This quote and other like it have lead me to believe that some are critically misunderstanding the dynamic of the challenge the world community (and our country in particular) faces in Iraq.

Early in the post-war period I pointed out that popular opposition to us troops presence was very low.


and support for attacks on US troops was even lower


and that individuals opinions of US troops, far from focusing on raids and the like, was favorable.



and I contend that that has not really changed.

US reveals 'al-Qaeda Iraq plot'

So...

Is popular Iraqi resistance to US troops a major concern in Iraq, or is the "resistance" mainly regime loyalists and terrorists?

Is the concern over the "legitimacy" of the political process the primary concern for those providing security in Iraq?

Is the coalition making reasonable progress in Iraq?

Looking at the flip side of those numbers, that's 36% who consider attacks on US troops to be justifiable at least somewhat.

I'll assume -- since you didn't post other numbers -- that your Baghdad poll numbers extend to the rest of the country. The last population count of Iraq was 26 million people.

36% of 28 million? 10 million (rounded)
8% who think it's totally justifiable? 2 1/4 million.

So... there are 2,250,000 people who want to violently kill us. Another 7.75 million who are willing to support them.

Is popular Iraqi resistance to US troops a major concern in Iraq, or is the "resistance" mainly regime loyalists and terrorists?

Yes, it's a major concern. No doubt having 10 million hostiles surrounding your 120,000 troops is a concern.

Is the concern over the "legitimacy" of the political process the primary concern for those providing security in Iraq?

I think the primary concern of those providing security is to make sure they don't go home in body bags. The military doesn't give a rats *** about political process. They just want to keep the peace as best they can and rotate home as quickly as possible.

It's the politicians here at home and the power brokers in Iraq who are interested in the political process.

Is the coalition making reasonable progress in Iraq?

You didn't define "reasonable". However, given a "reasonable" definition of it, I'd say they're doing the best they can under the screwed up circumstances. I think a strong dictator might do better, though.

I'm going to love this topic. I'm glad you brought it up. It isn't surprising that there is a difference of opinion on this subject since we've been getting such a positive outlook from the Pentagon even as we've lost soldiers on an almost daily basis and we can only speculate on the number of civilian's being killed.

Unfortunately I'm at work right now and can't do a lot of research for my posts but I will be following up later.

Ha, that quote was from a response Danya made to one I made about once we eliminate the loyalists, things will proceed to be even better. Well, let's just say we disagree.

Is popular Iraqi resistance to US troops a major concern in Iraq, or is the "resistance" mainly regime loyalists and terrorists?

Turnea, I'd rephrase the question a little. The resistance which is made up of regimists and terrorist fighters are part of what is a major concern. They play by a different set of rules and since we (officially anyhow) play by the rules, it makes this situation tougher. We easily out number them. We easily out gun them. But since its a handful of terrorists or regimists who pick small targets where either some leadership is located or pick targets with psychological impact as they attack and hide, it is in that way they think they will win. We will not be, to their shegrin, easily frightend. We need to stay, to make sure we finish the job. We didn't in '91. And we're paying the price now.

Is the concern over the "legitimacy" of the political process the primary concern for those providing security in Iraq?



Ditto. Let the people who deal with the political aspecs of bringing freedom to Iraq worry about that. Let the soldiers worry about trying to keep everyone alive.

Is the coalition making reasonable progress in Iraq?

Slow, maybe. But progress nonetheless. We've nailed Uday and Qusay. We nailed Saddam. We're still nailing folks on the list and every raid we make produces something.

I did indeed consider the flip side of the numbers when they were posted and considered them in perspective. First of all the Baghdad number aren't quite applicable across the country (I would say as close as we are likely to get from one city...) remember this is right next to the Sunni triangle and Saddam's former seat of power, it was favored under Saddam (except for the Shiite slums) and is one of the toughest areas for U.S. troops. This data does not represent the Shia south and certainly not the Kurdish north.

That said I think we should also consider exactly what was asked in the poll. (I think I will just post a link directly to the PDF to make this easier).

