Iraq poll 2007

[Kilo]

Iraq poll 2007: In graphics

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42692000/jpg/_42692441_1interview416.jpg

An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC and other major media groups has provided a revealing insight into the everyday lives, hopes and fears of people living in Iraq. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif

It is the third Iraq poll conducted for the BBC since 2003 and now includes regional and ethnic breakdowns of responses with Sunnis and Shias holding diametrically opposing views on a large number of issues.

QUALITY OF LIFE
The poll of 2,212 people from across Iraq suggests an increasing pessimism and feeling of insecurity since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699053_q2_7_416x273.gif

In 2005, democratic elections were taking place and many Iraqis thought things were better than before the 2003 conflict and were hopeful about the future.

Much pessimism appears to stem from the fact that life is not noticeably improving for many people with rising dissatisfaction about the availability of jobs, clean water, electricity and the freedom to choose where to live without persecution.
See a breakdown of how people rate their living conditions. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm#map)
Some Iraqis blame their politicians for the situation - 53% were dissatisfied with the way the Iraqi government was performing, compared with 33% in 2005.
Most think the US currently runs things in Iraq while there most believe Syria and Iran are actively encouraging sectarian vioelnce in the country.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699639_q20_23_416x419.gif


VIOLENCE
Since the end of the war in Iraq, thousands of civilians have died in violence on the streets. Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699685_q27_203x201.gif
Those polled were split as to whether attacks on coalition forces were acceptable - but a majority still believe they should remain in the country until security is restored.
In ethnic terms, Sunnis were more eager for troops to leave - with 55% saying they should leave now compared to 28% of Shia respondents.
The belief that the US-led coalition was wrong to have invaded Iraq in 2003 has steadily increased since 2004.
Only 2% of Sunnis questioned believed it was absolutely or somewhat right to have invaded, while 78% said it was absolutely wrong. By comparison, 70% of Shia respondents said the decision to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq was absolutely or somewhat right.
Security remains a key concern. Asked whether they felt safe in their own neighbourhoods, 40% said yes in 2004, 63% in 2005 but only 26% in 2007.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42698000/gif/_42698793_q33_416x417.gif


LEADERSHIP

Support for the return of a strong leader to lead the country for life or the establishment of an Islamic state have grown marginally while most still pin their hopes to democracy.
A strong leader is more popular than democracy to 58% of the Sunni population, although most accept Iraq will be a democracy in five years' time. Shia respondents were split 41% to 40% in favour of democracy over an Islamic state, but 52% think Iraq will be a democracy in five years' time.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699671_q17_18_416x545.gif

[Kilo]

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S EXECUTION
The execution of Iraq's last strong leader, Saddam Hussein - himself a Sunni Muslim - also split the country over how appropriately it was carried out.
The divisions are stark when broken down along ethnic lines. Ninety seven per cent of Sunnis questioned thought the execution was carried out in an inappropriate manner compared with 17% of Shia.
Asked whether the execution was helpful in bringing about reconciliation in Iraq, 62% of Shia thought it would, while 96% of Sunnis thought it made reconciliation more difficult.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699837_q50_51_416x245.gif


REGIONAL DIVIDE
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42699000/gif/_42699545_iraq_regions203x282.gif

Iraq was divided into four regions for the poll:
North: made up of the districts of Dahuk, Irbil, Nineveh, Sulaimaniya, Tamim;
Central: Anbar, Babil, Diyala, Salahuddin;
Baghdad
South: Basra, Karbala, Misan, Najaf, Muthanna, Qadisiya, Dhiqar, Wasit.
The results show that people in the northern and southern districts think things are good in their lives.
The majority of people in the central regions and Baghdad say life is quite bad or very bad.



Methodology: The poll was conducted by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. More than 2,000 people were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces of Iraq between 25 February and 5 March 2007. The margin of error is + or - 2.5%.


SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm


PDF: Iraq Poll 2007 [468KB] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf)

[M1A2U2]

Funny that the Iraqis are more optimsitic about Iraq then Americans and Europeans. Says something about the reports we are getting. Also find this number interesting:

"70% of Shia respondents said the decision to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq was absolutely or somewhat right."

[Kilo]

I think that´s normal....Saddam was Sunni, he order the killing of many shia (and Kurds)

[cover2]

Funny that the Iraqis are more optimsitic about Iraq then Americans and Europeans. Says something about the reports we are getting. Also find this number interesting:

"70% of Shia respondents said the decision to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq was absolutely or somewhat right."


