The majority of the population wants us gone. And do you have any evidence that the political leadership wants us there, outside of the collaborationist government. ?THEY want us to stay, because they will have the choice of fleeing or dying when we leave.
Because doing so would require admitting that we are at fault. No Americans would be “turned into a pink mist” for LEAVING Iraq. The reason that Americans aren’t willing to leave Iraq is because we are a nation of near-sociopaths who don’t care how much blood we spill or why. Bush wants to stay, and we don’t want to admit that we’ve lost or how much the Iraqis justly despise us, so we’ll stay. And if that kills thousands more Iraqis, we don’t care; they aren’t American, so they aren’t human in our eyes.
A terrible misunderstanding, but I wasn’t referring to the Iraqi tribal leaders. That is actually pretty amusing. Sorry about that. I was referring to the American political tribes.
This was an interesting rant which could surely apply to a disturbingly large percent of the American population. I assume you’re familiar with various public opinion polls which show that your opinion is a little black and white. But let’s pretend that 90% of all Americans were peace loving angels who desperately wanted us to stop occupying Iraq. How would they bring about this change, in your view?
90 % ? That’s rather a lot. Well, with those kind of numbers, if a few million people every day protested on the streets and demanded that our troops be brought home, and inundated Washington with millions of letters against the war, I rather suspect that our political leadership would decide against political suicide, and bring them back.
They aren’t going to bring them back, because leaving them there isn’t political suicide. Or even all that politically risky.
Wrong. The surge started at the beginning of last year, and many metrics haven’t improved at all since then. (Those that have are back up to the halcyon days of 2005, and are mostly the numbers having to do with security, which is appropriate, since The Surge has returned Iraq to the violence levels of that golden year.
I’d add that they didn’t poll the hundreds of thousands of dead, who’ve had a permanent and irremediable decrease in their quality of life, or the million or two exiles.
Speaking of which, it would have been useful if the poll had asked respondents if someone in their immediate household had been killed violently or had permanently disappeared since the beginning of the war, and if so, how many. Would have been interesting to compare the results with the Lancet study.
Maybe they didn’t want to have their entire poll discredited by wingnuts.
As elucidator said, only by comparison with August 2007 when things were at their absolute worst.
Could you cite by question number? There’s over 50 main questions, with batches of sub-questions, on 23 pages of PDF.
At any rate, some basic benchmarks from Q9:
A. The security situation - roughly back to 2005 levels.
B. Jobs - better than 07 but not as good as 05, with 70% saying availability of jobs is either pretty bad or very bad.
C. Electricity supply - at Feb. 07 levels, worse than 05.
D. Clean water - ditto.
E. Medical care - only marginally changed from Aug 07; much worse than 05.
F. Local schools - better than 07, way worse than 05.
G. Local government - about like Feb 07.
H. Availability of basic things you need - impressively, back to 2005 levels.
I. Protection from crime - better than Feb 07, worse than 05.
J. Family’s economic situation - ditto.
K. Availability of cooking/driving fuel - essentially Feb 07 levels. (No 05 numbers.)
L. Freedom of movement - better than 07. (No 05 numbers.)
M. Freedom to live where wish without persecution - ditto.
The thing is, in 2005, things weren’t particularly good in Iraq. We’ve deployed an unsustainable number of troops to return Iraq to 2005 levels in some metrics, to beginning-of-surge levels in other metrics, and somewhere in between in still other metrics.
Excluding ethnic cleansing and de facto partition, there’s no evidence that we’ve laid a foundation for Iraqis to sustain the meager gains The Surge has accomplished. And we can’t do it.
Plus the whole thing is costing us Americans about 500 lives, a great deal more serious injuries, and $150B a year. I’m not seeing that either America or Iraq is getting much value for that cost.
>Napier, Iraq Body Count … between 80,000 and 90,000 as of this writing.
>The Lancet Surveys … “654,965 excess deaths related to the war” as of October 2006.
Well, at least this issue is straightened out now.
If everything is at a certain point, we’ll call it “now”, and things are ‘trending better’ than they were “then”, at what point in the “future” will we reach ‘good enough’ to, as the OP asks ‘leave’?
[Aside to Sam Stone: Since you’re here, I’m hoping you’ll favor us with another one of your wonderful threads that detail just how great the Bush economy is! Please, please!]
RTFirefly: Nothing you said disputes what I said. All I said was that all the metrics are improving as compared to before the war started. I didn’t say Iraq was in great shape, or that everything was peachy there. All I’m saying is that the various trendlines are positive. That’s important, isn’t it? If we’re trying to figure out whether there’s hope for Iraq to find peace and stability, the trendlines are the best indication. Right now, they are positive.
As for the 80% number, just search the file - there was a pretty specific question about whether Iraqis want American forces to fight al-Qaida and foreign jihadists. I don’t have the file open right now and I have to run out the door to work, but it should be easy enough to find.
And if you misspoke yourself, and meant Surge, rather than ‘war’, then you’re wrong: not all the metrics are improving since the beginning of the Surge. I named five that haven’t. That doesn’t just dispute what you said; it directly contradicts what you said.
If you look at a trendline involving two points, they’re all positive.
No.
‘The’ trendlines? Which ones?
Where’s the reconciliation trendline? Sorry, that’s still in the toilet. Not only can’t the different factions agree on anything - they can’t even get as far as doing their disagreeing at the same table.
OK, I found it - last part of Q.34 for anyone following along at home.
Unfortunately for you, that seemingly contradicts Q. 20, where by a 72-26 majority, Iraqis still oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. (That’s an improvement over 79-21 in August - whee! Positive trendlines! BFD!)
If there’s a possible resolution to that contradiction, it would be that, sure, they’d like American forces in country, not as an occupying force, but in small numbers in limited operations.
I should point out (Q.33) that 46% of Iraqis think the security situation would improve, and 69% say it would improve or stay the same, if the U.S. picked up and left. Only 26% think it would get worse.
Maybe they’re right - and if they are, then we really ought to go, because we’re spending our blood and treasure for nothing.
And if they’re wrong on this, why trust their judgment on other questions that aren’t matters of observable fact?
Oh, be nice to Sam. He has to reconcile his “all governments are worthless and not to be trusted” with “golly, George, the Iraqis’ government just gotta come through for us” world views.
It’s not easy - can you just imagine the mental contortions that’s got to involve?
Summing up “a great deal of confidence” and “quite a lot of confidence,” here’s how a number of entities in Iraq rank:
Local Teachers - 78%
The Police - 67%
The Iraqi Army - 65%
Awakening Councils - 56%
National government of Iraq - 48%
Local leaders in your community - 47%
The local militia in this area - 22% U.S. occupation forces - 20%
Yep, our troops inspire less confidence than the local militias, the incompetent and dysfunctional central government, and so forth. Feel the love.
But hey, great trendline - that’s up from 15% in August!