The range of justification the Iraqis were given was:
"Cannot be Justified at All" (42%)
"Somewhat Unjustifiable" (22%)
"Sometimes can be justified, sometimes cannot be justified"(17%)
"Somewhat Justifiable" (11%)
"Completely Justified" (8%)
Gallup Poll: How Long Should US Troops Stay(PDF)

I point out that the 17% who are ambivalent on the issue aren't likely to support terrorists, especially as Iraqis victims continue to rise. Ambivalence doesn't inspire action to well. Let's say half of them and two-thirds of the "somewhat justified" support.
That's about 23.83% considerable, but when placed against Iraq who are solidly on the side of order, dwarfed.

Add that to more recent evidence of the unpopularity of the "resistance."


US reveals 'al-Qaeda Iraq plot'
From what is thought to be intercepted Al-Qaeda correspondence.
I believe the idea of popular Iraqi resistance is grossly overestimated and if starting to affect policy...


Remember that any drastic events in the political process can have effects on the military situation. Terrorists tend to strike when they see progress and if anything makes the population extremely unhappy (hasn't happened yet, but it could...) that would matter a great deal. I think you are underestimating the importance.


Let's not forget the Iraqi people amf.


...and here I was thinking I'd be bored.

Soon things are going to change in Iraq....there are troops waiting for a window to replace those already there...the replacements aren't from the ranks of the 'active duty'...however, having been 'activated' recently their mission in no way will be different from the mission already on the ground.....as a former guardsman let me say there are doubts in my mind as to 'readiness'....

I understand there will be a transitional period where knowledge will be passed on from one group to another. I think predicting disaster :cough:civil war, war with Turkey:cough: has not worked out to well in Iraq.

It's okay to have misgivings as long as they aren't allow to cloud one's perception of the reality of the situation.

I would contend that you are mistaken, though justifiably concerned. The majority of supporting roles have been and will be continually filled by Guard and Reserves. But the major commands and their subordinate combat arms units will continue to be active duty forces. Some are being augmented with National Guard units, but it's the same 'roundout Brigade' plan that we've trained with since during the cold war.
I invite your attention to the following link, scroll down to page six. It diagrams the rotation plan. Additionally, the whole document is a good read.
AUSA Link

It can be a major concern but it really isn't. It is made up of terrorists and loyalists who are screwing up any progress (and killing civilians) that will allow the Iraqis to live a better life. This will cause them to hate the terrorists when the really purpose is to make the Iraqis hate our troops




Yes. The media just doesn't want to report it because it doesn't bring in the ratings that catastrophes do. Businesses are blooming and unemployment is dropping from what it was since the fall of Baghdad in April. Also some other stuff.


cy-24801:

I agree on the readiness. The new troops being rotated into Iraq are not ready to get bombarded with the terrorist problems and the ambushes and the road side attacks. Integrating new troops with troops already in Iraq since the war began will help them adapt to the situation without getting killed as soon as they get there.

Yet another set of terrorist attacks which make earlier objections to using the term (insisting instead on "insurgents") look rather silly, don't you think?

Iraq Shias massacred on holy day

Important to point out that terroism against the general population on religious holidays is not the tactic of a popular uprising or domestic islamic fundamentalists.

This, rather, smacks of foreign terrorists who themselves have a poor understanding of the Iraqi dynamic.

These types of tactics ensure that the terrorists will fail, the Shia aren't dumb enough to be baited into war with the Sunni (particularly with no evidence they were behind this attack, and no reason to carry it out, sectarian war means they lose big) and Iraqi will be largely united in opposition to the murder of their countrymen.

This in the #1 reason popular resistance in Iraq and "legitimacy" are secondary issues at best.

I had a bad feeling that there were going to be attacks onthe day this celebration ended. Sunni loyalists of Saddam probably did it, because Saddam had banend this celebration during his rein.

Or it could possibly be Al-Queda. Simaltanious attacks or the timing that occured on these attacks have Al-Queda written all over.