How is that interesting? It's self-evident, since he was Sunni and now they could one day hold all the power (unless Iraq gets chopped up).

I love how the pro-war people here always say how we're building schools, hospitals, and clean water plants all the time....yet Iraq had plenty of schools, electricity, clean water, and hospitals BEFORE the USA invaded. Now, when we do build/rebuild them, they are often damaged/destroyed by the insurgents/terrorists/etc.

To the average Iraqi, as the poll shows, their lives are not improving. 4 years since the invasion, and they are still lacking in these basic necessities.....

[M1A2U2]

How is that interesting? It's self-evident, since he was Sunni and now they could one day hold all the power (unless Iraq gets chopped up).

I love how the pro-war people here always say how we're building schools, hospitals, and clean water plants all the time....yet Iraq had plenty of schools, electricity, clean water, and hospitals BEFORE the USA invaded. Now, when we do build/rebuild them, they are often damaged/destroyed by the insurgents/terrorists/etc.

To the average Iraqi, as the poll shows, their lives are not improving. 4 years since the invasion, and they are still lacking in these basic necessities.....


Yes so I guess if a dictator provides plenty of schools, electricity, clean water, and hospitals then he is a good dictator regardless of the hundreds of thousands he is intentionlly killing. Thanks for the intelligent comment.

[budgie]

Polls that do not support the Bush Administration's policies are baloney and 79% of people know that...

[cover2]

Yes so I guess if a dictator provides plenty of schools, electricity, clean water, and hospitals then he is a good dictator regardless of the hundreds of thousands he is intentionlly killing. Thanks for the intelligent comment.


And when did I say that made him a good dictator? This world's been full of dictators, a lot more than it's had of democracies. Do we have to run around all over the world toppling dictators who, as it turned out, kept a nation or region stable? What about dictators the USA has supported in Central America, South America, and the Middle East in the past, many of whom committed horrible atrocities against their people?

Saddam may not have been the nicest guy, and I don't deny that I'm happy to have been born in a nation that he did not rule, but seeing how the Iraqis are all killing each other today, I think it starts to make a certain amount of sense why he ruled with such an iron fist.

There's no law that says democracy is the right/best system for everyone.

[Calanen]

I love how the pro-war people here always say how we're building schools, hospitals, and clean water plants all the time....yet Iraq had plenty of schools, electricity, clean water, and hospitals BEFORE the USA invaded. Now, when we do build/rebuild them, they are often damaged/destroyed by the insurgents/terrorists/etc.

That's actually not correct on the hospital front. I read somewhere that the entire hospital budget for all of Iraq under Saddam was $16 million USD. Astonishing. It is now in the hundreds of millions if not billions as a result of american assistance. Found a reference to this figure below:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/21/1-a?etoc


The United States contributed nearly $900 million for health care in 2004, "including $498 million for the construction of new primary care centers and the renovation of 18 maternal and pediatric hospitals to reduce the number of infant and maternal deaths," said Haveman. "About $17 million will be used for training health care staff, $300 million for new equipment, and $50 million for the new hospital in Basra," added Haveman.
He observed that when he arrived in Iraq in 2002, "the ministry's budget was $16 million for 26 million people under Saddam Hussein. This was a 90 percent reduction from a decade earlier."

[M1A2U2]

And when did I say that made him a good dictator? This world's been full of dictators, a lot more than it's had of democracies. Do we have to run around all over the world toppling dictators who, as it turned out, kept a nation or region stable? What about dictators the USA has supported in Central America, South America, and the Middle East in the past, many of whom committed horrible atrocities against their people?

Saddam may not have been the nicest guy, and I don't deny that I'm happy to have been born in a nation that he did not rule, but seeing how the Iraqis are all killing each other today, I think it starts to make a certain amount of sense why he ruled with such an iron fist.

There's no law that says democracy is the right/best system for everyone.

Really then why does every country claim to be a democracy?

Further I do not support the US supporting dictators so I dont really see what that argument has to do with anything. I was against reagans policys in the 80s yet I support a pro democratic agenda. If you still think that there is another form of government besides democracy that should be acceptable then u clearly dont care abou the millions of people who have died as a result of non democratic regimes murdering their own people for disagreeing with them. Open a history book and maybe u will see that every other form of government that can be tried has been tried. I guess democracy is the worst except for all the others.

