Poll: Less Than One In Four Want To Stay In Iraq To Achieve Democracy

Comments (13)

Daniel wrote on September 13, 2007 11:22 AM:

This is reflected by Democrats running after one another to make sure they don't leave any space between each other on the Iraq issue. What is interesting, though, is that none of them is really trying to occupy the truly anti-war space that Richardson is so desperatly trying to be credible in.

conniptionfit wrote on September 13, 2007 11:22 AM:

Interesting poll numbers, but where's the rest? I note that you have polls up pitting the most popular Republicans against a lesser known Dem candidate (Kucinich), but the other polls note only the top 3 Dem candidates- where are the numbers for Kucinich, Richardson, Gravel, et al? One of our main complaints in the campaign process is that the media chooses our top tier candidates for us, seemingly based on fund raising numbers, and thereafter refuses to print much at all about the rest of the candidates. Surely you aren't buying into that mode, by burying the rest of the candidates poll numbers?

Bob wrote on September 13, 2007 11:24 AM:

Just when we can finally start to see some light at the end of the tunnel, the Dems all continue to want to rush to failure. Is there a single Dem with a spine for the long-haul? Like it or not, we OWE Iraq our best efforts to help fix their country (yes, we broke it, we have to fix it). Why do no Dems see that we have a moral duty to clean up our mess? Just because you don't like the mess we created, doesn't mean we can just leave it now. We finally have some real progress so we need to stick with it and try to build on it. If in another six months we haven't had any signs of success in the mixed provinces, then I'll join you in wanting to expedite our withdrawal. Now is not the time to pull out. Suck it up and stick it out.

itsbenj wrote on September 13, 2007 11:34 AM:

not a surprising number, really. the more that various media pundits and republican stooges repeat endlessly that things are getting better and improving and that everyone should shut up and believe them, the more people they insult and turn off. its a pretty basic formula. if you're going to lie to people, at least smile all pretty while you're doing it! don't finish the lie by telling everyone who is skeptical to eat shit and die.

Ken R. wrote on September 13, 2007 11:50 AM:

It is encouraging to see that not everyone is drinking the kool aid.

Ken R.

Barbara Mathews Blanton wrote on September 13, 2007 12:15 PM:

Iraq will never be a democracy. What makes us think that middle Easterners want to live in the same paradigm we do? Nothing!!

Because we have tried to make this happen for them when they don't want it, we have less of a democracy here. Now, there's a conundrum if I ever saw one!

matt wrote on September 13, 2007 12:50 PM:

BOB wrote:

"... If in another six months we haven't had any signs of success in the mixed provinces, then I'll join you in wanting to expedite our withdrawal. Now is not the time to pull out. Suck it up and stick it out."

You've obviously been sucking for too long. I think it's time for you to come up for some air, amigo.

I remember Glenn Beck saying the same thing about weapons of Mass Deception: (July 2004: "...if in a year's-time we haven't found WMD's, I'll be hard pressed to support this war..." (paraphrased). I made a mental note to see if he changed his position a year later--guess what: HE DID! He changed it to justifying the war for the push for democracy!

Howboutit' Bob, did you fall for the 6 other justifications, too?

"Suck-sess" - everyone - "Suck-sess!"

Keep on sucking, Bob- your President needs you: "Bob's a good man--gotta--a--big heart. It's hard work... (snicker) he has my support--keep sucking --I call him "Bobber-head"--yeah...(snicker/smirk)".

Bob wrote on September 13, 2007 1:28 PM:

Matt,

Very funny, I have to admit.

However, about the consequences of pulling out too early? Maybe some of these so enlightened, smarter than everyone else, "progressives" might want to factor in just a touch of those consequences? No, we wouldn't want to do anything (intelligent) that might give any political success to the Bush Administration. I, for one, am an American before I'm a member of a party, political philosophy, etc. and am pulling for an American success in Iraq regardless of what administration or party mistakenly took us there in the first place. I simply believe the consequences of failure outweigh the consequences of staying at this point in time, a simple, non-biased, non-kool-aid drinking calculation, thank you very much. My $.02.

matt wrote on September 13, 2007 3:24 PM:

Bob,

Seriously--"progressives" don't need to factor anything beyond what career intelligence and military officials have already stated--Iraq can solve it's own goddamned problems AND deal with AQI-- It's been modeled over-and-over-and-over by neoconistic think tanks and military stategists everywhere. It amazes me how people that believe strongly in free markets think that they can impose ideals on sovereign countries. Every time we inject our "export version" of democracy--the one that sidesteps oversight and human rights and regulatory bodies--it bites us in the ass (Hamas/Russia/Venezuala/Nicaragua/Columbia) in many different ways.

