New Poll Suggests Progress in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[oldreliable67]

American viewers of network news, and Arabic viewers of al-Jazeera, generally regard OIF as a failure for various reasons: Iraqis are too sectarian to form a nation; they reject democracy as an imposition; or the average Iraqi lives a life of fear due to the deterioration of security since Saddam’s fall.

The International Republican Institute’s (IRI) “Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion,” released July 19, 2006, records that Iraqis overwhelmingly reject sectarianism and national division; and that they widely support the government they have elected. Moreover, most Iraqis feel safe in their own neighborhoods. The pollsters conducted 2849 interviews in Arabic and Kurdish, balanced for geography, ethnicity, sex, and age.

IRI has sponsored these polls in Iraq for the past three years. The surveys were conducted June 14 through June 24 this year—a time of high sectarian violence, particularly in the Baghdad area. Iraqi opposition to sectarianism is stronger than ever. It is striking therefore, that ninety-four percent of Iraqis support a “unity” government, representing all religious and ethnic communities, as opposed to 2 percent who do not support it. Asked to judge whether Iraqis should be segregated by religion, or by ethnicity, 78 percent of Iraqis oppose those prospects; only 13 percent support them. In multi-ethnic Baghdad, where most of the sectarian revenge killings occur, 76 percent of the public opposed ethnic separation; 10 percent supported it.

What do Iraqis think of democracy? Outside Iraq’s borders the Arab world considers Iraqi democracy a sham—a publicity ploy by the Americans to disguise a cruel occupation. In a 2005 John Zogby–Shibley Telhami poll, Arab respondents said the war was bringing less democracy rather than more (58 percent to 9 percent).

But Iraqis disagree. Even in the Sunni provinces, the new Iraqi government musters 23 percent support. And overall, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki commands approval numbers that any Western head of state would envy. Nationwide confidence in the al-Maliki government stands at 58 percent “approve” to 20 percent “disapprove.” Kurds—roughly 20 percent of the population—support the new government 60 percent to 11 percent. Residents of the southern provinces—largely Shiite—approve 83 percent to 3 percent.

To be sure, not all of the poll results are encouraging, but some of the key issues suggest optimism. The poll results in their entirety are reported in a quite interesting PowerPoint presentation that can be accessed here. Please go read the whole thing...and post your impressions here!

 

[::Major_Baker::]

give us a link to the poll!

 

[oldreliable67]

Ooops! My bad (as my kids would say)!

...To be sure, not all of the poll results are encouraging, but some of the key issues suggest optimism. The poll results in their entirety are reported in a quite interesting PowerPoint presentation that can be accessed here. Please go read the whole thing...and post your impressions here!

 

[Iriemon]

I question the source of the data a bit. It president Lorne Craner, "was Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor for Secretary of State Colin Powell. Among other accomplishments during his three year tenure, he contributed to the conception and implementation of President Bush’s approach to democratization in the Middle East."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lorne_Craner

And the nature of their past surveys exhibits a bias towards emphasizing the optimistic:

Links to past polls and releases:

New Poll Finds Iraqis Favor a Unity Government to Lead the Country: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, March 23 – 31, 2006


Overwhelming Majority of Iraqis Plan to Vote Thursday: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, November 30 – December 7, 2005

Overwhelming Majority of Iraqis Plan to Vote in December: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, November 1 – 11, 2005

Overwhelming Majority of Iraqis Plan to Vote in Tomorrow's Referendum: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, October 9 - 11, 2005

Overwhelming Majority of Iraqis Plan to Vote in Constitutional Referendum: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, September 6 - 12, 2005

Majority of Iraqis are Confident in National Assembly and Constitutional Committee: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, July 9 - 14, 2005

Majority of Iraqis Want Human Rights Protected in Constitution: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, April 11-20, 2005

Optimism Continues after Iraq's Historic Election: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, February 27 – March 5, 2005

On Eve of Historic Election, Survey Shows Iraqis Eager to Vote: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, January 13 - 24, 2005

Iraqis Remain Committed to Elections: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, December 26, 2004 - January 7, 2005

Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, November 24 – December 5, 2004

Optimistic Outlook on the Future and Support for Democracy Continues in Iraq: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, September 24 - October 4, 2004

Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, July 24 - August 2, 2004

Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, May 27 - June 11, 2004

In that vein, I noted that few of the data reported breaks out Sunni opinion as opposed to general Iraqi opinion, and that of course is a critical element in Iraq's prospects. And the ones that do are not promising as to Sunni (and Northern Arab atittudes. However, I agree it is positive that Iraqis in general seem to have maintained a sense national identity as opposed to devolving into factional affiliations.