[shocker1]

I guess democracy is the worst except for all the others.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
--Benjamin Franklin :)

I like that quote, Pure Democracy can by majority limit the Liberty of the minority. Hence why we are a Represenative Republic.

[cover2]

Really then why does every country claim to be a democracy?

Further I do not support the US supporting dictators so I dont really see what that argument has to do with anything. I was against reagans policys in the 80s yet I support a pro democratic agenda. If you still think that there is another form of government besides democracy that should be acceptable then u clearly dont care abou the millions of people who have died as a result of non democratic regimes murdering their own people for disagreeing with them. Open a history book and maybe u will see that every other form of government that can be tried has been tried. I guess democracy is the worst except for all the others.

My argument has everything to do with it....you obviously support the toppling of Saddam, but then forget that the USA has supported, or even put into place, dictators all over the world. While one hand does one thing, the other does the opposite, and you choose to pick and choose which hand you favor.

Even dictatorships "say" they are democracies and run crooked elections b/c it's easier to rule with the "supposed" support of the people. It also looks better to the world community.

It's not up to me to decide what other forms of gov't are acceptable. And, to be honest, I don't especially care about the millions put down by dictators all over the world. I care instead that our gov't did not adequately help the victims of hurricane Katrina, the thousands of preventable deaths happen anyway in America's towns and cities every day, by gun, knife, car, etc. I'm not necessarily an isolationist, but look at the what, $700 billion (if I'm off, I apologize, I've lost track) we've spent on the war in Iraq and what could've been done with that here in the USA. Improve schools, the potholed roads I drive on, rebuild New Orleans, hire thousands of police, build more prisons, drug rehab centers, hospitals, etc, all over the nation. Or, we could topple a dictator who didn't do a thing to us or anyone except his own people. The war in Afghanistan I support, b/c at least that's where training bases were for terrorists who actually did something to this nation. But Iraq? Ugh. The biggest pork project in history, except maybe the "big dig" in Boston.

[mezkali]

Scientific polls are for heretics, and we burn heretics.

[M1A2U2]

My argument has everything to do with it....you obviously support the toppling of Saddam, but then forget that the USA has supported, or even put into place, dictators all over the world. While one hand does one thing, the other does the opposite, and you choose to pick and choose which hand you favor.

Even dictatorships "say" they are democracies and run crooked elections b/c it's easier to rule with the "supposed" support of the people. It also looks better to the world community.

It's not up to me to decide what other forms of gov't are acceptable. And, to be honest, I don't especially care about the millions put down by dictators all over the world. I care instead that our gov't did not adequately help the victims of hurricane Katrina, the thousands of preventable deaths happen anyway in America's towns and cities every day, by gun, knife, car, etc. I'm not necessarily an isolationist, but look at the what, $700 billion (if I'm off, I apologize, I've lost track) we've spent on the war in Iraq and what could've been done with that here in the USA. Improve schools, the potholed roads I drive on, rebuild New Orleans, hire thousands of police, build more prisons, drug rehab centers, hospitals, etc, all over the nation. Or, we could topple a dictator who didn't do a thing to us or anyone except his own people. The war in Afghanistan I support, b/c at least that's where training bases were for terrorists who actually did something to this nation. But Iraq? Ugh. The biggest pork project in history, except maybe the "big dig" in Boston.


I pick and chose nothing, I support the Bush admin for actually wanting to spread democracy. And since you don't care about the millions put down by dictators (meaning you dont care about the holocaust) I'm not sure we can continue this conversation because we are clearly on a different moral level.

[Kilo]

I support the Bush admin for actually wanting to spread democracy

when are you guys going to invade Zimbabwe ? p-)

[cover2]

I pick and chose nothing, I support the Bush admin for actually wanting to spread democracy. And since you don't care about the millions put down by dictators (meaning you dont care about the holocaust) I'm not sure we can continue this conversation because we are clearly on a different moral level.

I believe we fought against Hitler not because he killed Jews, Gypsies, etc., but because he invaded other nations. AND, even then, he invaded Poland, France, the low countries, and bombed England, and STILL we did not declare war. It was not until after Pearl Harbor, when we declared war on Japan, that Germany declared war on the US, that we fought against this man. Do I care about the Holocaust? Sure, of course. But would it have been my problem then? No. If it's so important that we stop such people, why did we do nothing in Cambodia, or Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia (at first), or Sudan today, when all of this ethnic cleansing goes on. We pick and choose, as does you buddy George Bush, depending on the resources of the area (OIL). So you can climb off your moral high horse. History proves you wrong.