I believe Al Qaeda had a key role in these attacks. There was a similar attack in Pakistan that killed 40 Shiites. While it may be a coincidence that these attacks are totally unrelated, IMO they aren't.

Gotta remember that Binladen and Saddam were enemys. I know the letter that was found in the hole he was being held captive in said NOT to accept any help from terrorists.

Hi, Y'all. I know there's no reason for you to believe me when I say this, but I am the historian of 1AD in Baghdad. As such, I have a lot of time to spend in front of a computer, as opposed to doing real work out in the city.

Is popular Iraqi resistance to US troops a major concern in Iraq, or is the "resistance" mainly regime loyalists and terrorists?

"popular resistance," meaning the general population attacking us, was NEVER really a problem. True, there were some poorer areas where at one point former regime elements could go out and hire someone to do an attack, but not so much anymore. Attacks lately have more been like yesterday's - synchronized, symbolic, and suicidal.

Another thing - saying that since 36% of the population (and our population here in Baghdad is significantly less supportive than most) is "somewhat supportive) of violence against coalition forces doesn't really make 36% of the population our enemy. There are large sections of the police force and the army that aren't happy with us being here either, but they still work to keep the peace because they love their country, and that's fine by me as long as they aren't shooting at me.

Most Iraqis, by now, have realized that carrying on a guerrilla war with us costs more innocent lives than it is worth - for every IED that kills one of us, three more do no damage to us, but kill a half-dozen passers-by. I am heartened by the fatwa recently proclaimed by the sunni leadership denouncing violence against Iraqis, even though it specifically doesn't include us - because we're equipped to handle attacks. And it's our job here as soldiers to protect the civilians here.

Is the concern over the "legitimacy" of the political process the primary concern for those providing security in Iraq?

I wish I could be more supportive of our civilian leadership here, but the CPA is cursed by the military around here more often than not. The reasoning is, that while political stability shouldn't be our concern, more often then not it is. Infrastructure is fixed piecemeal by individual commanders in order to keep the peace in their sector, instead of being headed from the top, in large projects. This is even true at division level - 1AD brought in the generators to restore power in Baghdad, not the CPA, which lives here in the city. Why? Because people in the desert without air conditioning tend to get cranky and start shooting people.

Now, the "legitimacy" of the political process we aren't really to concerned about - we just want the people happy and ruling themselves, so we can get out of the way. That's the CPA's job. I don't get much insight into how well they do it, but reading news (on Earlybird, sorry I don't have links, news is blocked by our NIPR firewall) that Rumsfeld doesn't even know he's Paul Bremer's boss doesn't make me hopeful. I really can't wait till they turn the CPA into a consulate, and thus hand this thing over to Colin Powell (who I think is a lot more competent at this sort of thing).

Is the coalition making reasonable progress in Iraq?

Depends on what you consider "reasonable." I think we should have pushed to get private contractors in a LOT faster than this summer, and it would have made keeping the peace a lot easier. If not, at least give to money to military commanders so we could work it at our level - when they dissolved the Iraqi army we became an occupational force anyway, and CPA seemingly could use a good dose of delegation.


NOTE: Sorry if this is a little vague. Without news souces and not entirely remembering whether some things I know are classified or not, I played it safe a lot.

Please forgive my ignorance but can you please elaborate on what it means to be a 'historian of 1AD in Bahgdad'?

Does this mean you are military and that it's your job to write the history? If so for who? I could understand if there were a division in charge of learning about Baghdad's history because our military understanding of that culture is sorely lacking. But if it's to track history of the war I'm afraid your position is apt to be biased whether you mean for it to be or not. Maybe you're not with the military at all and I misunderstood.

I must disagree with your assessment that things would be going better if only we had brought the private contractors in sooner. IMO, it was a terrible idea to use them at all, at least to the extent we have. We pay them ten times what they're worth while the unemployment rate of Iraqi's has jumped from 60% at the start of the war to 80% today.