 

[oldreliable67]

Iriemon,

When first reading about the referenced poll, I wondered about the IRI and its credibility i.e., did they do like the poll a year or so ago that permitted the sponsoring organization to frame the questions in a manner that virtually guaranteed responses in line with their agenda?) - and still do, though the framing of the questions in the IRI poll seemed rather straightforward and honest. Don't have any answers yet, other than it is at least partially funded by the US gov't since inception under Reagan. Am trying to read a bit more about it and hope to have more to say later.

 

[BigDog]

I think progress can be measured in the underreported 100 deaths per day in Iraq. In the fact that the Iraqi PM denounced Israel. That Shias aline most closely with Iran, and that women have fewer freedoms and are more restricted today.

Polls are dandy, but they can't tell us a lot of things. We use other measurments to do that. Can we really look at Iraq and not be concerned?

 

[faithful_servant]

I think progress can be measured in the underreported 100 deaths per day in Iraq. In the fact that the Iraqi PM denounced Israel. That Shias aline most closely with Iran, and that women have fewer freedoms and are more restricted today.

Polls are dandy, but they can't tell us a lot of things. We use other measurments to do that. Can we really look at Iraq and not be concerned?

That's right, doggie, make sure that every single bit of good news from Iraq is countered by the bad. Never, ever give credit for success w/o making sure that everyone is aware that Iraq isn't perfect adn may not be for a while. Make sure that you make every effort possible to minimize the good news at every opportunity. Al-Queda thanks you for your unwitting support of their cause.

 

[BigDog]

That's right, doggie, make sure that every single bit of good news from Iraq is countered by the bad. Never, ever give credit for success w/o making sure that everyone is aware that Iraq isn't perfect adn may not be for a while. Make sure that you make every effort possible to minimize the good news at every opportunity. Al-Queda thanks you for your unwitting support of their cause.

Give credit where credit is due, but this doesn't qualify. This is opinion, perhaps even a skewed opinion, and not a measurable. Show me a reduction in the violence. Show me women getting more rights and not less. Show me the Shia accepting Israel. Show me this not helping Iran.

Again, I understand the desire to feel good about it. But frankly, there isn't any real reason to feel good. We made a mess.

Oh, and please stop with the false notion that honesty and disagreement equal support for Al Qaeda. Such is childish and anti-American. The facts are what they are no matter how anyone feels about them.

 

[oldreliable67]

I think progress can be measured in the underreported 100 deaths per day in Iraq. In the fact that the Iraqi PM denounced Israel. That Shias aline most closely with Iran, and that women have fewer freedoms and are more restricted today.

Polls are dandy, but they can't tell us a lot of things. We use other measurments to do that. Can we really look at Iraq and not be concerned?

Of course we cannot look at Iraq and not be concerned. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of, and take notice of good news when it does come along. I don't recall any assertions that the results of this poll were indicative of any thing other than what they were represented to be: an opinion poll of Iraqi sentiments on certain questions, the results of which were somewhat optimistic on some key questions. Nothing more, nothing less. None of the posters on this thread, so far, have reached up and pulled the chain that turns on the "Applause" sign.

"Underreported" is your opinion, unless you can substantiate it.

Shias - Sunnis animosity is a big part of the ME religious and political landscape right now, but it has been thus for how many hundreds of years?

 

[BigDog]

Of course we cannot look at Iraq and not be concerned. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of, and take notice of good news when it does come along. I don't recall any assertions that the results of this poll were indicative of any thing other than what they were represented to be: an opinion poll of Iraqi sentiments on certain questions, the results of which were somewhat optimistic on some key questions. Nothing more, nothing less. None of the posters on this thread, so far, have reached up and pulled the chain that turns on the "Applause" sign.