[cover2]

That's actually not correct on the hospital front. I read somewhere that the entire hospital budget for all of Iraq under Saddam was $16 million USD. Astonishing. It is now in the hundreds of millions if not billions as a result of american assistance. Found a reference to this figure below:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/21/1-a?etoc


The United States contributed nearly $900 million for health care in 2004, "including $498 million for the construction of new primary care centers and the renovation of 18 maternal and pediatric hospitals to reduce the number of infant and maternal deaths," said Haveman. "About $17 million will be used for training health care staff, $300 million for new equipment, and $50 million for the new hospital in Basra," added Haveman.
He observed that when he arrived in Iraq in 2002, "the ministry's budget was $16 million for 26 million people under Saddam Hussein. This was a 90 percent reduction from a decade earlier."

All nice numbers. Now, how much will actually MAKE it to those areas is something else entirely, given the amount of corruption at all levels already exposed. As each level takes its extra "cut", who knows how much will filter down to the Iraqi people. In addition, I don't know how you can say the numbers were so low before.....what were average wages for an Iraqi before? If each person made the equivalent of $1000 a year (I have NO idea, just guessing), then $16 million on health care may not be such a small sum. I'm sure doctors and nurses there did not make the same kind of $ they make in the US. And, of course, a few hospitals were blown up outright during the invasion, so their replacement would take up some of this new money, not to mention the looting that went on when we rolled into Baghdad w/o enough troops. The physical plants might be there, but medicines, blankets, X-ray machines, etc., were largely looted.

[M1A2U2]

I believe we fought against Hitler not because he killed Jews, Gypsies, etc., but because he invaded other nations. AND, even then, he invaded Poland, France, the low countries, and bombed England, and STILL we did not declare war. It was not until after Pearl Harbor, when we declared war on Japan, that Germany declared war on the US, that we fought against this man. Do I care about the Holocaust? Sure, of course. But would it have been my problem then? No. If it's so important that we stop such people, why did we do nothing in Cambodia, or Rwanda, or the former Yugoslavia (at first), or Sudan today, when all of this ethnic cleansing goes on. We pick and choose, as does you buddy George Bush, depending on the resources of the area (OIL). So you can climb off your moral high horse. History proves you wrong.

All genocide should be stopped if it can be. Just because the US didn't stop genocide doesn't mean I support their decision. I don't support everything the US does or does not do but I know things are a lot more complicated than just oil and genocide.

And your oil argument is just idiotic. If we pick where we intervene based on oil why don't we intervene in Sudan where there is a ton of oil. Do some reading before you open your mouth. it's not as black and white as you think. The president cannot intervene anywhere in the world whenever it wants...in case you forgot...we are a democracy and everything has to be funded by congress.

[Kilo]

If we pick where we intervene based on oil why don't we intervene in Sudan where there is a ton of oil.

because China is already there....

[Kilo]

one other thing M1A2U2

US a "friend" of Saddam Hussein until he decided to invade Kuwait in 1990.

US gave support to Iraq on the Iraq-Iran war

the killing of Kurds with chemical weapons by Saddam occur in 1988, in the end of the war


why didn´t the US stop him then ?


your positions are a bit out of touch with reality

[M1A2U2]

maybe you should get in touch with reality by reading what I said

"I don't support everything the US does or does not do"

[Kilo]

maybe you should get in touch with reality by reading what I said

"I don't support everything the US does or does not do"


what´s your point then ?

You think the US should invade every dictatorship in the world and spread democracy in those countries at the cost of american lifes and american taxpayer money ?


PS: and do you think this was the reason for invading Iraq ?

[M1A2U2]

what´s your point then ?

You think the US should invade every dictatorship in the world and spread democracy in those countries at the cost of american lifes and american taxpayer money ?


PS: and do you think this was the reason for invading Iraq ?

When did I ever say any of that? All I said was I support using military force to stop genocide and that I support the Bush admin for supporting pro democratic rebel movements around the world.
Just because I support Bush doesnt mean I have to fit into your stereotypical group of flag waving conservatives.

[cover2]

When did I ever say any of that? All I said was I support using military force to stop genocide and that I support the Bush admin for supporting pro democratic rebel movements around the world.
Just because I support Bush doesnt mean I have to fit into your stereotypical group of flag waving conservatives.


