Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي

Sovereignty Now


Recommended Posts

Sovereignty Now

 

 

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

 

Sovereignty Now

 

By Dennis Ross, director and Ziegler distinguished fellow

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

 

Baltimore Sun, June 18, 2004

 

There have been several positive developments in Iraq in the past several weeks:

An interim government was formed and the largely discredited Iraqi Governing Council was disbanded.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously embraced the new Iraqi government and declared that it should be sovereign even on security matters.

After months of putative Iraqi leaders distancing themselves from us, the new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, and president, Ghazi al-Yawer, publicly thanked the United States for what it had done.

Are we now on the path to success in Iraq?

 

The short answer is we don't yet know. What we do know is that the challenge before us is enormously difficult.

 

Start with an Iraqi public that has largely turned against the U.S. presence. Wars against insurgencies cannot be won when the indigenous population is either actively hostile to the outside power or passively supportive of the insurgents. Our problem is that most Iraqis -- as revealed in the polls -- are more opposed to the U.S. presence than they are to those who are trying to force us out.

 

Does that mean all is lost? No, but we run that risk if we cannot change the Iraqi image of us, and soon. While there are many reasons for our predicament -- not the least of which was not being sufficiently concerned with establishing security in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall and denying that we faced a genuine insurgency -- our task now is to recognize that our success depends on creating an Iraqi sense of ownership for what is at stake.

 

This will not be done with words or declarations. On the contrary, there must be demonstrations of sovereignty, not pronouncements about it. Iraqis will look for unmistakable signs of Iraqi control at the handover of power June 30, when the problem will be very difficult.

 

The insurgents will do all they can to prove that the occupation isn't over and that the United States continues to pull the strings and to make all the key decisions. To discredit the interim government, the insurgents will increase the violence to prove that Mr. Allawi and his Cabinet are ineffective and control very little of significance.

 

The end of the Coalition Provisional Authority might be welcome to most Iraqis, but so long as there is a sizable U.S. and coalition military presence and it is regarded as being responsible for security, there will be doubt that much has changed.

 

Unfortunately, the Iraqi government will be in no position to provide security for the country anytime soon. Nonetheless, from the outset, we must make sure that there are sufficient Iraqi forces capable of providing for the personal security of the government. Our training and support must be geared toward this urgent task. Nothing would discredit the new leaders more quickly than the image that they are completely dependent on the U.S. military, including for their personal security.

 

There must be demonstrations that the government is able to veto what the U.S. commander may want to do. Having a de facto veto is not sufficient. Mr. Allawi must be able to point to decisions he has made to stop certain operations or to alter U.S. military behavior.

 

Only in this way can the new government prove it is calling the shots. Ironically, it is as much in U.S. interests as theirs for Mr. Allawi and his colleagues to demonstrate this capability. They need it for purposes of credibility, while we need it to show we are carrying out the will of the Iraqi government, not the reverse.

 

This will mean the government is assuming responsibility for what our forces do. While Mr. Allawi may prefer to preserve some distance from certain operations -- reserving the possibility of criticizing some of our actions -- such a posture would be self-defeating in the end. They need credibility -- not demonstrations of impotence -- and we need Iraqi sanction for what we do.

 

Words alone won't be enough. The Iraqi government must be seen as delivering on security, and there is no substitute for that. But in the meantime, the issue of elections is something that we could use to shift the balance of psychological forces in the country.

 

Today, most Iraqis seem to agree on two key points: that we are occupiers and that elections are essential. Indeed, roughly 85 percent of Iraqis in polls are in favor of elections. This reflects not only the desire of the Shiites to have elections that will give them their due as a majority of the Iraqi population but also a deeper willingness of all groups in the country to fashion a new day; elections have become the symbol of that, in their eyes.

 

Elections are to be held for a transitional National Assembly no later than Jan. 31, 2005. Why not take the Iraqi desire for elections and show that U.S. forces are an enabler, not an impediment, to them? Why not have a rolling set of elections starting this fall? Why not declare -- or, better yet, have the new Iraqi government declare -- that wherever the environment is secure enough for elections, they will be held before the end of the year?

 

Certainly, this could be true in the Kurdish region, some of the Shiite areas and even some of the Sunni areas in Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad. Rather than appearing as if the United States is delaying what Iraqis want, the onus could be put squarely on the insurgents, who would be demonstrating for Iraqis to see that they are the ones blocking the Iraqi people from expressing their will.