Change has to develop and EVOLVE from neccessity, unless Iraq feels it is neccessary to come together, certain factions will use our occupation as an excuse to blame others for bowing to US interests. As long as we are present, our occupation will be leveraged back and forth for the cause-de-jour like a political mace...even for the capitalistic gains of con-artists and militia leaders in Iraq who are getting richer and richer and becoming more heavily armed than ever before--with OUR weapons, Mr. Bob the Taxpayer!.

Iraq is a political token now with a token general who's been called a "chickenshit-asskisser" by a CENTCOM commanding general in March 07--TO HIS FACE!. The meaning is lost, the mission was accomplished long ago. there is no reason to be there. We didn't lose. We aren't cutting and running. We have our honor intact knowing that we offered everything the American people were willing to give for these guys to succeed as a country and they blew-it! NOT US. Don't impose thier failure to come to terms on our misguided efforts to find WMD's. YOU were suckered-- not me. I saw this turd coming down the chute in the beginning--so did Dick! The asshole even warned your stupid asses for 6 years before the war. If you are among the chicken-hawks that are afraid of fighting terrorists here on our streets or anywhere in the world that they show thier asses (lets face it, who's gonna stop them from popping-up anywhere they want--not Bush Co. ref: US Border), I pity you-- they win. I consider you weak-minded, with all due respect to a fellow American. But I will stand over your cowering figure and defend you till death if need be.

Americans (75%) aren't stupid, we know were to put the fight, we know who attacked us on 9/11. We will win the War on Terror by being smarter and more resilient and not be "terrorized" and paralyzed. The rest of you--hold on to your chicken-sacks and don your waders--we'll be wading through this shitstorm of propaganda until common sense has been restored.

Bob wrote on September 13, 2007 3:59 PM:

Matt,

You're great fun. I hadn't heard about the the Fallon / Petraeus feud until you mentioned it. Found it here: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

That's some interesting stuff, but I wonder who really knows more about what is happening on the ground in Iraq, an Army guy who has been there for a few years or a Navy guy in Tampa who's only visited a few times. My money, and yours via Bush, is on Petraeus. Also, this story doesn't really jive with Petraeus' testimony (See Lantos burn below).

You bring up many excellent points that I basically agree with ala nation-building, except I don't think I've ever read anywhere that "Iraq can solve its own problems" at this point, but I'll reserve judgement until I've done some digging. Btw, Patraeus is pushing Iraqi solutions, not American style democracy. (I have been searching for his quotes to the senate in this regard but I can't find it posted online, yet).

Also, Crocker made an excellent point "Iraq is experiencing a revolution, not just regime change," Crocker said. "It is only by understanding this that we can appreciate what is happening in Iraq and what Iraqis have achieved as well as maintain a sense of realism about the challenges that remain."