Actually, Kilo is right. Looking back through your posts, that is pretty much your position. From your posts in this thread, you've actually stated:

1. That democracy is the best and its spread is to be supported (you never mentioned "rebel movements" until this last post I quoted).
2. That genocide must be stopped, or attempts at least made to stop it.

That's what Kilo is asking, yet again you hedge, sidestep, change your tune, etc. Perhaps you're already a politician?

[Vorian]

I pick and chose nothing, I support the Bush admin for actually wanting to spread democracy. And since you don't care about the millions put down by dictators (meaning you dont care about the holocaust) I'm not sure we can continue this conversation because we are clearly on a different moral level.

There are still people that believe that? Imo, the reason why all world is so pissed off with US is the reason they find every time, they must fight a war to protect their interests. At least admiting it, would be honest.

[Kant]

In Soviet Iraq, Poll votes for you!

[MagnaDane]

when are you guys going to invade Zimbabwe ? p-)
They don't have oil, stupid.
http://www.artofmarkbryan.com/images/Uncle%20Sam_500.jpg

[usa320]

Polls that do not support the Bush Administration's policies are baloney and 79% of people know that...

No, any poll that claims a survey of 2,112 people is representative of a population of over 26 million is baloney...especially in a country that is incredibly culturally rigid such as Iraq... if the poll was conducted in the North part of the country, much different results would be returned than would be if the poll was conducted in the southern part of the country and so forth.

[Kilo]

Special Report

Get article background (http://www.economist.com/background/displayBackground.cfm?story_id=8881663)

An American-led coalition has struggled and failed to restore order (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8881663) to Iraq since ousting Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in 2003 (see our backgrounder (http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaybackgrounder.cfm?bg=1023320) on the Iraq war). An amorphous insurgency hobbles the coalition's efforts to impose order and has pushed the country up to or beyond the brink of civil war (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6832006), prompting calls for partition (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8031393) along ethnic lines. Some wonder if the presence of American troops is more problem than solution (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2617185). But an American withdrawal seems sure to spell even worse disaster (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8381356).
After a period of interim government, Iraq held its first general election (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3630452) in January 2005. However, the first parliamentary election aggravated ethnic and sectarian splits (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5572738). With the blessing of George Bush, a Shia prime minister (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7065977) has led a national-unity government since May 2006. But sectarian killing (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8825088) by Sunni insurgents and Shia militias (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8581764) has hastened and spread. Saddam's ugly execution (http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8492500) in December 2006 underscored the chaos.
(See also our Country Briefing (http://www.economist.com/countries/Iraq/) on Iraq)