"Underreported" is your opinion, unless you can substantiate it.

Shias - Sunnis animosity is a big part of the ME religious and political landscape right now, but it has been thus for how many hundreds of years?

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=h...(uQ3EQ5EdW(fqWWdKKZkQ7B(8Q3AqQ5EZhQ2BQ51Q7Bfd

Iraqi Death Toll Rises Above 100 Per Day, U.N. Says

(snip)

The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a substantial increase over the figures in daily media reports.

(snip)

According to the report, 1,778 civilians were killed in January, 2,165 in February, 2,378 in March, 2,284 in April, 2,669 in May and 3,149 in June.

The totals represent an enormous increase over figures published by media organizations and by nongovernmental organizations that track these trends.

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that uses news reports to do its tallies, reported that at least 738 died in June, and another 969 the previous month.

The United Nations report said that in recent months, “the overwhelming majority of casualties were reported in Baghdad.”

The capital has been the focus of raging sectarian violence, particularly since the bombing in late February of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra, which set off several days of bloodshed, widened a rift between the Sunni Arab and Shiite communities and stoked fears that the country was sliding toward full-scale civil war.



You can also go to the BBC and read continous comments by Iraqis that are not all tha positive at all, or notice the people leaving the country. I would say there is a lot of very measurable things to make that poll quite questionable.

 

[ProudAmerican]

so you gave us a NY Times link that gives us the figures......yet claims the mainstream media is underreporting the figures!!!

anyone else see the irony there?

 

[BigDog]

so you gave us a NY Times link that gives us the figures......yet claims the mainstream media is underreporting the figures!!!

anyone else see the irony there?

You confuse where it is printed, as there are many places it is printed, as the source. Try again.

 

[ProudAmerican]

You confuse where it is printed, as there are many places it is printed, as the source. Try again.

you made less sense in that sentence than you have ever made since you have been comming here.

 

[BigDog]

you made less sense in that sentence than you have ever made since you have been comming here.

What don't you understand. The Times didn't make this up or do the study. They merely reported the results, as did many other places.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What don't you understand. The Times didn't make this up or do the study. They merely reported the results, as did many other places.

this will be my last response to you on this topic as I do not feel like going on a typical merrygoround.

the very first thing you see when you click on the NEW YORK TIMES LINK is the reporting of the number of deaths.

the very thing you are claiming is underreported.

if you dont see the irony, then theres nothing to talk about. just feign ignorance and act like you dont understand my point.

 

[BigDog]

this will be my last response to you on this topic as I do not feel like going on a typical merrygoround.

the very first thing you see when you click on the NEW YORK TIMES LINK is the reporting of the number of deaths.

the very thing you are claiming is underreported.

if you dont see the irony, then theres nothing to talk about. just feign ignorance and act like you dont understand my point.

You are missing the point. The day by day reporting has been underreporting the deaths. The numbers are the evidence of that under reporting.


And it doesn't matter to me if you respond or not. If you have a coherent point, make it. If not, don't. :2wave:

 

[Alastor]

A new poll suggests progress in Iraq, huh?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen dressed in military fatigues burst into the offices of the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and a nearby mobile phone company Monday, seizing 26 people in a daylight raid in a mostly Shiite area of the capital.

Also Monday, at least 30 people were killed or found dead in political or sectarian violence across the country, police said. They included four Iraqi soldiers killed in a suicide bombing in northern
Iraq, the first such attack in the Kurdish-ruled province of Dahuk.

The kidnappings occurred around noon when 15 four-wheel drive vehicles carrying the gunmen pulled into the main shopping area of Karradah, an upscale residential district where several Shiite politicians live.

One group entered a mobile phone shop, the other went to the next door office of the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce, police Lt. Thair Mahmoud said. The gunmen rounded up 15 staff and customers from the shop and 11 from the chamber office and drove away with them, Mahmoud said.

All the victims were believed to be Iraqis. The Iraqi-American Chamber is an independent organization not affiliated with the U.S. government, and maintains branches throughout Iraq and in Amman, Jordan.