As far as the decrease in US military target's I would guess that our June deadline for handing over power has helped curb some of the popular resistance...depending on just what that means I foresee an increase if there is no difference in our troop size or in the current role we're playing. In any case things are just as bloody now as they have ever been regardless of who's actually doing the dying.

As far as keeping a history of the war in Iraq there are two sites that are doing a wonderful job of that already that I would be happy to direct you to:

Occupation Watch and
International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative

I am military - I work at headquarters, 1AD at BIAP. I'd beg to differ on how "biased" I am, but then a lot of people seem to think that since I'm military I'm somehow brainwashed. *shrug* not necessarily you, but I get it a lot, especially from my fellow liberals.

I also happen to be an Engineer by branch, so I apologize if my writing is occasionally sub-par. I'd much rather be out building stuff.

I think you misunderstood me on private contractors - I don't much care if they are Iraqis or American, but what we needed, and in a lot of cases what we still need, is money and talent to rebuild infrastructure. Military ingenuity can only do so much, especially when it comes to national-level electricity, water or oil projects - and those are the places where, if we had been able to sure up the infrastructure quickly, we would have prevented a lot of violence and denied terrorists a lot of recruits.

I agree the June 30 deadline has helped curb a lot of violence, but only from Iraqis - foreign terrorists now know that they are up against the calendar to cause their trouble before they completely lose the will of Iraqis. Thus we get a lot fewer small attacks, and a lot more high-profile attacks. I think even those will drop off after June 30 - it will get very difficult to run a terrorist organization when the police are as intimately involved with the people as the Iraqis are, as well as being dead-set against foreign terrorists - those same police, the sons and daughters of the community, have been the biggest targets for foreign terrorists in the last few months.

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look - but I' mostly an archivist - the only writing I really do is outlines of operations in Baghdad.


Sorry, I'll eventually learn how to break a thought into sentences without using so many dashes.

Danya, I have to take issue with your assertion, when you say:

But then end by saying;

This is a joke right?
You claim that Lone Wolf be may be biased (which is your right), but then give a link to OccupationWatch?

Maybe you haven't pored through the site deeply, but I have. If you look at the Founding organizations of the International Occupation Watch Center, you could agree that, to put it mildly, is not a list of republican donors.
Look through the articles that are posted primarily by SFGate, BBC, Al-Jazeera, NYT, The Guardian, PBS, Common Dreams, The Nation, The American Prospect, Socialist worker, and IraqCP (Iraqi Communist Party). Hardly outfits that could even remotely described as conservative.
This is unbiased news from Iraq?

FYI, Lone Wolf's duties as a historian include compiling Operations Orders, maps, photo's and other items of interest that pertain specifically to the 1st Armored Division. They don't have a website to try and put out their brand of propaganda to the world.

We would have been able to get the infrastructure up quicker but we had obstacles such as sabotage or obselete technology at the power, oil, and water plants. That and the fact that foreign terrorists and loyalists are firing weapons at power plants and blowing up oil lines. A couple days ago, terrorists knocked out a phone system near Baghdad. There is only so many places we can guard, even if we use the new Iraqi police force.



Yeah. So they decided to bomb 2 areas in Iraq killing almost 200 and the Shiites are blaming us. Seems like they are dead set on creating a problem for us. Of course, the religious nuts who run most of the Shiite Political Parties aren't helping. Most of them are puppets of Iran's gov't (Sistani is one of em).

You're exactly right - we can't guard everywhere. The problem that we have had here at about every turn is that almost every situation is a vicious cycle. In order to increase security, we need to improve infrastructure - in order to improve infrastructure, we need to increase security.

Not to put things in too military a context, but the military commanders instictively know what to do when faced with such a quagmire - generally a sharp, overwhelming offensive. In this case that would require dropping large amounts of money and talent into fixing everything at once, and then clamping down on security in order to let everything run long enough for tension to settle down. Yes, it'd cost lives and lots of money, but we'd rather do it in one sharp stroke and then have it fixed than dribble away a few dollars here, a few lives there for years and have it never be fixed. In military terms it's called achieving mass - basically putting a huge amount of force in one area, fixing the problem (whether that problem be enemy soldiers or broken Oil pipes) and them moving on. We have never achieved mass on infrastructure projects here, and the military does not have the ability to do it alone. So we end up stuck in the quagmire.