Iraq
Mugged by reality

Mar 22nd 2007
From The Economist print edition
How it all went wrong in Iraq


APhttp://www.economist.com/images/20070324/1207SA1.jpg

“NEMESIS” was the word The Economist printed on its front cover four years ago, when jubilant Iraqis, aided by American soldiers, hauled down the big statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's Firdos Square. For a moment it looked as though all the fears that had accompanied the build-up to the American-led invasion had been groundless. The defeat of Iraq's army in three weeks turned out to be exactly the “cakewalk” that some of the war's boosters predicted. And in many places Iraqis did indeed greet the American soldiers as liberators, just as Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq's best-known politician-in-exile, had promised they would.
How different it looks four years on. The invasion has been George Bush's nemesis as well as Saddam's. The lightning conquest was followed by a guerrilla and then a civil war. Talk of victory has given way to talk about how to limit a disaster. The debacle has cut short the careers of Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair, poisoned the Bush presidency and greatly damaged the Republican Party (see article (http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8892595)). More important, it has inflicted fear, misery and death on its intended beneficiaries. “It is hard to imagine any post-war dispensation that could leave Iraqis less free or more miserable than they were under Mr Hussein,” we said four years ago. Our imagination failed. One of the men who took a hammer to Saddam's statue told the world's media this week that although Saddam was like Stalin, the occupation is worse.
(http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/main.economist.com/worldart;pos=v5_art350x300;sect=world;sz=350x300;tile=1;ord=59568095?)
What went wrong? The most popular answer of the American neoconservatives who argued loudest for the war is that it was a good idea badly executed. Kenneth Adelman, he of the “cakewalk”, has since called the Bush national-security team “among the most incompetent” of the post-war era. Others also blame the Iraqis for their inability to accept America's gift of freedom. “We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it,” lamented Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post.
That excuse is too convenient by half: it is what the apologists for communism said too. But there can be no denying that the project was bungled from the start. Western intelligence failed to discover that Saddam had destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the removal of which was the main rationale for the war. However, the incompetence went beyond this. The war was launched by a divided administration that had no settled notion of how to run Iraq after the conquest. The general who warned Congress that stabilising the country would require several hundred thousand troops was sacked for his prescience.
Mr Rumsfeld's one big idea seemed to be that it was not the job of the armed forces he was “transforming” to become policemen, social workers or nation- builders. As a result, he sent too few and they did nothing to prevent looters from picking clean all Iraq's public buildings the moment the regime collapsed. “Stuff happens,” was the defence secretary's comment, a phrase used later as the title of an anti-war play in London's West End.
America's plans for Iraq's political transition were also rudimentary, to the extent that they existed at all. The Pentagon wanted Mr Chalabi and his fellow exiles put swiftly in charge. The State Department thought an American administration would have to be installed. State had organised a pre-invasion Future of Iraq project, but the Pentagon declined to adopt its ideas. Several knowledgeable State Department Arabists were prevented from going to Iraq because they were deemed ideologically unsound. Jay Garner, an amiable general called in from retirement to manage the transition under an understaffed ad hoc body known as the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, received no intelligible instructions from Washington, and baffled the liberated Iraqis in his turn. “You're in charge,” he told a gathering of 300 or so mystified tribal leaders and exiles who attended a conference soon after his arrival, hoping to discover what the future held under Iraq's new rulers.
When the Americans discovered the obvious—that Iraqis could not take charge of a state whose institutions had collapsed—the amiable General Garner was called home and replaced by a viceroy. Paul Bremer set up his Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) inside one of Saddam's Baghdad palaces, at the heart of a fortified “green zone” cut off by tall blast walls from the life of the city. Unlike his predecessor he had firm views about what needed to be done, views which in short order produced big mistakes. He disbanded the Iraqi army and so put tens of thousands of resentful, jobless men with military training on the streets. And he turfed thousands of Baath Party members out of the bureaucracy, thereby depriving many ministries of their only trained staff.
In the end, the Americans did preside over a political transition of sorts. The CPA handed sovereignty to an interim government under Iyad Allawi, selected on the advice of the United Nations. Then, in 2005, came a year of elections. In January Iraqis voted in their first free election for a new National Assembly; they voted again in October in a referendum on a new constitution; and they voted in December to elect yet another new National Assembly under the new constitution's rules. If democratic politics were about nothing more than casting votes, Iraq would have the hang of it by now.
Unfortunately, few things are more useless than a government that cannot govern. And Iraq's government can't. For although Iraqis voted in high numbers, they voted along ethnic lines, and this produced an impasse. The outnumbered Sunnis feel locked out of a new Iraq dominated by Shias. The victorious Shia block, the United Iraqi Alliance, is itself so divided that it took its factions five months after the election of December 2005 to choose a prime minister. And his authority is limited. Nuri al-Maliki depends for a majority on members loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical anti-American Shia cleric, with a powerful militia at his disposal. The prime minister can deploy patronage, but this has made his administration into little more than a spoils system in which the individual parties, many with their own militias, use control of government ministries to extract resources for themselves.

http://www.economist.com/images/20070324/CSF103.gif

The main reason for the government's inability to govern, however, is that it cannot stem a tidal wave of criminal and political violence. The Kurds are doing nicely in their northern enclave and much of the south is calm enough. But Baghdad and central Iraq are tangled in multiple conflicts. Many Sunnis have taken up arms against the new Shia-dominated order. Al-Qaeda is running a jihad against the Americans and Shias alike. By killing Shias, especially after blowing up their Askariyah shrine last February, al-Qaeda has succeeded in provoking a torrent of revenge killings. In places, in the name of “resistance” or Islam, Shia militias also attack American soldiers. A poll this week found that half of all Iraqis consider such attacks acceptable (see table). It seems extraordinary, till you remember how at a stroke the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison turned the liberators into torturers in the eyes of Iraqis. The prevalence of violence and the absence of law erodes the legitimacy of the elected government and makes it almost impossible to rebuild an economy that even before the war had been prostrated by a dozen years of UN sanctions.

What now?

