NationStates Jolt Archive

Most Iraqis Say Future Looks Brighter

USA Today - Free Registration Required (WASHINGTON MAR. 16)

More Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction and fewer think it's going wrong than at any time since the U.S. invasion two years ago, according to a new poll. The poll, by the International Republican Institute (IRI), due to be made public Wednesday, also found that nearly half of Iraqis believe that religion has a special role to play in government. The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27 March 5, after Iraq held its first free elections in half a century in January. According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction. That is the widest spread recorded in seven polls by the group, says Stuart Krusell, IRI director of operations for Iraq. In September, 45% of Iraqis thought the country was headed in the wrong direction and 42% thought it was headed in the right direction. The IRI is a non partisan, U.S. taxpayer funded group that promotes democracy abroad.

Well, Iraq is heading in the right direction, of course. But, I assert that we have gone about the war in the wrong way: with few allies, no UN backing, and discord at home.

Well, Iraq is heading in the right direction, of course. But, I assert that we have gone about the war in the wrong way: with few allies, no UN backing, and discord at home.
The UN is about as worthless as tits on a boar. Most of our so-called "allies" are a bit hypocritical and scared of their own shadows. And if you think this is "discord," you sould have been around when we were going through the Vietnam experience. :(

Well, Iraq is heading in the right direction, of course. But, I assert that we have gone about the war in the wrong way: with few allies, no UN backing, and discord at home.

I would agree that it was hasty, but you can hardly say it's the US's fault the UN didn't back them. 12 years of defiance, 17 broken resolutions (If I recall correctly, which I may well not be doing.) - firing at Western aircraft alone strictly speaking broke the ceasefire and was sufficient causa belli.

I think Iraq is going in the right direction and, so long as we stay in there for long enough, Iraq will become a safer, more stable country.

While this poll alone is insufficient (in my opinion) to warrant anything more than that little bit of hope we all feel in the bottom of our bellies, I do hope it's right. I'll wait for another poll of this sort to cast a decision on the impact of what is happening, but, I have my fingers crossed (metaphorically speaking, of course.) Espescially if we start to see a decrease in violence. Then I'll come out and say that there has been a definite improvement.

Thing is, with polls like this in Iraq, there are a lot of things that make them suspect.

First of all, they just had their first 'free election.' Right now, to many of them, the only real change is the look of the person with the gun asking them the question. It is not a small thing to change a lifetime of saying what you think someone wants to hear to saying what you believe.

Second, information is not at all a transparent and total road there. Are they going good because the soldier told them it was? Because their water is on again? Because they understand the direction and state of thier country and the long and short term ramifications? And again, because the other people that are 'with' (not to imply soldiers accompanied the surveyers, but the blanket association of the 'westerners') have the guns now?

Third is the relative danger that impeeds a 'true' sample, in the statistical sense. There are still places where surveyers won't go, for their own safety. The people in the 'safe' places are more comfortable, but does that reflect accurately on the rest of Iraq?

Granting that there is a comparitive sample and that this is higher than the previous one-the first critique stands. If you are used to giving one answer for your safety, and the people who insisted upon that answer (theoritically-who is doing the insurging is another topic, but what is relevant is who the Iraqi being surveyed thinks is doing it) are still blowing things up left and right, your answer will be more cautious and reflect things that are not neccisarily your true feelings.

Continuing, you could argue that information is more transparent and available now then when the first survey was taken, but that could also be reflected in who the feel they need to respond to, who's leadership they need to affirm for thier safety.

Further, it could be argued that there is a larger number of safer areas. This would not effect precentage.

Finally-there is the patriotic response that they would have no need to fear the american military. To a degree that is true, but your perception of that is from the american side, from either growing up with it or being in it or what ever. This is the second time in most of their lifetimes that the american army has attacked thier country. Then there things like Abu Garib(sp)-they don't have Rush Limbaugh telling them that it's all just like Fraternity hazing. That they have 'nothing to fear' is going to be a long road-and is going to take being much better, not 'just as bad' as has sometimes been the defense of Abu Garib. Granting that Abu Garib is not the topic, only in that it is relevant to how the Iraqis are going to respond vs. how they are actually percieve the occupation.

