Iraqi's Ameriphobia

Wednesday, November 22, 2006
World Public Opinion has done another general poll of Iraqi sentiment regarding American presence in Iraq.
At the same time, the number of Shias who approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces has jumped 24 points. In January, about a third of Shias (36%) polled in Baghdad expressed approval of such assaults. By September, the proportion of Shias in Baghdad saying they approved of striking American-led forces had risen to 60 percent. In the rest of the country, Shia support for attacking foreign troops rose 20 points, from 43 percent to 63 percent.
Those darned moderate muslims are getting harder and harder to find.

The poll (and the polling company) are tranzi propaganda but the six out of ten figure is completely believable and validates a point that I consider to be very important for the security of American forces. The "hearts and minds" bit isn't going too well and attempts to minimize collateral damage that increase risk to our troops in any way aren't worthwhile.

The Shia have the bit in their teeth and are rushing forward with typical muslim dreams of slaughter and plunder. A good move to kick the bit down their throat would be to accept the Kurds offer of basing rights and move the bulk of our forces north (after killing Sadr - maybe Sistani too). It appears as if the Sunni will be successful in turning Ramdadi into a Shia free zone with 'legitimate' Sunni security forces providing a basis (and a secure base) for organized operations during the civil war.

It's interesting to see the problem of the 'tyranny of the majority' working out in real time at such a fast clip. It's not unexpected - Sistani's assent to a quick spin on the democracy ride was wholly based upon his ability to add well enough to ascertain that his thugs would be in ascendance and his insistence that the constitution enshrine sharia as the final arbiter of all legal manners was a very strong hint of his desire for a typical muslim theothugocracy - but the speed of the descent is remarkable. They've even managed to skip the Reichstag fire.


MeaninglessHotAir said...

It's toast. We're wasting our money and lives there. Get out.

I think pulling into Kurdistan is a good move but I doubt Bush has the cojones for such a bold move. When push comes to shove, he's really a nice guy, unfortunately.

WebByte said...

Well now, have you ever noticed that when you kill off one threat another takes it place?

This is especially true with people. Get rid of one enemy and here comes another.

Are our enemies the real problem?

Skookumchuk said...


I think pulling into Kurdistan is a good move but I doubt Bush has the cojones for such a bold move.

I don't know. We need all the friends we can get in the region and we've got them right now in the Kurds. I'm sure DOD and the WH are kicking the idea around at the very least - if it hasn't already been decided.

terrye said...


do you think we should just kill them all?

terrye said...


I disagree. Adn I don't think bush lacks cajones.

terrye said...

And btw this is not a new poll. The last poll I saw on this had the same numbers so it could not be that it has risen. This is the same poll that said that 94% of the people there did not support AlQaida.

It also said that more than two thirds did not support the militias.

And when asked if they would still think that targetting troops was ok if they believed that the US would actually leave and did not plan to make the occupation permanent 38% {if I remember correctly} of the people who had said targetting troops was ok changed their minds.

But the majority wanted the US to stay and train their troops.

Anytime you do a poll in a country like this there has to be all sorts of caveats to the questions and we have to realize these people are not used to trusting people and they may be afraid to say anything else.

I will say this, if the majority of them think that killing Americans is ok, then why aren't our casualties higher? The truth is they are doing a lot better job of killing each other.

Syl said...

What Terrye said.

This poll was hashed out a couple months ago.

Rick Ballard said...

"do you think we should just kill them all?"

Of course not. We should show upmost respect for their cultural norms - they derive a great deal of satisfaction from killing each other and we should interfere only very reluctantly while paying close attention to our own safety when we do so.

Allowing the takeover of the Ramadi security forces by the sheiks is a very good example of the type of action which should be taken. The Sunnis will have a very secure base from which to pursue their interests (after they've mopped up their al Queada guests who have had the poor manners to overstay their welcome). They can then begin their retribution against the Shia death squads (supported by Maliki) who have gotten a bit out of hand. A bit of diligence on their part will bring things back into balance so that a new round of sectarian violence can begin.

Why should we do what we consider unpleasant work when the Iraqis are perfectly capable of doing the same work (with pleasure) at no cost to us?

With a bit of luck the Azeris and Baluchis will finally take heart from the civil war in Iraq and start one in Iran. That would be an excellent outcome and we should be able to profer some help from bases in Kurdistan and Afghanistan so that both groups (plus the Kurds in Iran) can get off to good start.

In short, I would hope that American forces never kill any more people than reasonably necessary to maintain their own security and safety with all discretion as to the definition of "reasonably necessary" devolved to the lowest level possible - say a platoon leader.

BTW - This report is new - data collection was done in September and this report was released Monday.

terrye said...


That is not true, we talked about this poll over at JOM way before the election. I remember linking to it and looking at it. So you are wrong, it is not new. In fact the part about the troops was quite long and even the people doing the poll made note of the fact that the numbers supporting attacks dropped dramatically when people were asked if they supported the attacks if Americans really planned to leave. They made note of the fact that many Iraqis apparently distrusted the Americans and thought we were only there to steal their oil. I wonder where they could have gotten an idea like that?

Assuming of course the poll is even legitimate. After that Lancet nonsense I really wonder about polls like this.

And btw Ladeen says that we can not expect Maliki to risk not only his life but his government going after the militias if we keep threatening to bug out and you say they are all thugs and they can not expect us to help them if they continue to be so vile.

So which is it? And then of course there is the lesson of an abandoned Afghanistan and AlQaida.

Anymore Rick all I hear from you is hate.

Rick Ballard said...

"Anymore Rick all I hear from you is hate."

All you hear from me is the utmost respect for the cultural mores of our opponents. I grant them every consideration that they grant any opponent and refer to them in precisely the same manner in which they refer to non-muslims. They deserve nothing less and certainly nothing more.

If you take the effort to scroll to the bottom of the report you'll see that it was published Monday. A separate initial report using the same data was issued on September 27th and had a different focus although it did contain the same info concerning the cuddly Shia's propensity to think that blowing up Americans was OK.

terrye said...

A seperate initial report using the same data? Like I said, you were wrong. It was out there weeks ago.

Fine Rick, whatever.

Bostonian said...

I wonder what the result would be if Iraq had a nation-wide referendum on the question of whether they want us to leave.

Webbyte: Seventeen hundred years of jihad against infidels speaks for itself.

terrye said...


Well even if you believe the poll they do not want us to leave right now. They were talking about 6 months to a year anyway.

Syl said...


They re-released the report with a different emphasis because they didn't get enough of a reaction from the 'initial release'.

I see they've gotten the hoped for reaction this time.