They don't blame us for the bombings, they blame us for not keeping security. I agree that that is sort of a cheap shot - we were asked to stay away from the mosques by the Imams. But remember, this is like a small scale September 11 for Shias - they ARE going to lash out at someone, and I'd rather it be us than the Sunnis - last thing we need is a civil war to stand in the middle of.

They also blame us for not sealing the borders - which is more a CPA function than military. We just don't have the troops, and not enough Iraqi forces have been stood up to handle it.

EDIT: And, yeah, I just read Occupation Watch. And yes, we do have a webpage. It looks a lot like that one actually, excpet the stories are usually far on the other side of the issues. I don't give it much creedence though, since it's put out by PSYOP. At least we aren't targeting Americans with it

To be honest, i would rather see them blame the Sunnis and lash out at them. We didn't lay the bombs out so that it would kill 200 people. We were told not to get in the way during the celebration. It's kinda hypocritical of them to be telling us that we did nothing to prevent this when they asked us to stay away.

I found a very long, but informative article here, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. It was written recently, January of this year. It seems to be fairly unbiased, from the personal and related observations and collected research of Kenneth M. Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution…A former director for Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council and a former Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA.

Is popular Iraqi resistance to US troops a major concern in Iraq, or is the "resistance" mainly regime loyalists and terrorists? I believe that the brunt of resistance is from the regime loyalists and al-Qa'eda….perhaps the occasional Sunni tribesmen. I think the majority of Iraq wants to avoid a civil war and chaos, and see us as a necessary evil to restore order to their country. Unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of lawlessness and looting, which adds to the instability. The Iraqi population is weary of banditry. They want to be safe first and above all, then have political autonomy and get us out.

Is the concern over the "legitimacy" of the political process the primary concern for those providing security in Iraq? I hope that the primary objective right now is keeping the Iraqi population safe, and attempt to prevent continued sabotage of the infrastructure (secondary, of course, to not coming home injured or in a body bag).

It’s a difficult situation. To make matters worse, the process of recruitment and training of Iraqi policemen to share the burden isn’t going well. Training for these Iraqi policemen has been greatly abbreviated and often too cursory for purposes of expediency, and there is corruption.


Is the coalition making reasonable progress in Iraq? The problem is, we have very little basis for comparison to make the assessment whether or not progress has been made. I went to Danya’s first link, and read of the observations made by American families visiting their children who are soldiers over in Iraq. The observations were interesting, but not much of a basis for how the reconstruction is going. Before the occupation, Baghdad had round the clock power. Much of the rest of the country went without. Now, the power is on for 18-22 hours throughout much of the country. Ask a person in Baghdad what they think about the power situation, and they will give you a completely different opinion than someone living in an area which never had power before.

Department officials, contractors, and members of non-governmental organizations have spread out into many Iraqi villages and built schools, restored bridges, repaired hospitals, cleaned out irrigation ditches, dug sewers, ect. This is a country whose infrastructure has been neglected for well over a decade. Iraq was wartorn 15 years ago, and never recovered. They were under a tyrannical dictatorship. Add to that over a decade of sanctions in which (supposedly) more than a million people starved. Often, buildings and infrastructure were shoddily built to begin with. Improvements are crippled by looting and sabotage. Pipelines are shot or blown up. Cables are cut. Equipment is stolen when left unguarded.

Jobs are down (I’m getting that from Danya’s post, I haven’t confirmed it personally) from around 60 percent unemployment to 80, but 60 is whoppingly high. If those 20 percent were in the military (and we know, they most likely were), it wouldn’t be prudent to keep them in uniform, until they’ve undergone an extensive screening and training process (see above).

It is impossible for me to sit here at my laptop and determine whether reasonable progress is being made in Iraq. I think that under the circumstances, it probably is.