Shortened-we are used to surveys, they are a part of our regular inviroment. Not so with the Iraqis, and thus not as useful except as what they previous leader used them for-propoganda.

Thing is, with polls like this in Iraq, there are a lot of things that make them suspect.

First of all, they just had their first 'free election.' Right now, to many of them, the only real change is the look of the person with the gun asking them the question. It is not a small thing to change a lifetime of saying what you think someone wants to hear to saying what you believe.
true, but it's a good first step. only a fool would expect drastic changes on such a foundation. and two, the person holding the gun may have changed, but the person now holding the gun are Iraqis who are being taught to serve the people, not Saddam's regime.

Second, information is not at all a transparent and total road there. Are they going good because the soldier told them it was? Because their water is on again? Because they understand the direction and state of thier country and the long and short term ramifications? And again, because the other people that are 'with' (not to imply soldiers accompanied the surveyers, but the blanket association of the 'westerners') have the guns now? by this argument, then all surveys are suspect. after all, all those exit polls that show Kerry leading now can be because the person leaving knew what the pollster wanted to hear and so gave a popular answer and not the truth... thus Bush won fair and square. after all, there has been proof that the media 'favored' Kerry. :rolleyes:
Third is the relative danger that impeeds a 'true' sample, in the statistical sense. There are still places where surveyers won't go, for their own safety. The people in the 'safe' places are more comfortable, but does that reflect accurately on the rest of Iraq?and are those safe places growing in size and numbers? that would be a pretty good indicatior.
Granting that there is a comparitive sample and that this is higher than the previous one-the first critique stands. If you are used to giving one answer for your safety, and the people who insisted upon that answer (theoritically-who is doing the insurging is another topic, but what is relevant is who the Iraqi being surveyed thinks is doing it) are still blowing things up left and right, your answer will be more cautious and reflect things that are not neccisarily your true feelings.ahh... but if nothing happens to those who give "unfavorable" answers (and there must be because the pro votes are not that overwhelming) then more people will feel confident to speak out.
Continuing, you could argue that information is more transparent and available now then when the first survey was taken, but that could also be reflected in who the feel they need to respond to, who's leadership they need to affirm for thier safety.and with the democratic process being shown to them, they are feeling more secure that their voices were heard and now, being counted... which is an improvement, wouldn't you think.
Further, it could be argued that there is a larger number of safer areas. This would not effect precentage.and you don't think that the safer areas growing is NOT a sign that things are improving?
Finally-there is the patriotic response that they would have no need to fear the american military. To a degree that is true, but your perception of that is from the american side, from either growing up with it or being in it or what ever. This is the second time in most of their lifetimes that the american army has attacked thier country. Then there things like Abu Garib(sp)-they don't have Rush Limbaugh telling them that it's all just like Fraternity hazing. That they have 'nothing to fear' is going to be a long road-and is going to take being much better, not 'just as bad' as has sometimes been the defense of Abu Garib. Granting that Abu Garib is not the topic, only in that it is relevant to how the Iraqis are going to respond vs. how they are actually percieve the occupation.but they are seeing that a future w/o US occupation is not just a dream... but perhaps a reality. If the government wants us to stay after our time is done, then that is their choice... a choice not forced upon them.

The Phillipines asked us to remove some of our Military bases on their lands... we did, without argument, without fuss.

