I think that the results of that poll show that the question was misunderstood nearly 2 out of 3 times asked.
A better question would be “was the transfer of power a good decision?” Throw in “reflecting failure on the part of the Bush administration” just confuses this specific issue and makes for inaccurate polling.
If the question was phrased that way, I think the results would have been almost unanimously “yes.” Almost every one of us Americans are sick of the war in Iraq, and any progress made toward resolving the conflict and going home is good.
I don’t know, as I said, it was splashed to the page on a “this just in” basis. I haven’t a clue as to how the question was phrased, or what strictures were in place to prevent bias. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that a change in phrasing might drasticly alter the results. I have no proof of that supposition, nor do I imply any special expertise on my part.
I imagine the only real public test would occur if the new and improved Iraqi governance takes a position directly opposite one preferred by the US. But, as I’ve noted, when was the last time you heard Lambchop tell Shari Lewis to go fuck herself?
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I think the more likely scenario would be escalating violence leading, in a very short time, to outright civil war.
Not a lot of difference between doing this on June 27 or June 30. Maybe it foiled some plots to raise a little cain on June 30. For the foreseeable future in Iraq, if it breathes, it’s liable to be killed by terrorists. It doesn’t matter if the US is in charge, the Iraqis are really in charge, or if the Iraqis are American puppets.
This isn’t progress, it’s a formality - and one that was announced way ahead of time. Nobody ever thought it wasn’t going to happen. To me, the fact that the CPA decided to move the date up (which CNN says they decided to do this within the last week) isn’t very encouraging. I think this ‘progress’ is counteracted by the fact that there have been troop increases proposed in the last few days. The administration has been open about the fact that it’s going to get worse.
NOW we’ll need an Unfair-in-height 9/11 / Karl Rove / transfer gov. to Iraqis conspiracy theory thread. The 14 active threads on the Straight Dope regarding Unfair –in – height 9/11 obviously fall short when addressing this latest Rove chicanery --------- “conspiracy” they do fine - :eek:
Whether the US troops leave or stay, I think attacks by the “insurgents” will increase. If the US troops leave, the attacks will increase because the population view the transitional government as puppets of the US (true). If the US troops stay, the attacks will increase, because this will necessitate a response in kind by US troops, which will only enhance the position of the “insurgents.” It’s a no-win situation, as far as I can tell.
It will be a novel situation in governance… Your in command… but you can’t change anything. You can’t order the troops around and you get money only if you play nice.
I hope it works out for them… afterall it won’t be Bush that will do it.
Bremer did leave pretty fast… maybe too fast. Probably more symbolic getting him out right away. Still the new govt. will have a hard time getting to know the reins.
I think that if this Iraqi government can maintain order until elections can be held, the new, legitimately elected government may be much more acceptable to Iraqis than the transitional government is.
What I’m trying to say is that civil war and massive insurgency are not inevitable. Democracy can work in Iraq, but obviously we can’t expect it to be strong and stable right away.
The biggest problem for a democratic Iraqi government right now is not local insurgency and rebellion. The biggest problem is the foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters that are pouring into the country, which may or may not have anything to do with how the local populations feel.
Nope. That post goes to the issue – “stop terrorists” — not to the position of ‘advocate cowering.’
The point is that it isn’t a simple project – this “stop terrorists.” Not ‘simple’ because ANYONE with an inclination and some free time can go out and kill for the purpose of terrorizing. One person or five or fifty. And the limits the forms of terrorism can take are created only by the lack of the terrorist’s imagination. Two guys with a car and a gun did it by shooting people at random – somebody else did it by mailing anthrax – another with a credit card and rental truck, others using kidnapped innocents on videos, and a few others using commercial airliners. That doesn’t mean we cower – hell no – it does mean this is a much harder problem to address than seemed to be suggested — that’s all
What it means to me is that we will find out what it really means three days early. Our people, military leaders, Paul Bremmer etc. keep saying that the Iraqi police aren’t strong enough in numbers or well trained enough to do the job so our military will have to enforce the law for a while.
This brings up an interesting question I think. For example, the Iraqi defense minister, or internal security minister or whatever he was, said that they will crush the insurgency with “new laws” that will include cutting off hands decaptiation of prisoners. Since the US military is the police force will we capture people and turn them over to the Iraqis under such conditions?
I hope this significantly speeds the process of getting us the hell out. It would probably be worth (gulp) four more years of GW should that be the case.
Zagadka - you might be more specific. First - what’s my “cause.” Then tell me again how I’m using the word “terrorist” in my mind and how you arrived at that conclusion from my posts — and how that use doesn’t help me in your’s.
I have no clue what you’re talking about. I never mentioned your “cause”.
You’re defining the average guy-opposing-American-occupation as “terrorist” - they are insurgents, usually organized in militias. The actual organized terrorist groups are different people, usually foreigners.