 

There should be no illusions. Even if the new Iraqi government is viewed as asserting control and there are rolling elections, our challenge in Iraq will not be easy. But June 30 represents both an opportunity and a danger, and our prospects for the future depend on Iraqis believing that they are acquiring sovereignty -- and not in name only.

 

Dennis Ross is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please send queries to The Washington Institute

 

Property of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy © 2004.

All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sovereignty Now

 

There have been several positive developments in Iraq in the past several weeks:

An interim government was formed and the largely discredited Iraqi Governing Council was disbanded.

It would have been even better if the new IG had more members who weren't directly connected to the old IGC.

 

Our problem is that most Iraqis -- as revealed in the polls -- are more opposed to the U.S. presence than they are to those who are trying to force us out.

 

Are iraqis really more opposed to US troops than to foreign terrorists? Regardless, The US troops will stay as long as iraqi groups fight each other more than they fight the US troops.

 

The insurgents will do all they can to prove that the occupation isn't over and that the United States continues to pull the strings and to make all the key decisions. To discredit the interim government, the insurgents will increase the violence to prove that Mr. Allawi and his Cabinet are ineffective and control very little of significance.

 

I wonder about this. Surely not many iraqis will believe that Allawi controls much of significance. Could the insurgents have some other reasons to increase violence?

 

Unfortunately, the Iraqi government will be in no position to provide security for the country anytime soon. Nonetheless, from the outset, we must make sure that there are sufficient Iraqi forces capable of providing for the personal security of the government. Our training and support must be geared toward this urgent task.

 

No! This is backward! We need iraqis providing security for the iraqi public first. Americans can't do that. We can't tell them apart and when there's a fight we tend to shoot all likely opponents. If the government can provide *some* security for the public, then people see things are improving even if it's americans guarding the government. But if public security doesn't improve then it's no help that the government is guarding itself against insurgents. How does that aid anybody but them?

 

Nothing would discredit the new leaders more quickly than the image that they are completely dependent on the U.S. military, including for their personal security.

 

Hiring Saddamists for the police and the secret police?? Bringing back Saddam's laws?

 

There must be demonstrations that the government is able to veto what the U.S. commander may want to do. Having a de facto veto is not sufficient. Mr. Allawi must be able to point to decisions he has made to stop certain operations or to alter U.S. military behavior.

 

That should be easy. The USA can present him with plans to drop precision-guided cluster bombs in various places and he can veto them. Also to use armored bulldozers to tear down Sadr city etc. Maybe we could present him with a plan to tattoo ID numbers on everybody's wrists so they can be tracked easier, or a plan to put a few million unreliable iraqis into concentration camps. We could come up with all sorts of ideas for him to veto, and still do everything we actually want to do.

 

But I think the US forces need to revise our approaches in general. We are geared to wartime battlefields, where noncombatants are supposed to become refugees first or hide in cellars until the fighting is over. If our first priority was to protect iraqi civilians we would have to fight differently, and we would take more casualties. But we aren't willing to take casualties. I don't see how to resolve that.

 

Why not take the Iraqi desire for elections and show that U.S. forces are an enabler, not an impediment, to them? Why not have a rolling set of elections starting this fall?

 

Because one of the bargaining chips we gave up when we got UN approval was that the UN would manage the elections?

 

Why not declare -- or, better yet, have the new Iraqi government declare -- that wherever the environment is secure enough for elections, they will be held before the end of the year?  Certainly, this could be true in the Kurdish region, some of the Shiite areas and even some of the Sunni areas in Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad.

 

That could be good. Of course, the winners in the early elections would be early targets....

 

June 30 represents both an opportunity and a danger, and our prospects for the future depend on Iraqis believing that they are acquiring sovereignty -- and not in name only.

 

It's a problem. Depending on how he acts, giving sovereignty to Allawi might look a lot like giving it to Saddam. I'm really not clear why arranging elections should take so much longer than setting up an army and a security force. There is the potential problem that maybe not enough of the country is safe for elections. And if elections are held in some places only, those are the places the terrorists would go to break them up.

 

Here is a possibility: Set up heavily-guarded polling places in a few places at once. Don't allow cars near them. Put records of who has voted and the votes themselves into separate armored containers that would survive a suicide bomb. Then a bomber might kill a few voters and a few election volunteers, but he couldn't really disrupt the election even in one polling place. Pick up the boxes, get new volunteers, and try again tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mustefser
QUOTE (BahirJ @ Jun 25 2004, 05:30 AM)

Sovereignty Now

 

There have been several positive developments in Iraq in the past several weeks:

An interim government was formed and the largely discredited Iraqi Governing Council was disbanded.