Shortened-we are used to surveys, they are a part of our regular inviroment. Not so with the Iraqis, and thus not as useful except as what they previous leader used them for-propoganda.[/QUOTE]

true, but it's a good first step. only a fool would expect drastic changes on such a foundation. and two, the person holding the gun may have changed, but the person now holding the gun are Iraqis who are being taught to serve the people, not Saddam's regime.
Perception is everything. Saddam's regime was made of Iraqis. There are still tanks in the streets. You can't change the uniform and expect the perception to change overnight.

by this argument, then all surveys are suspect. after all, all those exit polls that show Kerry leading now can be because the person leaving knew what the pollster wanted to hear and so gave a popular answer and not the truth... thus Bush won fair and square. after all, there has been proof that the media 'favored' Kerry. :rolleyes:
Non-sequitor. There is a world of difference between the access of information for the Iraqis and your preception of whether or not the media is biased against your political party.
and are those safe places growing in size and numbers? that would be a pretty good indicatior.
Not what is being measured. That makes you feel like things are going well, but to the Iraqi it might mean that more is under the control of a new master, therefore swaying the response that they believe is being solicated.

ahh... but if nothing happens to those who give "unfavorable" answers (and there must be because the pro votes are not that overwhelming) then more people will feel confident to speak out.
and with the democratic process being shown to them, they are feeling more secure that their voices were heard and now, being counted... which is an improvement, wouldn't you think.
Again, what you or I think about how things are going is not what is being measured. It's important to remember that Saddam had an election, too. You can't expect people under a life time of one way to respond to a 'This time for real,' and have it be pure. They aren't having a constitutional gathering, they are being 'liberated' by an outside force that is now saying 'organize,' all the while still in shooting conflicts.

And, going backwards, is nothing happening to those who give bad responses? You may percieve that, but with things like Abu Garib and raids still happening on a regular basis that may not be the perception.
and you don't think that the safer areas growing is NOT a sign that things are improving?
What I see isn't being measured.
but they are seeing that a future w/o US occupation is not just a dream... but perhaps a reality. If the government wants us to stay after our time is done, then that is their choice... a choice not forced upon them.
The invasion is a choice forced upon them. Much of what is being done right now is a choice forced upon them. Can you really be all that sure that at this point they understand what are real choices and what are 'choices.' Certainly there is a large portion of Iraq that already want the US out. We're not listening to them...

The Phillipines asked us to remove some of our Military bases on their lands... we did, without argument, without fuss.
I think you are underestimating the amount of fuss. But this is really another non-sequitor. How much do you think the average Iraqi knows or understands america's involvement in the Philipines?

I see one major problem with that survey. Just under 2000 Iraqis were surveyed. That's hardly representative of the people as a whole. Also depending on where this survey was taken, and who took it, the results would be different.

To say that 'most Iraqis say future looks bright' is a deceptive statement. Only 62% of the 1967 people who took the survey said agreed that they were heading in the right direction. 1967 is only 0.00008% (approx.) of the population of Iraq.

I see one major problem with that survey. Just under 2000 Iraqis were surveyed. That's hardly representative of the people as a whole. Also depending on where this survey was taken, and who took it, the results would be different.


2 000 is actually a big sample, as I remember it you ask around 1 000 for polls during election.

For the rest, I agree :)

2 000 is actually a big sample, as I remember it you ask around 1 000 for polls during election.

For the rest, I agree :)
Someone put up this site (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm) a while ago to allow you to check the sample size vs. population to determine the chance of accuracy based on that ratio. (interestingly enough, when that person did that Eutrusca dismissed it out of hand, but thats really another story...).

I don't believe that the sample size is so much the problem as the purity of the sample.

I don't believe American statistics on what the Iraqis want... in fact, unless I'm in their country and they're telling me to my face that they're happy and prospering, I doubt a news story is going to make me think things are peachy keen over there.

Things aren't peachy.

But with Saddam out of the picture, they can and have the chance to shape their own future.

Whether it's going to get better or worse. It's up to them now.

More propaganda by the US. Next.

But with Saddam out of the picture, they can and have the chance to shape their own future.

Only time will tell if this statement is true. If things stabilize over a period of ten years, not two, then we'll see if ousting Hussein was truly the right thing for the Iraqi people or not. It all depends on how many lives are lost because of the insurginency.