One thing of which I am very certain, is that we must continue to focus our efforts in improving the situation. Whether right or wrong, we took this on and we have to finish it reasonably well. If the Gulf Wars were fought to obtain stability in the region because we have a vested interest there (and we do), there is much at stake.


BTW..Welcome to the forum, Lone Wolf I really REALLY appreciate hearing views from those on the inside. Thanks a million.

Fortunately I suspect the only lashing going on will be a stern tounge-lashing. Dangerous in its own way yes, but a difficulty which can be overcome in short order.

Sistani (or his advisors, I'm no t sure who's behind his recent statements) is playing politcs, manuvering both for the moderates like him and the more extreme Shias who are being courted by other clerics in an attempt to gain power. Things like demanding impossible elections and blaming the US for...something... are gestures.

He still opposes violence against the coalition, so things could be worse. What we've got now is just whining. Lashing out against the Sunnis would be dangerous, Shia aren't likely to fight the Americans, but the Sunnis whose thumb they just removed from their backs?

That could be trouble, but I doubt it. The Shia leaders seem hip to the terrorists tactics of division having contended with similar nonsense under Hussein.

Oh how the mighty misconceptions have fallen!

Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq
It's interesting how different services spin the results, Al-Jazeera's take was hilarious as usual...

Here's a Reuters article that is pretty fair.
Poll: a Year On, Most Iraqis Happier Without Saddam

and the full poll.
Poll Results(PDF)

and here's may favorite bit: the percentage of Iraqis who say "the occupation" is their number one problem a resounding 1.1%.

So again (say it with me now) there is progress in Iraq. Thing are not worse than before the war.

Take two doses of reality and post whenever you feel like it.

The problem with your argument is that you're taking point-in-time measurements and projecting them forward ignoring the "what might happen" scenarios.

Once we leave, civil war is still an option. Doesn't matter if the majority of the people are against civil war; you don't need the majority in order to wage war in the first place.

Once we leave, totalitarianism is still an option. Doesn't matter if people like freedom; he who controls the guns tends to control the people.

You can't "spin" a statistic forward into the future. It doesn't reflect reality.

Amf, we could 'what if' things to death if we wanted. But barring any outrageous events, I think this is telling poll. Iraqis want to move orward with optimism in their country and are happy that Saddam is gone forever.



Well if that's the case then I guess the millions of people in this country that invest in the market should pull all their money out, even if it looks as if a specific sector is on the rise. Of course the threat of civil war and the return of a dictatorship are still there. But if we refuse to look to the future with the optimism shown in these polls, then we might as well pull everyone out and let Saddam back in. Our job is to make sure Iraq has a stable foundation to start off with, after that, Iraqis will decide their own fate. Iraqi's, as shown by this poll, have faith in us and their countrymen.

As a long-time investor, on every piece of investment information there's a line that reads something to the effect that "past performance is not a measure of future results." People ignored that as well, while Internet stocks traded at 100+ times their earnings. But they ignored it at their peril. Although the market went up over 30% last year, it's not doing the same thing so far this year.

The point being (of course ) that you cannot spin a statistic or a poll forward. Optimism only carries you so far. Realism is more useful. The Administration is starting to rely more on realism than optimism (which seemed to be the pre-war technique), but that doesn't mean that I need to be optimistic either.

Come now amf, I think we both know the problem with your argument is that it is based almost completely on the weight of vaugery.

As Titus pointed out this is pointless.

It looks like Martha Stewart will be sentenced soon...oh., but wait, what if an errant meteorite kills the judge?

Never mind this has never happen before, "past performance is not a measure of future results".

A more rational approach would be to evaluate the likelihood of these doom projections. In the area of civil war despite the fact that "wolf!" has been cried since before the war, this doesn't pan out as likely. Totalitarianism is just as unlikely as no one group controls all the guns. Compromise becomes preferable to forceful subjugation. Why do you think the American Revolution resulted in a Democracy?