It took a long time for the White House to acknowledge the bleak reality. But December's report to the new Democrat-controlled Congress of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan committee chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, forced a change. Its succinct first sentence—“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating”—made it impossible for Mr Bush to keep on saying with jutted jaw that fortitude alone could retrieve the situation. Nor, however, could he accept the group's recommendation to begin to withdraw troops and launch “a robust diplomatic effort”. That would look too much like declaring defeat and going cap in hand to America's regional enemies, Iran and Syria, to sue for peace. So instead of bringing the boys home, Mr Bush decided to send more.
What to make of the “surge” now starting in Baghdad? It is reasonable for sceptics to argue that Mr Bush is merely clinging to existing policy until he leaves office, when a new president will have to clean up the mess he has made. On its own, adding between 20,000 and 30,000 American troops to the 130,000 already there hardly seems likely to turn Iraq around. All the same, some of the military architects of the surge are true believers. This is not just reinforcement, they say, but a long-overdue reversal of the whole flawed post-invasion strategy Mr Rumsfeld left behind.
From the start, the former defence secretary was convinced that the job of securing and rebuilding Iraq belonged to Iraqis. Even after his grudging acceptance that a widespread Sunni insurgency was indeed under way, American troops concentrated on minimising their own casualties while training Iraq's ragged new army to put it down. This was well beyond its ability. In recent months, since it has become clearer that parts of Mr Maliki's Shia-dominated coalition as well as parts of the police are themselves responsible for murdering many Sunnis, the strategy has made even less sense. In such circumstances, arming a government can be tantamount to taking sides in a civil war—and reducing the incentive of the side you back to make concessions for peace.
Henceforth, say the surgers, American troops will do what they should have been doing all along according to classic counter-insurgency theory. Under the direction of an energetic new commander, General David Petraeus, they will leave their bases and plant themselves in the heart of Baghdad's neighbourhoods in order to give Iraqis the security they crave. And security, they argue, is the key to everything else. Only when the killing declines will Iraq's new government be able to buttress its legitimacy, suck support away from the militias and rebuild the economy.
A few weeks into the surge, it is too early to assess the validity of this beguiling hypothesis. The number of ethnic killings by Shia gangs is reported to be falling, but Sunni car- and suicide-bombers are still killing Baghdadis in their mosques and markets. The obvious difficulty, however, is that even if the Americans have at last lighted on the right approach, General Petraeus may not be given the time to see the job through. That will almost certainly be the case if politics in both Washington and Baghdad continue to move against him.
The Democrats in Congress do not want to be seen pulling the rug from under a successful new commander. But nor are they eager to squander more lives and money on a war that many voters think America has already lost. The mood in Washington might be changed by evidence of political progress in Baghdad: the point of the surge is to stabilise the capital and so buy time for Iraq's politicians to reach a power-sharing agreement that might suck some poison out of the sectarian war. But are they capable of making such a deal? Do they even want to?
Iraq's cabinet agreed last month on how to share oil revenues between the regions. In public utterances Mr Maliki is careful to say all the right things about national reconciliation. These are encouraging pointers. The trouble is that Americans who listen in to his government's internal chatter are horrified by what they hear. Some conclude that the Shias have no real intention to share power, only to string America along while using its firepower to destroy rivals and entrench their own dominion. It is also uncertain whether the politicians who claim to speak for the Sunnis in the National Assembly are close enough to the insurgents to make them stop fighting even in the event of a political settlement. In short, time may show that the democratic structure the Americans worked so hard to install can neither run Iraq nor reconcile its warring clans.
That would mark Mr Bush's final failure The chief reason he gave for the invasion of 2003 (and the only one this newspaper accepted) was fear of Iraq's WMD. But this, admitted Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, was only “the one issue that everyone could agree on”. Others included a feeling after September 11th 2001 that America should vanquish any enemy that dared to defy it, and a belief that by turning Iraq into a democracy America could transform the Middle East, ending the rule of the autocrats, draining the swamp in which terrorism festered and promoting an Arab peace with Israel.

What next?

When the WMD turned out not to exist, Mr Bush inflated this “freedom agenda”. In his inauguration speech in 2005, after his re-election, he connected Iraq to America's “great liberating tradition” in foreign policy. Free elections had been held not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. The “Cedar Revolution” turfed Syria's army out of Lebanon and American nagging resulted in an Egyptian presidential election that looked marginally less rigged than usual. But 2005 was the high point. It is now absurd to expect Iraq to serve as a democratic inspiration—it has done more to inspire jihad. As for proving American might, the overstretched superpower looks increasingly like a supplicant, less ****e to lecture Arabs on governance than to seek help from former enemies once consigned like Syria and Iran to the “axis of evil”.
Mr Bush's rejection of the Baker-Hamilton report should not have been a surprise. Transparently admitting defeat would have forced America to negotiate from weakness. The surge, in contrast, may turn out to be a case of sauter pour mieux reculer: a way to strengthen America's hand before Mr Bush, or more probably his successor, co-ordinates an eventual exit with Iraq and its neighbours.