The Interior Ministry denied that the kidnappers were police — despite the uniforms — and blamed the attack on "terrorists," Iraqi state television reported.

The raid occurred in the same neighborhood as the abduction two weeks ago of about 30 people, including the Iraqi National Olympic Committee chairman, during a meeting of sports officials.

A few have been released; those still missing include the committee chairman, Ahmed al-Hijiya. The gunmen who seized the sports officials also wore fatigues and used the same kind of four-wheeled drive vehicles as the kidnappers Monday.

Also Monday, gunmen wearing fatigues blocked the car of a millionaire businessman in a Baghdad neighborhood and seized him and his two sons, leaving the man's car in the street, police Lt. Bilal Ali Majeed said.

It was unclear whether the brazen operations were carried out by government police or paramilitary commandos, or sectarian militias or criminals wearing military fatigues, which are widely available in Baghdad markets.

U.S. officials estimate an average of 30-40 people are kidnapped each day in Iraq, although the real figure may be higher because few families contact the police. Security officials believe most of the ransoms end up in the hands of insurgent and militia groups.

Many abductions are believed to be tied to the ongoing violence between Sunni and Shiite extremists who target civilians of the rival Muslim communities.

On Monday, the government said that since February, 30,359 families — or about 182,000 people — had fled their homes due to sectarian violence and intimidation. That represented an increase of about 20,000 people from the number reported July 20.

In other violence Monday, according to police: a Sunni imam, Abdul-Aalem sl-Jumeili, was shot dead late Monday in his home in Fallujah; two mortar shells exploded in a mixed neighborhood in southern Baghdad, killing a civilian; also in the capital, gunmen killed a Health Ministry employee, Maad Jihad, Monday afternoon.

The shootings, kidnappings, bombings and extortion have prompted a public outcry about the effectiveness of Iraq's U.S.-trained security forces, whose ranks are believed infiltrated by Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and common criminals.

That has led to calls in parliament for replacing Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani, who was appointed last month in a bid to put leadership of the internal security forces into the hands of someone unconnected to militias or avowedly sectarian parties — a key U.S. demand.

But al-Bolani, a Shiite and former aviation technician, had no background in security. Iraqi politicians complained that they were unable to find someone with a security background who was not linked to a sectarian party.

On Monday, Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi confirmed that plans for a Cabinet reshuffle were in the works but he would not identify which ministries would be affected.

Other Iraqi lawmakers said changes the Interior Ministry were difficult because the Americans would have to approve them. The lawmakers spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The United States had hoped the establishment of the government of national unity — with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — would bolster public confidence and lead to a decline in violence so that U.S. and other international troops could begin heading home.

Instead, the U.S. military is boosting its force in Iraq and sending at least 3,700 soldiers from northern Iraq into Baghdad to cope with a surge in violence that started when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government took office in May.

Al-Maliki conferred late Sunday with his key security ministers, and afterward issued a statement saying the government was drafting plans to bolster forces in five Baghdad-area communities with the worst sectarian violence.

__

Associated Press correspondents Qais al-Bashir, Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Bushra Juhi and Rawya Rageh contributed to this report.

Yeah, that's real progress.

 

[Crispy]

A new poll suggests progress in Iraq, huh?



Yeah, that's real progress.

Actually that seems like progress to me. Discussing the re-organization of the Cabinet ministries and re-inforcing the security forces in that area is exactly what a responsible government ought to be doing.

Just because sectarian violence in Bagdhad and the outlying areas has increased as of late doesn't mean progress is non existent nor that progress isn't forthcoming. How this new government responds and the experience they gain through this crisis is exactly how they will progress.

Its good to see polls that show positive developments and we should always maintain an optimistic outlook even in the face of such an up hill struggle. Its actually more important that this sectarian division be at the forefront now because it highlights the deep rooted problems of the region that ultimately need to be addressed regionally and not just in Iraq. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been fighting this sectarian battle since the middle ages and have not learned yet to resolve their differences without bloodshed. When this government, with ours and the world's help, diffuse this crisis and find the way for this deeply rooted division to be worked out, we'll have not only saved a country but offered up a true solution for Islam as a whole.