Shia and Sunni leaders are both well aware of the terrorist plot to prompt such a war and are working to prevent it. The tiny of minority of Iraqis that which to participate if one, would be dealt with in short order. A majority of Iraqis supporting civil war isn't needed for one to occur, sure. But a significant plurality would be nice...

Of course one can spin a poll foward (that's part of the point of polling making projections you know...). Particularly if successive polls over time show the same trends as is the case here.

The point of course is that the Prophets-of-doom have been proven wrong in Iraq time after time after time. Those who claim there isn't progress now do so against the full weight of reality.

Of course some will do so regardless.

Have they been proven wrong? Considering in the last couple hours Iraqi rebels just annihilated the Jabal Lebanon hotel in central bagdad killing at least 28, one of the latest in a long series of terrorist attacks in the country... Four US aid workers were killed yestrday in Mosul, and the day before that and Iraqi translator and a US officer were killed in their car. That same day a pro-US Iraqi police colonel and his bodyguards were also shot dead. Three days earlier two US soldiers and their translator were shot and killed.

Two weeks ago bombings killed 150 Shia worshippers in Kerbala, in an atack targeted against the religious gruop specifically. A couple days before that a suicide bomb killed 13 and wounded 60 at an Iraqi police station.

It seems to me that much of what the doomsayers have predicted has come true. Iraq is still unstable and dangerous, people are still being killed at an alarming rate, including US soldiers, though the rate of their mortality has dropped slightly...


What is not being discussed is that the main reason US deaths have dropped is that many of the more dangerous assignments, such as convoy duty and ambulance diriver, have been passed off to local Iraqi forces, who are suffering the costs. Just because it does not make front page of the news every day, do not think there is not an actrive, effective and deadly resistance in Iraq killing people at a phenominal rate. Iraq is so bloody still that the US has had to rethink its strategy for a full handover of power in June.



Are you crazy? Shis and Sunni factions are the ones who most want to start the civil war. Of all the attacks in the last two months, the 4 or 5 most bloody have been religious attacks directed by Shia against Sunni or the other way around. If there is a conflict, it is far more likely to be a religious one than a secular civil war.


Has there been progress? Yes certainly, finally now most everyone who had power and water before has power and water now. However there is now evidence that Al Quaida is active in Iraq, ironic since it has never been there before. Well done US.

The situation in Iraq is tense, difficult, bloody and nowhere close to a resolution. To suggest otherwise is to do so against the full weight of reality.

"Vaugery"?? Can't find that word or anything like it in my dictionaries, so I'm completely at a loss to understand why this would make my argument not as weighty as your optimistic view of things.

And you put lots of smileys in there while completely ignoring reality. Very similar to the attitude that many in the Pentagon had going into the war. Over 500+ soldiers dead. Thousands of soldiers wounded. New terroristic attacks daily. The average person on the Iraqi street says "Everything is better now, except we worry about bombs going off." Gee! Imagine that! Instead of Saddam and Sons running around terrorizing the population, we now have created a power vacuum so that the Iraqis (and foreign outsiders) can terrorize each other! Wonderful news!!

Of course, this is what's happening today and it doesn't reflect where it might be tomorrow. Just as the polls you quote doesn't reflect where Iraq might be tomorrow. Which is an argument that has more gravitas than just spouting how wonderful everything is while ignoring what's happening.

I assure you I am well aware of the news coming out of Iraq (Iraq-watching has become a bit of a hobby) As a result of all this watching, I am also able to put these events in a considerable amount of perspective, which is a key term when considering this issue.
To point at the acts of violence that kill hundreds in this country of millions and then claim failure is irrational. Compared to the predictions of many about all kinds of disasters from civil war (a spectre which is raised almost weekly), to war with Turkey, to a collapse of a Democracy building process, to massive hatred from Iraqis and on...

This situation is tame. To expect there to be no danger when the country and people of Iraq are the target of a fierce terrorist campaign is unrealistic. But to believe that overshadows all progress is just as bad.

