could destabilize the entire Middle East and increase radicalism.

I would say that the single biggest disaster of the Iraq war so far seems to have been strengthening Iran's influence in Iraq. Obviously such a policy failure by the US government should not go uncriticised.

With regards to increasing raicalism in the Middle East, well the raitonale was that with 9/11, the radicals in the Middle East had announced war on the USA, so it would be pointless to try and prevent something which had already started. Now, you could say that by engaging in this war the Americans were going to give a chance for the leaders of the other side to engage in propaganda, but you could say this about any war.

The neo-con view of the world is that the current situation of poverty and oppression in the Middle East was the cause of a threat to the west in itself, as it would inevitably breed resentment towards those who were better off, which could be encouraged and harnessed by the ruling classes in those countries who wanted to divert attention away from their own part in exacerbating this situation.

Whether or not Saddam was directly involved in 911 or was even islamic or secular was seen as irrelevant, as rulers like him were still viewed as the root of the problem which resulted in attacks like the WTC one. They believed American intervention was necessary to liberate the region and therefore ensure their own long-term safety - a mutually beneficial arrangement. Now, taking into account all this, I don't think pointing to a short-term increase in radicalism in some areas of the Middle east (not ehow Libya turned to pro-western policies after 9/11, note how the Kurds are generally pro-US) would have deterred people who had already decided that the war was on. I suppose you could point to other wars where the immediate effect would be to alienate the population of the other country, but where eventually, given the choice between the two visions presented to them, they might choose the one they initially were stirred to oppose.

People often oppose change because of the uncertainty - if an action is likely to produce a net benefit, but the identity of the beneficiaries is unknown, a majority will oppose it because they fear they might lose out. However, in retrospect, a majority might agree it was a good thing. All this is theoretical of course but I think there can be reasons to go to war even if the short-term effects are to risk making yourself more unpopular in a region which was already a threat to you due to your unpopularity (indeed, a region which had already been used as a base to attack you). Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and people who opposed it when they could afford to might decide, given the choice of American Marines on one hill and Al-Sadr's militia on another, that they would be better off if the Marines won. However, if there is not sufficient commitment from America to make the Marines a viable alternative, then this can't happen, and they will get less support. Many people in Iraq, as you can see from the poll, hate the fact that American troops are in their country (understandable) but believe that now they are there they should at least finish the job.


Ah, yes, I forget that some people would be surprised or shake their heads in disbelief when hearing your uncle's account. The occupation-bit is blown way out of proportion by some elements of western media (and torturing people and taking pictures of degradation didn't ecactly help the public view of american operations). Of course they have good relations with most locals etc.

Well look, I barely know the guy so I'm not one of these "my uncle was in Iraq so I know best..." people..but I've chatted or heard accounts via mutual friends from 3 or 4 Brits who've been in Iraq, and their opinion is more favourable than the average opinion of people who just rely on the media. I don't think this is just a coincidence.

[Carebear]

I would say that the single biggest disaster of the Iraq war so far seems to have been strengthening Iran's influence in Iraq. Obviously such a policy failure by the US government should not go uncriticised.

A few pre-war voices even predicted that precisely this would happen, almost inevitably. (But then again, when everyone is predicting, someone's bound to stumble blindly upon the correct answer.) :)



With regards to increasing raicalism in the Middle East, well the rationale was that with 9/11...

I agree that was an important part of the rationale, and I personally think it's flawed and doesn't take into account how people work.

Combating extremism with extreme countermeasures doesn't work, it just fuels extremism. Just look at how Bloody Sunday worked and then how negotiations and peaceful means towards the IRA worked.

Had the US proactively worked against the radical movement earlier, cooperated with voices of reason, channeled money into education, infrastructure etc and not stubbornly stuck to principles (concerning Iran, Israel, Iraq etc), things could have been a lot different today. (Same goes for North Chorea by the way.)

I'm not saying that'd be a guaranteed success, but it beats the "let's blow this shit up and see what we've got when the dust settles"-approach.



Now, taking into account all this, I don't think pointing to a short-term increase in radicalism in some areas of the Middle east (not ehow Libya turned to pro-western policies after 9/11, note how the Kurds are generally pro-US) would have deterred people who had already decided that the war was on. I suppose you could point to other wars where the immediate effect would be to alienate the population of the other country, but where eventually, given the choice between the two visions presented to them, they might choose the one they initially were stirred to oppose.