 

 

 

It would have been even better if the new IG had more members who weren't directly connected to the old IGC.

 

 

QUOTE 

Our problem is that most Iraqis -- as revealed in the polls -- are more opposed to the U.S. presence than they are to those who are trying to force us out. 

 

 

 

Are iraqis really more opposed to US troops than to foreign terrorists? Regardless, The US troops will stay as long as iraqi groups fight each other more than they fight the US troops.

 

 

I keep hearing such cliams about the IGC.. First of all, it is not discredited.. Can some one give me one single name outside the IGC that would be a significan political figure , other than Alsader..Who I gree pushing away of his party was a great mistake..

Second.. All the IGC's were moved to be the new Iraqi conference members, and the rest are those who rule the new government..

Third, I don't understand why some westren writers are so much under evaluating the rule of the old IGC. it was the one who established the last ministry that reorganioze and maintain the public affiars in education. health and services though having no real power. Old IGC was the one who set the interim law , that I think was the corner stone for the current government and the process toward ellection.

Just remeber where we had been one year ago, we were going no where, today we are getting the full soverinty and moving toward ellection..

 

QUOTE 

Our problem is that most Iraqis -- as revealed in the polls -- are more opposed to the U.S. presence than they are to those who are trying to force us out. 

 

 

 

Are iraqis really more opposed to US troops than to foreign terrorists? Regardless, The US troops will stay as long as iraqi groups fight each other more than they fight the US troops.

 

What the writer might be missing , is that Iraqis are more opposed to the occupation because they think that the Americans had failed in fighting the terrorist.. Look to Alsader party, yesterday they announced that they will do their best to fight the terrorists in cooperation with the new governemnt.. I have a sunni arab friend that was high rank officer in Iraqi Army, he was Baath part member " Ferqa" member. days ago when asked about his affairs, he told that he applied to return back to the new army because he feel that his duty is to protect his family and people from those terrorists. He admited that his carrier might not allow it , but he was a senior trainer in the millitary college in Rustamia, he would be very happy if allowed to any training position not necessary some active one.

 

QUOTE

The insurgents will do all they can to prove that the occupation isn't over and that the United States continues to pull the strings and to make all the key decisions. To discredit the interim government, the insurgents will increase the violence to prove that Mr. Allawi and his Cabinet are ineffective and control very little of significance.

 

 

 

I wonder about this. Surely not many iraqis will believe that Allawi controls much of significance. Could the insurgents have some other reasons to increase violence?

 

 

 

I don't feel commenting on the rest of the article worth spending time.. It is completely out of context.. Most Iraqis today don't care if Alwayee is a pupit or not, they are more concerned if he can stop the terror or not.. What ever Alwayee would do will be accepted as far as it goes in the benifits of bringin security and then ellection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mustefser

أغلب العراقيين يؤيدون حكومة إياد علاوي

June 25, 2004

 

ذكرت صحيفة "واشنطن بوست" أن أحدث استطلاع للرأي أجرته منظمة أميركية مستقلة أشار إلى أن أغلب العراقيين يؤيدون الحكومة الجديدة برئاسة إياد علاوي، والتي ستتسلم مهامّها الأربعاء المقبل.

وقد أعرب 68 بالمئة عن ثقتهم في الحكومة الجديدة، وأيد 73 بالمئة رئاسة علاوي للحكومة، فيما أيّد 84 بالمئة الرئيس غازي الياور.

ويرى المراقبون أنّ هذه النتائج تعدّ نصرا مهما للولايات المتحدة والأمم المتحدة عند مقارنتها مع نتائج استطلاع آخر أجري في شهر مايو/ أيار الماضي. وقد أيد 28 بالمئة فقط وقتها مجلس الحكم الانتقالي. وأظهر كذلك معارضة قطاعات واسعة من الشعب العراقي لقوات التحالف بقيادة الولايات المتحدة.

 

 

The recent poll byWashingnot post, 73% of Iraqis are trusting the government of Alwaee "Shia" , 84% in favour of Alyaweer "sunni".. 68% trusted the new governemnt..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mustefser

http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle4435.html

But even as the council's members gave up their seats, 

they were writing themselves a leading role in the interim government that takes power next week. In a little-noticed edict, the defunct council guaranteed itself seats on Iraq's Interim National Council, a 100-member assembly that will have power to approve the 2005 budget, veto executive orders with a two-thirds majority, and appoint replacements to the presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mustefser

http://www.iraq.net/displayarticle4428.html

 

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Families in the Ziwia neighborhood of Baghdad are now allowed to have funerals for their dead. Saddam Hussein's henchmen aren't banging on doors and hauling people off to interrogation rooms. Men no longer return home with scars and broken bones after weeks of torture for their religious beliefs.