For goodness sakes, don't take my word for it. The polls I cited are a picture of Iraqi opinion. Their's is the optimism that counts, I'm just the messenger.

The truth is the terrorists are the one's that will be overwhelmed, the combined efforts of the coalition and Iraqis can solve Iraq's problem, Iraqis see that, this is the source of all that optimism. The terrorists are so drastically outnumbered and outgunned that the battle may drag on but the end is almost sure. Note today's attack of desparation, attacking Iraqis with not real connection to the coalition at all. You think that could succeed?

Israel is in a much tougher strategical position and the terrorists could never hope to endanger the existence of Israel or even pull them down from a position as a rich and successful country. The same is true of Iraq as long as Iraqis will it.


Perhaps you didn't read the first post in this thread which explains that Shia and Sunni leaders believe these attacks were actually perpetrated by Al-Qaeda of other terrorists groups. A position which is strengthened by evidence form intercepted Al-Qaeda correspondence.

Where is your evidence that Sunni and Shia factions want to start a civil war.?


I assume you're aware that pessimism is no more rational than optimism....

Your brief characterization of the Iraqi Dynamic is highly misleading. Power and water are better than pre-war levels and as Iraqis note there are a number of areas of progress that you leave out completely.

Al-Qaeda resents this and so they kill a bunch of Iraqis. However their isolated actions cannot turn the tide of democratization that Iraqis has so forcefully supported in successive polls. Iraq is well on it way to resolution, the Iraqis are the experts on that and they say so...


Looks like you caught me using a bit of slang ( I can't claim to have made it up mind you, but it hasn't made it's way into the dictionary despite considerable use, try a web search to see what I mean) in any case the word in interchangeably with vagueness. Consider it replaced. I do believe, however, that the remainder of my post should have made that clear...

Cute. There were five smileys in that 273 word post...

Indeed, why can't those silly Iraqis see their country has become a disaster!
What are they, blind?

That's a lot to say of an argument that seeks to erase all chances of reaching any conclusion on the future of Iraq whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with reasoning out the future, we do it all our lives, even thought those pesky meteorites could screw things up at any moment.

Site please. I find this unlikely since most of my former soldiers are out convoying every day still, and the FLA drivers around here seem to be pretty well employed. If anything, we have more people convoying lately in order to redeploy down to Kuwait.



Umm, no. Site please.



And where did anyone claim we had this sewn up? It's simply a good sign that the population is positive and hopeful despite the terorist attacks. In all, the Iraqi population seems to be standing up to terrorism better than the Spaniards

The poll you cite does have a lot to be optimistic about. Especially the number of Iraqis who felt their lives would be much better or somewhat better a year from now.



On the other hand you have the security problems. On the 'number one problem' question, the response with the largest percentage is 'lack of security/stability'. 22.1% of respondents chose that, 18.0% chose 'no problem/no single biggest problem', and 11.8% chose 'no job'.

As for the future, Iraqi optimism is definitely a good sign. But if you view a stable democracy as the final goal, there is still a lot of uncertainty. When asked which country should serve as a model for Iraq, the two largest responses were 'Iraq needs no model' at 23.6%, and the UAE at 21.1%. While 41.6% say they want a democracy 5 years out and only 9.8% say they want religious leaders, 35.5% say they want a single strong Iraqi leader.

And perhaps the biggest problem with rapid introductions of democracy in the Middle East is that the groups that are the best organized early on are the Islamic groups. 75.3% of respondents say they would never join a political party or action group. The political party that gets the largest percentage of respondents that say they would vote for it is the Shi'ite Islamic al'Dawa party, with 10.0%. Out of the top five parties, two are Kurdish and three are Islamic.

There are a lot of ways those numbers can be interpreted, but one way is that Islamic parties are in a great position right now. Parties representing a majority of Iraqis are unlikely to be formed any time soon, while Islamic parties are already organized/organizing. A sizeable percentage of Iraqis would be satisfied with an autocratic government, which could mean that the first group to gain power has a shot at keeping it for a long time.