I wonder if most people who comment online ever really listen to the testimony? I particularly liked when Patreuas made a fool of Rep. Lantos: I'd first like to ask you, General Petraeus, a very specific
question. You have juxtaposed your proposal for a token withdrawal
with a hypothetical, rapid and irresponsible withdrawal. Now, as you
know better than I do, there are very impressive members of the
military with outstanding credentials who favor a much more rapid but
responsible withdrawal of American forces. Would you be so kind and
comment on this intermediate course? Because I believe juxtaposing
your token proposal with a hypothetical, rapid and irresponsible
proposal does not do justice to this most important issue.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, what I recommended was a very substantial
withdrawal. Five Army brigade combat teams, a Marine Expeditionary
Unit and two Marine battalions represent a very significant force.
They are the force, in fact, that have helped us substantially in
achieving some of the recent gains that our troopers have fought so
hard to achieve. Imposing that withdrawal, I believe, is a very
substantial withdrawal, and I have given you my best professional
military advice on what can be done, given the considerations that I
laid out, the operational and strategic considerations which do take
into account the strain very much -- which I'm very aware of, on our
ground forces in particular.
I believe that this is the approach to take to sustain the gains
that we have achieved, to build on them, to transition to Iraqi
security forces as quickly as we possibly can but without, as I
mentioned, rushing to failure and also still continuing the very
important effort against al Qaeda Iraq and some of its affiliates and
the militia extremists, in particular those who are supported by the
Iranian Qods Force.
I'm not sure what proposal you are referring to, Mr. Chairman,
but what I have laid out --
2
REP. LANTOS: Well, let me help you a little bit, General
Petraeus. And I don't know how accurate these news reports are, but
responsible media have suggested that even Admiral Fallon, among
others, have favored a more rapid and more substantial withdrawal than
what you are proposing.
Without dealing in individuals, am I wrong in assuming that
responsible military leaders, both active and retired, favor
considerably more rapid withdrawals than you do, particularly in view
of the fact that our global security requirements seem not to be part
of the calculation that you properly are making because you are
commander for Iraq; you have no responsibility for Afghanistan or for
any other contingency that might arise?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Admiral Fallon fully supports the recommendations
that I have made as do the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In fact, I also
talked to the chief of staff of the Army most recently this morning.
We had discussions about the pace of the mission transition, but there
has been no recommendation I am aware of that would have laid out by
any of those individuals a more rapid withdrawal. And so again, I'm
at a loss. Again, I'm the commander in Iraq. I've given you my best
professional military advice on how to accomplish the mission that the
Multinational Force-Iraq has, and that is represented in the
recommendations that I have made.
Having said that, I did indeed take into account, as I mentioned,
the strain on the ground forces. My last job I was in Army position
responsible for some 18 or schools and centers and experienced that
very much. I might add, I was in Fort Benning, Georgia this past
Friday and spoke to the lieutenants, captains and noncommissioned
officers there as well and did indeed address that same fact. That
was factored in, but again, what I have provided is, as the
Multinational Force Iraq-commander -- and that's of course I think
what you would want me to provide to my chain of my command -- my
recommendation on how to accomplish the mission that we have at this
time.

agoldnyc wrote on September 13, 2007 4:20 PM:

re: "Stay In Iraq To Achieve Democracy"

That's a lie and you repeated it.

The actual policy is to "stay in Iraq until it becomes a failed state at every level and the civil war spreads to every street corner with bodies piling up every day, many of them tortued and kidnapped before being dumped mostly but not completely dead in the Tigris river."

matt wrote on September 13, 2007 5:25 PM:

Bob-

Thanks for book-- I saw the testimony, to the frustration of my wife and family.

I am not "progressive", I am American. I cringe everytime our rights are weakened by fear-stricken pussies on both sides of the aisle.

God love the soldier who is duty bound and optimistic to the outcome-- but to what end and what is the mission? Not for him to question, soldiers are built to take ground, not ask why--he should have never been put in front of the Congress--Bush is the Commander in Chief. To what do we owe the next request for bailing these theocratic asshats out again? Will the goalposts move yet again? Do you really believe that we can force people to our will by standing around thier streets with MP5's in our tight fists? I wouldn't take shit from ANY occupying force, I know what freedom is by instinct. Iraqi's know, too... but they aren't in control. Sorry, only they have the power to change that.

I had no doubt that there would be a reduction in violence, 30,000 swingin' dicks with awsome firepower and battlefield data should certainly result in a measurable difference in violence...GREAT! SUCCESS!

Are we safer? "...I don't know..."

Is the political situation on an uptick? Certainly not, in fact. When? Who gives a shit! Let them decide when they've had enough on thier own... then we can accomplish something. Until we realize that the strong will dominate and then allow them to do it, we are shovelling bodies into a black hole with no way of knowing who we really need to negotiate with. You may feel as Minority leader "Boner" does that it is a "small price to pay", I say history will show that it is an enormous series of calculated blunders. The region calls for a Strongman styled government and that's the facts as they have been presented for years--check with Dick-n-Kristol. ONLY because theocratic fanaticism has not run it's natural course (evolution), a result of our meddling in the region for decades to control oil interests, among other things. The same reason why Socialism is so popular in South America, we've been fucking those clowns over for years! First it was the church (1400's-1900's) then it was out of control capitalists (still fucking!). We can do it from right here in our own towns, now: "Jose, you missed a spot... what the fuck are you doing!?? I pay you good money to work on my house... don't make me call ICE on your ass!" --CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDERS!!