 

For that, 

the men and women of Ziwia are grateful to the Americans.

 

 

But beyond that, it's difficult to find many people in this nook of a neighborhood, in the shadow of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, who speak kindly of the Americans. Electricity is still intermittent. Promised public works programs are still promises, but the fear of violence is a daily reality.

 

 

"We had many beautiful dreams after 35 years of suffering, but the Americans didn't make our dreams come true," said Khudair Rashid, an electrical engineer who lives in Ziwia. A dapper dresser with a neatly trimmed beard and a calm, measured voice, Rashid said he's lost faith in the U.S. experiment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mustefser

متظ

اهرون شيعة في بغداد يطالبون بإعدام صدام

Jun 25, 2004

بقلم: السياسة

بغداد - »ا.ف.ب«: تظاهر آلاف الشيعة في بغداد بعد صلاة الجمعة للمطالبة باصدار حكم بالاعدام على الرئيس العراقي المخلوع صدام حسين الذي يعتقله الاميركيون وينتظرون محاكمته امام محكمة عراقية. وردد المتظاهرون الذين يقدر عددهم بنحو خمسة آلاف شخص ساروا في وسط بغداد قرب ضريح الامام الكاظم هتافات »نعم نعم للعراق نعم نعم لاعدام صدام«. واكد الشيخ رائد الكاظمي خطيب المسجد والقريب من رجل الدين الشيعي مقتدى الصدر ان »اي محام يوافق على الدفاع عن صدام حسين يعرض نفسه لنقمة الشعب«. واضاف سيعتبر مفسدا في الارض« مطالبا ب¯»محاكمة علنية وعقوبة الاعدام وتنفيذ الحكم علنا« في الديكتاتور السابق . من جهة ثانية ألغيت الصلاة في مرقد الإمام علي في مدينة النجف امس للاسبوع الثالث على التوالي بسبب خلاف بين شيعة متشددين وآخرين معتدلين. فقد منع انصار رجل الدين مقتدى الصدر الإمام الشيخ خالد النعماني من اقامة الصلاة متمسكين بان لا حق له في الحلول محل الإمام السيد صدر الدين القبانجي المكلف من المرجعية باقامة

الصلاة

 

 

Thousands of Iraqis demostrated in baghdad after the Friday pray semon, demanding of the procecution of Saddam..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
وأصدر مكتب بريمر ثلاث مذكرات اعتقال بحق الشيخ عبدالله الجنابي زعيم "جبهة المجاهدين" في الفلوجة, والشيخ ظاهر العبيدي اللذين يعتبران من زعماء المقاومة هناك. وكانا انكرا تدبير عملية قتل ستة من الشيعة من قبيلة ربيعة, والتمثيل بجثثهم. كذلك تضمنت المذكرات أمراً بالقبض على الشيخ عمر حديد, وهو أحد زعماء المقاومة في الفلوجة.

 

وقالت مصادر أمنية إن خططاً توضع لمحاصرة الفلوجة, في وقت اتسعت حركة نزوح السكان منها باتجاه بغداد وحديثة والرمادي ومدن أخرى. وقال أنان في مؤتمر صحافي عقده أمس: "من الحيوي أن تُعطى الحكومة العراقية الموقتة (التي ستتسلم السلطة الأربعاء المقبل), فرصة حقيقية لممارسة السيادة". وشدد على أن "الأمم المتحدة تبذل ما في وسعها" لمساعدة العراق. واعتبر ان مطالبة واشنطن بتوفير الحصانة للجنود الأميركيين وللعاملين معها لحمايتهم من المثول أمام القضاء العراقي مسألة "يقررها الطرفان الأميركي والعراقي". وأضاف: "إذا كانت مثل هذه الترتيبات بموافقة الحكومة العراقية, لا يمكن لأحد أن يعترض عليها". وزاد: "لا تفاصيل لدي عن الترتيبات, وأتردد في الخوض في هذا الشأن من دون معرفة التفاصيل

 

Bremer issued memo to get hold of the three clergies in Falouga " Alobaide, al janabee" who were accused of participating in the killing and burnning of the the six Shia driveres in falouga two weeks ago.. the memo also include the Glergy Mohamed Hadid , who is supposed to be one of the terror leaders in Falouga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sovereignty Now

 

There have been several positive developments in Iraq in the past several weeks:

An interim government was formed and the largely discredited Iraqi Governing Council was disbanded.