Only time will tell if this statement is true. If things stabilize over a period of ten years, not two, then we'll see if ousting Hussein was truly the right thing for the Iraqi people or not. It all depends on how many lives are lost because of the insurginency.
I had said this in another thread, so I'll try and do a brief version here-

There is almost certainly going to be 'good' to come from the removal of Saddam, and almost undoubtably there will be 'good' that comes out of the actions there, but will the ends justify the means? To a large degree the 'bad' that is being dealt with is a dividend of the 'good' that came from our actions in the 80s, a 'good' that Reagan is still lionized over.

But given all the events and tensions of the cold war, the 'communists' never where able to attack the United States, so how much weight do we give the 'good' or the 'bad?'

Certainly it seems that history tells us that the means matter as much as the ends, and there is where this Iraq experement comes up short. Jumping up and down over the minutia (This is a success, this is a failure, etc.) doesn't really shed light on what this will really end up meaning to everyone, Iraqi or otherwise...

All that to say, I agree more or less...

While I sincerely hope that this ordeal ends soon, I honestly don't think it will. I basically think that anything as hypocritical as forcing democracy on a nation will implode on itself. Also, if the results the US wanted are achieved in Iraq, they'll probably go onto Iran after.

Same shit happened in Vietnam and Somalia, It is difficult to fight the enemy when you don't know who the enemy is.

And I honestly don't believe in American brand democracy.

Same shit happened in Vietnam and Somalia, It is difficult to fight the enemy when you don't know who the enemy is.

And I honestly don't believe in American brand democracy.

Maybe not this time. Bush seems commited to keeping the ground troops in Iraq till the Iraqi's finally developed their own decent army vs any form of insurgency that could threaten the democracy.

Well they would have to Baghdad just got voted the worst place to live!

\Certainly it seems that history tells us that the means matter as much as the ends, and there is where this Iraq experement comes up short. Jumping up and down over the minutia (This is a success, this is a failure, etc.) doesn't really shed light on what this will really end up meaning to everyone, Iraqi or otherwise...

Amen! It's going to take ten years minimum to see the impact of what we've done, judging sucesses now does nothing because all it is is speculation at best.

I have always believed that the ultimate result of this little experiment will be a century of grief for the Western world.

Even if that turns out not to be the case, what's sad is that the American economy has been so badly pillaged and mutilated by the Bush administration's policies that it will very likely never recover, and will take the rest of the world down with it. I deal with Americans every day who come to my country and say "Gosh, our dollar used to be worth a lot more, why is it worth so little this year?" They have absolutely no inkling of the extent to which their own currency has fallen through the floor, or why. Will they be ready to pay 78% higher income taxes simply to get back to where they were a few years ago? Or shut off the social security completely, for everyone? Cut off ALL social spending and leave taxes alone?

This one little war has just about broken the bank, and if the Middle East turns out to be the Hydra most of the world understands it to be, we are doomed.

USA Today - Free Registration Required (WASHINGTON MAR. 16)

More Iraqis believe their country is headed in the right direction and fewer think it's going wrong than at any time since the U.S. invasion two years ago, according to a new poll. The poll, by the International Republican Institute (IRI), due to be made public Wednesday, also found that nearly half of Iraqis believe that religion has a special role to play in government. The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27 March 5, after Iraq held its first free elections in half a century in January. According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction. That is the widest spread recorded in seven polls by the group, says Stuart Krusell, IRI director of operations for Iraq. In September, 45% of Iraqis thought the country was headed in the wrong direction and 42% thought it was headed in the right direction. The IRI is a non partisan, U.S. taxpayer funded group that promotes democracy abroad.

Who did they ask? I'm betting they kind of played it safe and stayed clear of places like Falluja.

When it is dangerous to survey areas where people don't like you, then there is obviously a skew towards the people who do like you.