The pessimism and negativity here are the real threats to the success of a new country that needs more than that from us and the world.

 

[Alastor]

Actually that seems like progress to me. Discussing the re-organization of the Cabinet ministries and re-inforcing the security forces in that area is exactly what a responsible government ought to be doing.

Just because sectarian violence in Bagdhad and the outlying areas has increased as of late doesn't mean progress is non existent nor that progress isn't forthcoming. How this new government responds and the experience they gain through this crisis is exactly how they will progress.

Its good to see polls that show positive developments and we should always maintain an optimistic outlook even in the face of such an up hill struggle. Its actually more important that this sectarian division be at the forefront now because it highlights the deep rooted problems of the region that ultimately need to be addressed regionally and not just in Iraq. The Sunnis and Shi'ia have been fighting this sectarian battle since the middle ages and have not learned yet to resolve their differences without bloodshed. When this government, with ours and the world's help, diffuse this crisis and find the way for this deeply rooted division to be worked out, we'll have not only saved a country but offered up a true solution for Islam as a whole.

The pessimism and negativity here are the real threats to the success of a new country that needs more than that from us and the world.

We've been there (and declaring our proud success no less!) for quite a while now. Yet the problems have not gone away, or even gotten better. In some cases, such as the news today, it's gotten far worse.

It's not pessimism. It's reality. We've been chanting victory for two years now. Yet the proof is in the pudding.

What does tomorrow hold? I don't know. Something better I hope. For now, I have to base my reactions on the pattern that's been laid out.

And we're talking about here and now. Not some hypothetical and euphoric tomorrow.

 

[Crispy]

We've been there (and declaring our proud success no less!) for quite a while now. Yet the problems have not gone away, or even gotten better. In some cases, such as the news today, it's gotten far worse.

It's not pessimism. It's reality. We've been chanting victory for two years now. Yet the proof is in the pudding.

What does tomorrow hold? I don't know. Something better I hope. For now, I have to base my reactions on the pattern that's been laid out.

And we're talking about here and now. Not some hypothetical and euphoric tomorrow.

When you counter a poll that sheds an optimistic light on the situation with reiterating the negative it is pessimistic. Having toppled a brutal authoritarian regime, transitioning through an interim government to a final constitutional democratically elected government and having stablized the vast majority of the country indeed constitutes many successes.

Nobody is claiming victories on all fronts in all ways in Iraq and it would be foolish to expect that. Given the nature of the region, the history of the sectarian conflict that exists, and the internal and external factors contributing to instability though, it shouldn't be surprising that what's happening in Bagdhad is happening. More important is, as I stated before, that it is out in the open now and thus demanding some action and resolution now.

Ultimately, we can't live and breathe by the daily situation on the ground without applying context and understanding to that situation in broader terms. Nobody should or does feel good about a high death toll but that toll represents a whole lot more than just victory or defeat and we shouldn't make the mistake of labeling it at such. Its sucks, its tragic but its not failure or defeat or success or victory until we walk away and see what we've got.

 

[Alastor]

When you counter a poll that sheds an optimistic light on the situation with reiterating the negative it is pessimistic. Having toppled a brutal authoritarian regime, transitioning through an interim government to a final constitutional democratically elected government and having stablized the vast majority of the country indeed constitutes many successes.

Nobody is claiming victories on all fronts in all ways in Iraq and it would be foolish to expect that. Given the nature of the region, the history of the sectarian conflict that exists, and the internal and external factors contributing to instability though, it shouldn't be surprising that what's happening in Bagdhad is happening. More important is, as I stated before, that it is out in the open now and thus demanding some action and resolution now.

Ultimately, we can't live and breathe by the daily situation on the ground without applying context and understanding to that situation in broader terms. Nobody should or does feel good about a high death toll but that toll represents a whole lot more than just victory or defeat and we shouldn't make the mistake of labeling it at such. Its sucks, its tragic but its not failure or defeat or success or victory until we walk away and see what we've got.

I guess we see things differently, both in terms of the situation in Iraq and in what constitutes pessimism and optimism.

