Iraq apparently filled with cut-and-runners

As recently as January, public opinion research showed that most Iraqis wanted U.S. troops to remain in the country until security conditions improved. Now, they just want us out.

Eight out of ten Shias in Baghdad (80%) say they want foreign forces to leave within a year (72% of Shias in the rest of the country), according to a poll conducted by World Public Opinion in September. None of the Shias polled in Baghdad want U.S.-led troops to be reduced only “as the security situation improves,” a sharp decline from January, when 57 percent of the Shias polled by WPO in the capital city preferred an open-ended U.S presence.

This brings Baghdad Shias in line with the rest of the country. Seven out of ten Iraqis overall — including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%) — say they want the United States to leave within a year.

Iraqis and Americans are increasingly on the same page. Most of the public in the United States believes U.S. forces should withdraw; most of the public in Iraq believe the same thing. Most Americans believe security conditions in Iraq could improve if we redeployed; most Iraqis believe the same thing.

Here’s a crazy thought: how about the Bush administration give the people (in both countries) what they want?

Kevin Drum summarized the poll results nicely.

PIPA has released a new poll of Iraqi attitudes toward the U.S. occupation, and the takeaway is very, very clear: they want us to leave. 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis want us to leave within a year (the number is 80% for Shiites in Baghdad). By wide margins, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they’re preventing, and both groups believe that day-to-day security would improve if we left. Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis. And none of this is because of successful al-Qaeda propaganda: 94% of Iraqis continue to disapprove of al-Qaeda.

Now, it may be that these views are misguided. But it hardly matters: it’s simply not possible for us to occupy the country successfully if a majority of Iraqis actively support attacks on our troops and a vast majority think we’re responsible for the rising violence. It’s time for us to leave.

Moreover, as Matt Yglesias noted, there are practical concerns to consider.

Whatever it might be possible for US forces to achieve in principle, we’re not going to be able to do anything useful in the face of this kind of overwhelming opposition to our very presence. People won’t cooperate with our troops meaningfully or be interested in American views on what kind of steps the Iraqi government should or should not be taking. Most of all, you certainly can’t build a democracy with an unpopular occupying army staying in a foreign country in the face of hostile public attitudes. Insofar as the Iraqi government does cooperate with our forces and does take our suggestions, it’s only going to find itself discredited by association with us.

The situation is untenable, and we need to leave. What’s more, we need to start planning to leave as soon as possible so we can figure out a plan that’s orderly and reasonably safe, rather than finding ourselves needing to do it in a panic 30 months from now.

We’re talking about what the administration believes is a functioning democracy, and in a democracy, the electorate’s desire to see a foreign army leave should be respected.

For nearly four years, every Bush administration decision regarding Iraq has failed to make conditions any better. Iraqis have seen enough; Americans have seen enough. When will Bush?

Only one problem with giving the people of both countries what they want. Cheney doesn’t believe in democracy. -Kevo

  • The Decider already decided and the majority of people in Iraq and American can go pound sand. At least that is what the Decider, Cheney, and Company haved said.

  • Exactly, Kevo. The assumption that Bush-people seriously consider majority opinion is a flawed one.

    BUSH: “And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don’t. I just don’t make decisions that way” – link

  • Two years from now, there is ethnic cleansing, rape and genocide in Iraq, and everybody screams “why isn’t America doing something about this tragedy?”

    Somalia, Rwanda, Darfur. Case studies gentlefolk.

  • We’ve either got 140,000 too few troops in Iraq or 140,000 too many.

    The colonialist mindset is that the ‘natives’ don’t know what is best for them.

    I don’t think rape will be a big part of the civil war in Iraq. They pseudo-respect women too much for that.

  • Lance – that’s what “phased re-deployment” is all about. The troops are not sent home, they are sent nearby, so a re-deployment (if necessary) is possible.
    Yugoslavia II won’t be pretty, but it was inevitable. We just made it happen faster (and gave them more ammo).
    And Iran says, Thanks Mr. Bush!

  • Lance (#6) – America supporting a UN/AU mission into Darfur is one thing. We can go in with a moral high ground.

    But after killing thousands of Iraqis ourselves for no apparent reason, we do not have the moral high ground in Iraq anymore. Forever. No American will call for our forces to go back in unilaterally on a humanitarian mission, but we may call for monetary & logistical support for a future peacekeeping mission.

  • “We’re not leaving without Cheney’s oil.” – MAA

    Well, we’re not leaving until Cheney cashes in his Halibreton stock options, which have increased in value several fold since he concoted this war to feed the various merchants of death.

    “But after killing thousands of Iraqis ourselves for no apparent reason, we do not have the moral high ground in Iraq anymore. Forever.” – Ohioan

    Maybe. That will not change the fact that once Iraq collapses into a total bloodbath the blame will be laid on us.

    It’s like Kerry and his botched joke. Half the conservative pundits screamed for an apology, but once he gave it, the other half screamed that he apologized (thus proving how bad he was). This really happened. I heard Pat Buchanan make just that asinine argument.

  • Lance #11 – …the blame will be laid on us

    And rightly so. It’s not just the outcome of our war, but also an outcome of our divide & rule policies dating back to the first 2003 appointed govt, where people who were picked not as Iraqis but as Shi’a (12), Kurd (5), Sunni (5), Christian (1), Turkoman (1) and Chaldean (1). No other “democracy” in the world picks its government along explicitly sectarian lines…

  • So Osama and the terr’rists (heh, heh, heh) want us out of Iraq. The Sunnis and the Shias want us out of Iraq. The American people want us out of Iraq. The rest of the world wants us out of Iraq.

    But Wile E. Coyote (Genius), sitting there in the White House, he’s got it all figured out because G-d (or Cheney) told him this would all work out.

    Riiiight.

  • “No other “democracy” in the world picks its government along explicitly sectarian lines…” – Ohioan

    Just Lebanon.

    Actually, Ohioan, I don’t believe that the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Iraq will be our fault. It will be the fault of the Iraqis, who faced with the precipice, chose to jump off. We have given them so much to avoid it, but there they are, falling towards the bottom and screaming “God is Great” all the way down. The resulting splat will be quite spectacular. To blame America for no building a hundred mile high fence to stop them from jumping off is just unfair.

  • Iraqis chose to jump off? All Iraqis including the victims of violence, the comedian who died yesterday and the folks who just want to earn a living? It makes for flawed argument treating all Iraqis as one in the debate. My opinion is, when you invade a nation, you take solemn unconditional responsibility for securing its people. Forget a 100-mile high fence, at least be profoundly sorry for not studying the country hard enough or for not going in with enough troops.

    P.S. Point taken on Lebanon. I guess not having any oil and hence no oil ministry made it easier.

  • Comments are closed.