AFPhttp://www.economist.com/images/20070324/1207SA2.jpgInto an unsafe future

The surge in Iraq has coincided with tougher action against Iran. America has sent an extra carrier to the Gulf and is helping to pilot a second sanctions resolution against Iran through the UN Security Council. But it is at the same time putting machinery in place that could be used to make a bargain. Officials from the two countries talked early this month in Baghdad and more senior ones expect to get together at a follow-up next month.
It seems odd after more than quarter of a century of rivalry for America to expect any help from Iran. The Islamic Republic is the big winner from Mr Bush's war. But neither Iran nor any regional power apart from al-Qaeda has an interest in the complete collapse of Iraq. The Iranians in particular worry about what the Americans might do in such a circumstance. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, calls America “a wounded tiger”, all the more dangerous for its sudden weakness. Such has been Mr Bush's failure that the autocrats of the Middle East say that they are trying to rescue Iraq from America and America from itself. It really is a debacle.

If only

It is not enough to say with the neocons that this was a good idea executed badly. Their own ideas are partly to blame. Too many people in Washington were fixated on proving an ideological point: that America's values were universal and would be digested effortlessly by people a world away. But plonking an American army in the heart of the Arab world was always a gamble. It demanded the highest seriousness and careful planning. Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld chose instead to send less than half the needed soldiers and gave no proper thought to the aftermath.
What a waste. Most Iraqis rejoiced in the toppling of Saddam. They trooped in their millions to vote. What would Iraq be like now if America had approached its perilous, monumentally controversial undertaking with humility, honesty and courage? Thanks to the almost criminal negligence of Mr Bush's administration nobody, now, will ever know.

[NewsMan]

Scientific polls are for heretics, and we burn heretics.

Gives you a better picture than listening to what the news reports.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

That's actually not correct on the hospital front. I read somewhere that the entire hospital budget for all of Iraq under Saddam was $16 million USD. Astonishing. It is now in the hundreds of millions if not billions as a result of american assistance.
You seem to forget that the main reason for the limited budget was... USA and their stupidly imposed economical sanctions.

My uncle lived five years in Iraq during the golden times under Saddam (just before the Iran-Iraq war started) as a construction worker (Eastern Europe and Russia provided much technical support at that time) and he reported about the country having been a pleasant place to live in. No burning heretics, secular leadership, low crime level, a healthy mix of influence of both eastern and western culture, shops packed with French and Chinese goods. Iraq was well off under Saddam, probably the best of all Arab states unless superpowers started to mixed their noses in to use Hussein for the dirty work of dealing with Khomeini in order to protect their interests in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and UAE. United States carry a great share of responsibility for that, no matter how hard you try to hide your head in the sand.

[Prv Joker]

Gives you a better picture than listening to what the news reports.

It really doesn't at all. You can get people to contradict themselves just by wording the questions differently. It's easy to get the results you want simply by asking the questions in a different way.

[Prv Joker]

>.> Sorry for the double post my internt froze.

[Durandal]

...I support the Bush admin for actually wanting to spread democracy. And since you don't care about the millions put down by dictators (meaning you dont care about the holocaust) I'm not sure we can continue this conversation because we are clearly on a different moral level.

I was going to keep out of this whole thing...

But I cannot resist this. Besides democratic elections in the two countries it invaded (one with moral cause and one without) the Bush administration has done far more to support dictators than democracies.

You use the straw man argument here that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. That somehow, because he disagrees with you, he supports the horrible acts of the Holocaust...a path that lead through democracy (I might add) because he does not agree with you and therefor has less moral value (or at at least of different moral character).

Silliness...

Nor do dictators equate to genocide.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

I was going to keep out of this whole thing...

But I cannot resist this. Besides democratic elections in the two countries it invaded (one with moral cause and one without) the Bush administration has done far more to support dictators than democracies.Especially in the case of Iraq this is very true. Al-Sadr would crawl under the first piece of rock if Batth party still held the power. Now, after US invasion, he suddently gained more power, support and influence than he could imagine in his wettest dreams.

[Freedom-Fries]

Gives you a better picture than listening to what the news reports.






Say who


?