People often oppose change because of the uncertainty - if an action is likely to produce a net benefit, but the identity of the beneficiaries is unknown, a majority will oppose it because they fear they might lose out. However, in retrospect, a majority might agree it was a good thing. All this is theoretical of course but I think there can be reasons to go to war even if the short-term effects are to risk making yourself more unpopular in a region which was already a threat to you due to your unpopularity (indeed, a region which had already been used as a base to attack you). Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and people who opposed it when they could afford to might decide, given the choice of American Marines on one hill and Al-Sadr's militia on another, that they would be better off if the Marines won. However, if there is not sufficient commitment from America to make the Marines a viable alternative, then this can't happen, and they will get less support. Many people in Iraq, as you can see from the poll, hate the fact that American troops are in their country (understandable) but believe that now they are there they should at least finish the job.



True, but what you're basically saying now is that things sometimes have to get worse before they get better, but that nobody really has any plan of how to get things better afterwards, just hope that some way something unexpected will happen. I'm pretty sure Libyans and Kurds in general aren't as pro-US as you might think either, but as you already stated, it doesn't really matter, as that's just talking short term and we don't know what will happen long term.

My point is that by thinking a bit outside the box, a load of more promising, less violent means could have been taken to solve Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestina etc. (I'm not saying no violence or threats should be used at all, just that peaceful means have a higher chance of working against extremism and with less chance of increasing it. Carrot instead of whip kind of thing. If the carrots, other vegetables, fruit, pizza, cash or ipods don't work, you still have the option of using the whip, but if you use the whip first, no amount of carrots will work if it fails.)

But I might be wrong, and everything might turn out ok in the long term (though I can't possibly see how the US can continue this long term). This is one of the reasons I love history and became a historian, though. We don't really consider something history before 30 years after it happened, and at that point, it's much easier to see who were smart and who fucked up long term. :grin:



Well look, I barely know the guy so I'm not one of these "my uncle was in Iraq so I know best..." people..but I've chatted or heard accounts via mutual friends from 3 or 4 Brits who've been in Iraq, and their opinion is more favourable than the average opinion of people who just rely on the media. I don't think this is just a coincidence.

Of course it's not just a coincidence. They're there in person, living their lives there, not experiencing a lot of action... of course their accounts will be more favourable than that of people only reading headlines every time a major carbomb goes off. Still, their opinion doesn't debunk the data saying that the situation is getting gradually worse.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Most of that makes sense (bah I might give you a longer reply later on) but one thing:


I'm not saying that'd be a guaranteed success, but it beats the "let's blow this shit up and see what we've got when the dust settles"-approach.

The IRA represented a pretty small constituency up against about 57 million anti-IRA Brits, and they never were capable of anything on the scale of what Islamic extremism is wreaking aacross the globe; all their attacks together killed less people than 9/11. They were pretty much a single issue group and much easier to contain. The war in the Middle East is one against various states, therefore more comparable to fighting Japan or Germany - who the US did indeed bomb the shit out of and humiliate. But not many now look back on it as a mistake.

[Carebear]

Most of that makes sense (bah I might give you a longer reply later on) but one thing:


Don't bother. For this subject to be discussed well, we have to write small articles in order to really convey what we're saying and back it up with figures and examples. I for one don't really care enough to bother, so let's just say we'll let history decide who understood the situation the best.



The IRA represented a pretty small constituency up against about 57 million anti-IRA Brits, and they never were capable of anything on the scale of what Islamic extremism is wreaking aacross the globe; all their attacks together killed less people than 9/11. They were pretty much a single issue group and much easier to contain. The war in the Middle East is one against various states, therefore more comparable to fighting Japan or Germany - who the US did indeed bomb the shit out of and humiliate. But not many now look back on it as a mistake.

You're right. IRA and analogies in general don't work. The belief that the war in the Middle East is one against various states and comparable to fighting Japan or Germany is in my opinion one of the reasons the US is in this mess right now.

[demagogic_schizoid]

You're right. IRA and analogies in general don't work. The belief that the war in the Middle East is one against various states and comparable to fighting Japan or Germany is in my opinion one of the reasons the US is in this mess right now.

Well perhaps, but Iraq is more comparable to Japan or Germany than it is to the IRA. How this ties into the overall war on terror isn't so much my point as how Iraq specifically could turn out. I was only responding to your point that you can't make a country better by bombing the shit out of it. But sometimes, you can.

[Carebear]

Well perhaps, but Iraq is more comparable to Japan or Germany than it is to the IRA. How this ties into the overall war on terror isn't so much my point as how Iraq specifically could turn out. I was only responding to your point that you can't make a country better by bombing the shit out of it. But sometimes, you can.

Ah, that's where we differ then. I don't quite see how Iraq spesifically can be considered without considering the "war on terror" and more importantly Saudi Arabia's and Iran's position towards Iraq. And as for sometimes being able to make a country better by bombing the shit out of it... perhaps you're right, but I doubt it's possible in Iraq.