 

I keep hearing such cliams about the IGC.. First of all, it is not discredited.. Can some one give me one single name outside the IGC that would be a significan political figure , other than Alsader..Who I gree pushing away of his party was a great mistake..

I can't particularly. The last CPA opinion poll before they disbanded said they had credibility in the10 -20% range, higher than the CPA but not by much.

 

If no other politicians get recognition apart from the IGC, then the IGC members will win in the elections. People tend to vote for people they have heard of more than people they have never heard of. In that poll Allawi had about20 % of the people approving of him and about60 % disapproving. Now is his chance to get more people to hear about him and to get more people to approve of him.

 

Second.. All the IGC's were moved to be the new Iraqi conference members, and the rest are those who rule the new government..

 

Yes, I found that interesting. It was the same people but when they changed the name they got a lot more approval.

 

Third, I don't understand  why some westren writers are so much under evaluating the rule of the old IGC. it was the one who established the last ministry that reorganioze and maintain the public affiars in education. health and services though having no real power. Old IGC was the one who set the interim law , that I think was the corner stone for the current government and the process toward ellection.

Just remeber where we had been one year ago, we were going no where, today we are getting the full soverinty and moving toward ellection..

 

Westerners naturally tend to downplay governing bodies who were chosen by an occupation force and who have no powers. We tend to assume that the local people will also think they are irrelevant. But this group did show several signs of independence. A member quit to protest US attacks on iraqi cities, and others protested. And when the UN representative came in to choose experts to run the interim government, experts who should do their job and then quit and not do further politics, the IGC sneaked by him and took those roles themselves instead.

 

Our problem is that most Iraqis -- as revealed in the polls -- are more opposed to the U.S. presence than they are to those who are trying to force us out. 

 

Are iraqis really more opposed to US troops than to foreign terrorists? Regardless, The US troops will stay as long as iraqi groups fight each other more than they fight the US troops.

 

What the writer might be missing , is that Iraqis are more opposed to the occupation because they think that the Americans had failed in fighting the terrorist..

 

Yes. Without being there, I have gotten the impression that perhaps the fighters could be split into two types, terrorists and insurgents. Insurgents would think of the americans as invaders and would want to drive them out. Terrorists would want to blow things up. Here is a second way to split it up: there might be fighters who want the US to leave, and other fighters who want the US to stay bogged down in iraq. The first group could have many reasons. They might attack iraqis who help the USA because they hope the US would try to protect those iraqis, which would spread out US forces and make them easier to attack. The second group could also have many reasons, for example syrians and iranians might want the US to keep fighting in iraq because we have publicly threatened to invade their countries, and we will not do that while our army is too busy. And if they want to hurt us, we are easier to reach in iraq than elsewhere. Israelis would wnat us to stay in iraq because when we leave the violence might end and iraq might rebuild, but as long as we fight there won't be much rebuilding and iraq will be no threat. Any of these might attack iraqis to show that the US military must stay.

 

Americans cannot be very good at fighting insurgents or terrorists because we mostly can't tell them from civilians until they shoot at us. We are mostly no good at all at being iraqi police because most of us don't speak the language. Is the problem mostly the terrorists or are the criminals who just want to get money more important?

 

Look to Alsader party, yesterday they announced that they will do their best to fight the terrorists in cooperation with the new governemnt.. I have a sunni arab  friend that was high rank officer in Iraqi Army, he was Baath part member " Ferqa" member. days ago when asked about his affairs, he told that he applied to return back to the new army because he feel that his duty is to protect his family and people from those terrorists. He admited that his carrier might not allow it , but he was a senior trainer in the millitary college in Rustamia, he would be very happy if allowed to any training position not necessary some active one.

 

All this makes sense. Terrorists who attack random iraqi civilians, or who have no care for civilian wounds when they attack police, are bad for everyone. Their own actions tend to defeat them.

 

The insurgents will do all they can to prove that the occupation isn't over and that the United States continues to pull the strings and to make all the key decisions. To discredit the interim government, the insurgents will increase the violence to prove that Mr. Allawi and his Cabinet are ineffective and control very little of significance.

 

I wonder about this. Surely not many iraqis will believe that Allawi controls much of significance. Could the insurgents have some other reasons to increase violence?