When I look at it your way, naturally I'm inclined to have an optimistic outlook; were I to take that as gospel and ignore other factors. When one looks at it from my perspective, I think my point stands to reason.

 

[Crispy]

I guess we see things differently, both in terms of the situation in Iraq and in what constitutes pessimism and optimism.

When I look at it your way, naturally I'm inclined to have an optimistic outlook; were I to take that as gospel and ignore other factors. When one looks at it from my perspective, I think my point stands to reason.

You know dude,

I've come to view world events in the context of a much bigger picture than most seem to do. I don't count the bodies by the day because all that leads to is a negative outlook and detracts from a bigger view. Had we had mass media during the American revolution we would've discovered that what we had in the south on a day to day basis amounted to a factional war of revenge and blood akin to Iraq today. That episode thankfully didn't determine the outcome of the American Revolution though.

If we followed day to day accounts of both World wars, the same would apply, yet our actions and the outcome were both as necessary as any outcome in human history.

When I consider the Sunni/Shi'a Conflict in the context of the Shi'a conflict with Sunnis stemming from the early middle ages, I can't ignore that the bloodshed being spilled today is centuries old. And this conflict doesn't conform in any way to the Western world's interpretation of what a civilized conflict should be.

Everybody here is trying to apply a 21st century civilized standard to a civilization that has only just begun to shed its violent past. Remember that it was only 150 years ago that we were just beginning to shed ourselves of slavery. And it was only 200 years ago that the Islamic world really opened up its borders to recognize the west at all. Before that they lived in their middle ages.

There's going to be violence for some time to come and we need to see the progress from the point of view of a bigger picture in order to truly say "yes, this is a failure or a success," not by the day to day horrors that only offer temporary views of a bad situation.

 

[Alastor]

You know dude,

I've come to view world events in the context of a much bigger picture than most seem to do. I don't count the bodies by the day because all that leads to is a negative outlook and detracts from a bigger view.

I disagree. These bodies are part of the view, and they're our young men and women. They matter, and they need to be counted so that we know the cost of what we're doing, and to help ensure that what we're doing is worth it. Right now, I don't feel that's the case.

Had we had mass media during the American revolution we would've discovered that what we had in the south on a day to day basis amounted to a factional war of revenge and blood akin to Iraq today.

But we didn't. And we are very quick to point out the poor conduct of others, and we know the rules.

If we followed day to day accounts of both World wars, the same would apply, yet our actions and the outcome were both as necessary as any outcome in human history.

See above.

Etc.

 

[Crispy]

I disagree. These bodies are part of the view, and they're our young men and women. They matter, and they need to be counted so that we know the cost of what we're doing, and to help ensure that what we're doing is worth it. Right now, I don't feel that's the case.



But we didn't. And we are very quick to point out the poor conduct of others, and we know the rules.



See above.

Etc.

Well, first I'll say In the context of this discussion, being the casualties you brought up in your post about the current conditions, we're by and large referring to Iraqi civilian casualties brought about by sectarian violence as opposed to a majority being US military casualties.

Of course those lives should be valued no less than our casualties but its important that we understand clearly why those lives were taken, or the cause of the violence, before passing judgment on the situation.

It can be easily "assumed" here that we, the US, were the cause of this violence, as most who don't support the war would say, but, that discounts the 1000 years that this very sectarian struggle has been going on for, and while we can be considered a catalyst we can't be considered the cause.

Knowing this though offers us as observers and participants a more fundamental understanding of what's really happening and what really has to happen, and moreover what really has to happen within Islam in general in order to secure this lasting peace and victory we talk so much about.

To your point, Our soldiers also are indeed a part of the view, but the loss of our Men and Woman should measured against what we stand to gain just as the loss of our soldiers on Iwo Jima was measured against the cause of stopping Imperial advance of the axis powers. From the "4 years before and 4 years to come" point of veiw sure, Iraq can be seen as just a war that we engaged in by choice, for what most say were less than adequate rationale to justify the war, and have lost many brave americans in so choosing. But If we were to help Islam find a way to reconcile its sectarian differences and its differences with the West, than none of the loss of life will have been in vain for we will have brought to Islam what its circumstances, its isolation, and the West have denied it since the beginning of the West's dominance in the world.