General Chickenshit is a man, not a god. His battle resume is due in large part to his frontline subordinates in his battalion, Hoorah! The same subordinates that originally branded him Betray-us before Move-on did. Losing 200,000+ taxpayer funded assault weapons and handguns via his lack of logistical awareness is not what I consider an admirable attribute for a commander TASKED WITH LOGISTICS AND TRAINING.

Nonetheless, he should never have had to "testify". The data is available via the GAO report as well as many others... the legitimate vehicle for guaging success.

Bob, this has and will continue to be an excersise in faulty governance and lack of proper oversight by the Congress. It is also an example of how easily an unwarry and trusting nation can be boondogled out of rights, money, life, and liberty.

Don't go into the light....

hardheaded liberal wrote on September 13, 2007 8:07 PM:

To Bob & Matt --

Consider this: Some broken pottery cannot be restored, no matter how much the clumsy breaker wishes that he could fix it.

Can the Iraqis develop the first democracy in the 4,000 year history of their civilization? No one knows for sure, but it seems unlikely that Iraq will develop a unified nation-state with an effective government of any stripe in the next 30 years.

When Bremer, consulting with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, or whatever numbskull he talked to about it, dissolved the Iraqi security forces and barred almost all high-ranking technocrats from working in the government ministries, he handed Iraq to the Iranians. No matter what Bush and psychotic elements of the Israeli government may think, bombing Iran will NOT reverse the consequences of that fateful week in the spring of 2003.

The dumb-dumbs who dissolved the military and banned the top civil servants failed to realize that Ayatollah Al-Sistani (sp?) would maneuver the US into a one-person one vote electoral regime. Once the national government became "one person, one vote," Shi'a political dominance was guaranteed. Had the Sunni still had some influence in the military and the civil service, the Sunni MIGHT have been able to prevent a bloodbath. But without any institutional base, the Sunni were helpless to protect themselves either in government decisions or in opposing Shi'a vigilante violence. Iraq is very like large sections of the South after the Civil War, when the Union troops were greatly reduced or completely withdrawn, from about 1868 through 1876. In those years the KKK assassinated many African-American leaders without fear of punishment in order to regain Democratic Party control of state and local government.

At this point, there are three main questions left, NONE of which give the US government much to be proud of in Iraq"

(1) Will Iraq end up partitioned? The answer is almost certainly yes.

(2) Will there be a bloodbath as the new Iraqi regime evolves? Yes, whether US troops are there or not.

(3) Will the entire region become destabilized, with increasing Shi'a vs Sunni violence throughout the region? I hope not, but US troops cannot even contain violence within Iraq, and we have not attempted to insert our military into Lebanon since 1983 -- the year that President Reagan "cut and ran" after the bombing of the Marine barracks. The best chance of stabilizing the region would be a regional diplomatic compact, probably guaranteed by the UN, the United States, and perhaps by other major nations. In the hearings this week, someone mentioned a Dayton Accords type of agreement.

Even before the dust settles in Iraq, the US public needs to demand that the auto makers undertake a "Manhattan project" type development for improved fuel economy, so that the US will not be dependent on oil from the Middle East.

Comments on Question #1:

The autonomous Kurdish region bordering Mosel & Kirkuk is going to be a flash point with Turkey (and perhaps Iran) for decades.

Comments on Question # 2:

The Supreme Council for an Islamic State in Iraq (with very close ties to Iran) had majorities in provincial governing bodies in at least 3/4 of the provinces, but now it is engaged in many of those provinces in intra-Shi'ite violence. And there will be intra-Sunni violence in Anbar province and the Sunni Triangle -- there is a lot now.

The bloodbath will continue until a single armed authority emerges in each province. A single authority can come from one faction amassing overwhelming force of violence, or from all armed factions agreeing to set aside their differences.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)