 

Most Iraqis today don't care if Alwayee is a pupit or not, they are more concerned if he can stop the terror or not.. What ever Alwayee would do will be accepted as far as it goes in the benifits of bringin security and then ellection.

 

What if he brought security but not good elections? Would that be so bad?

 

Nations tend to get democracy when large enough numbers of the citizens stand up and demand it. When it is only a few they can be killed instead, but when there are large enough numbers the government is likely to kill a few of them and decide that method will not work and then they run away. Nations tend to lose democracy when they depend on someone else to give it to them. It is hard to keep a democracy when there is a large army and the lower soldiers are poor people. (In the USA we get some poor people as soldiers, but our reserves are solidly middle class.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mustefser
I can't particularly. The last CPA opinion poll before they disbanded said they had credibility in the10 -20% range, higher than the CPA but not by much.

 

That reflect the expectation not the personal trust.. Let me explain.. At leaset 90 % of kurds are pro the two Kurdish IGC leaders, at least 50% of Shia are pro one or other of the Shia IGC members.. 70% of libral and commists are pro the communist member, 70% of Christain are pro the the christian member.. I would not mention the Sunni Arab , because of their division ..

Why most Iraqis were in favour of Alyawer and Alawee, even before knowing him .."Polls showed 84% and 75% support".. That is for one reason, because they are the canididate of the IGC.. Some one might say , it is because of their background.. Indeed thier Bakground were not working for them.. The first as tribal leader, something most Iraqis are so sensative against, the second because of his alleged CIA connection..

If no other politicians get recognition apart from the IGC, then the IGC members will win in the elections

 

Do you have any doubts in this? the IGC members might not be known to non Iraqis before the war, but these are the one that most Iraqis respect and know for long time..

 

When you ship is sinking, there is no time to think if you will get food on the second day.. If finished with it then you might fight forthe second one..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't particularly. The last CPA opinion poll before they disbanded said they had credibility in the10 -20% range, higher than the CPA but not by much.

 

That reflect the expectation not the personal trust.. Let me explain.. At leaset 90 % of kurds are pro the two Kurdish IGC leaders, at least 50% of Shia are pro one or other of the Shia IGC members.. 70% of libral and commists are pro the communist member, 70% of Christain are pro the the christian member.. I would not mention the Sunni Arab , because of their division ..

 

No, I'm talking about 2 questions on an opinion poll, 1000+ individuals from 6 cities.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217741/site/newsweek/

 

One question translates to "How much do you support this individual". Answers were "strongly support" "somewhat support" "somewhat oppose" "strongly oppose". For al Sadr it came out 32% strongly support, 35% somewhat support, 19% somewhat oppose, 10% strongly oppose. For Allawi it was 8% strongly support, 18%, 21%, 40%. 61% opposed him, 26% supported him. For that particular question only Burzani did worse. People could support as many as they wanted.

 

A second question was, "If you could vote for any living iraqi for president, who would it be?". For that No Answer came first, then None, then Jaafari, then Other. Saddam came 8th, and if Allawi got a vote it was put into Other. He didn't get 2 votes.

 

Why most Iraqis were in favour of Alyawer  and Alawee, even before knowing him .."Polls showed84 %  and75 % support".. That is for one reason, because they are  the canididate of the IGC..

 

Yes, but people were hardly in favor of the IGC at all. The earlier poll asked "How much confidence do you have in this instutition?" and answers were "a great deal" "a fair amount" "not much" and "none". The GC scored 9, 19, -11, and -55. More than half of them said they had no confidence in the GC at all. But a little later they liked the GC choices for the new GC.

 

Some one might say , it is because of their background.. Indeed thier Bakground were not working for them.. The first as tribal leader, something most Iraqis are so sensative against, the second because of his alleged CIA connection..

If no other politicians get recognition apart from the IGC, then the IGC members will win in the elections

 

Do you have any doubts in this? the IGC members might not be known to non Iraqis before the war, but these are the one that most Iraqis respect and know for long time..

 

I didn't know that iraqis knew and respected Allawi. I had heard that most did not know him, and that most of the ones who did know him did not support him. So this is welcome news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mustefser
I didn't know that iraqis knew and respected Allawi. I had heard that most did not know him, and that most of the ones who did know him did not support him. So this is welcome news.

 

I was refering to GC members in general.. As for Alawi and Yawour, I assume that both ere a non known figures in side Iraq.. Indeed that would approve my point that the current support for both of them by most Iraqis,was stemmed from the IGC support..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...