One other point.

Not to say that we shouldn't always consider and reconsider the validity and value of our actions, but everything is subject to a point of view as we all know here, and the worst point of view is a negative one. Criticism doesn't require negativity nor should it. I choose to view this conflict this way even with the many criticisms that I've made myself about this whole campaign. In the end though its not the criticism as much as the negativity that truly hurts the cause and jeapordizes its outcome.

 

[Alastor]

Well, first I'll say In the context of this discussion, being the casualties you brought up in your post about the current conditions, we're by and large referring to Iraqi civilian casualties brought about by sectarian violence as opposed to a majority being US military casualties.

You're right. Most are Iraqi civilians. But not all. We've lost over 3000 men, most of them "post-combat" and well after we had declared an "end to the fighting, and victory over our adversary."

Of course those lives should be valued no less than our casualties but its important that we understand clearly why those lives were taken, or the cause of the violence, before passing judgment on the situation.

I don't take issue with your statements here.

It can be easily "assumed" here that we, the US, were the cause of this violence, as most who don't support the war would say, but, that discounts the 1000 years that this very sectarian struggle has been going on for, and while we can be considered a catalyst we can't be considered the cause.

I would agree again. I wouldn't even go so far as to say we were the catalysts. I'd pin that squarely on the nations and entities energizing the insurgency and the sectarian resentments.

Knowing this though offers us as observers and participants a more fundamental understanding of what's really happening and what really has to happen, and moreover what really has to happen within Islam in general in order to secure this lasting peace and victory we talk so much about.

I'd disagree that we have some sort of advantage in terms of perspective. Our media is pretty skewed. Most Americans don't even understand the culture or thought process of Arabian culture. I don't think we're in a good perspective as civlians here at home, far from the region. Even as I say that though, it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand, and might be a better argument for a new thread.

To your point, Our soldiers also are indeed a part of the view, but the loss of our Men and Woman should measured against what we stand to gain just as the loss of our soldiers on Iwo Jima was measured against the cause of stopping Imperial advance of the axis powers.

Yes, and that was one thing. They didn't stand there bleeding, and we actually tried to win. These two situations are incompatible in my view. Analogies from WWII are great for rousing patriotic and nationalistic sentiment, but they don't provide lessons or guidance for the current situation in the Middle East.

But If we were to help Islam find a way to reconcile its sectarian differences and its differences with the West, than none of the loss of life will have been in vain...

But that is NOT what is happening. If anything we are fueling the contempt for the west that is already present. We are not winning over the hearts and minds of the people, and this administration has done little to make me feel like they're going to pull off an "eleventh hour miracle" here.

I agree with your "if." But it's a rather preposterous "if." We've completely bungled almost every aspect of the fundamentally important issues at hand.

One other point.

Not to say that we shouldn't always consider and reconsider the validity and value of our actions, but everything is subject to a point of view as we all know here, and the worst point of view is a negative one. Criticism doesn't require negativity nor should it.

At some point optimism also becomes delusion. At this stage I'd say I'm closer to critique than the opposing point of view is to optimism. I don't feel my criticisms have been "negative" at all. On the contrary. I've mentioned where we have fallen short - and thus far those facts are undisputed (and should remain so). I've not said "We can't get it right." I've said, "We're not getting it right."

I haven't said this was a lost cause - though I believe that with our current decision makers that may well be the case. I do think there's still a chance, and I do think we could make it happen if we truly focused on what was important.

I don't feel I'm being negative at all. I feel I'm being realistic. I think that having an overly optimistic view (as I would deem some here to have) is rather... The odds don't favor that kind of rosy outcome.

The bottom line is that we are planting the seeds of tomorrow's return to a war-torn gulf. Or we're at least adding water and letting it grow. To take the view that "It's okay, we'll work it all out!" is irresponsible in my view, and is a debt that future generations will pay for with their lives abroad, and potentially at home as well.

I don't mind optimism. I'm not a pessimist. But I am a realist, and so far we've done little to mend the long-term ills of the area that might affect us, and on the contrary in many cases we have fed the monster ourselves.