Poll of Iraqis Reveals Anger Toward U.S.

[Texas Gentleman]

I have been a major supporter of USA efforts to restore Iraq to prosperity and freedom.. It seems most Iraqi's have unrealistic expectations of what the USA can do in such a hostile environment. You place the blame on your benefactors instead of the Sadamees and terrorist that want you to fail. . I can no longer support pouring more of MY tax dollars on this ungratefulness or sacrificing more of our children on your behalf . IT's time you Iraqis stand tall for your own future or fall back into the abyss’s of darkness that is totalitarian or theocracy based. Freedoms is never a given, …..it is earned daily. You have you a chance , dont blow it farther..

 

THE POLL BELOW

 

Poll of Iraqis Reveals Anger Toward U.S.

Wed Jun 16, 3:40 AM ET

 

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush is fond of telling Americans they have liberated Iraq and that the country's future generations will be thankful. The current generation, however, overwhelmingly views U.S. forces as occupiers and wishes they would just leave, according to a poll commissioned by the administration.

 

The poll, requested by the Coalition Provisional Authority last month but not released to the American public, found more than half of Iraqis surveyed believed both that they'd be safer without U.S. forces and that all Americans behave like the military prison guards pictured in the Abu Ghraib abuse photos.

 

The survey, obtained by The Associated Press, also found radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is surging in popularity as he leads an insurrection against U.S.-led forces, but would still be a distant finisher in an election for Iraqi president.

 

"If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it (the poll) is pretty grim," said Donald Hamilton, a career foreign service officer who is working for Ambassador Paul Bremer's interim government and helps oversee the CPA's polling of Iraqis.

"While you have to be saddened that our intentions have been misunderstood by a lot of Iraqis, the truth of the matter is they have a strong inclination toward the things that have the potential to bring democracy here," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday from Baghdad.

 

Hamilton noted the poll found 63 percent of Iraqis believed conditions will improve when an Iraqi interim government takes over June 30, and 62 percent believed it was "very likely" the Iraqi police and Army will maintain security without U.S. forces.

 

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "Let's face it. That's the goal, to build those up to the point where they can take charge in Iraq and they can maintain security in Iraq."

 

The poll was conducted by Iraqis in face-to-face interviews in six cities with people representative of the country's various factions. Its results conflict with the generally upbeat assessments the administration continues to give Americans. Just last week, Bush predicted future generations of Iraqis "will come to America and say, thank goodness America stood the line and was strong and did not falter in the face of the violence of a few."

 

The current generation seems eager for Americans to leave, the poll found.

The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November, while coalition forces had just 10 percent support. Ninety-two percent of the Iraqis said they considered coalition troops occupiers, while just 2 percent called them liberators.

 

Nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighborhoods. And 55 percent of Iraqis reported they'd feel safer if U.S. troops immediately left, nearly double the 28 percent who felt that way in January. Forty-one percent said Americans should leave immediately, and 45 percent said they preferred for U.S. forces to leave as soon as a permanent Iraqi government is installed.

 

Frustration over security was made worse this spring by revelations of sexual and physical abuse of Iraqis by U.S. guards at the Abu Ghraib prison.

 

The poll, taken in mid-May shortly after the controversy began, found 71 percent of Iraqis said they were surprised by the humiliating photos and tales of abuse at the hands of Americans, but 54 percent said they believed all Americans behave like the guards.

 

Anger at Americans was evident in other aspects of the poll, including a rapid rise in popularity for al-Sadr, the Muslim cleric who has been leading insurgents fighting U.S.-led coalition forces.

 

The poll reported that 81 percent of Iraqis said they had an improved opinion of al-Sadr in May from three months earlier, and 64 percent said the acts of his insurgents had made Iraq more unified.

 

However, only 2 percent said they would support al-Sadr for president, even less than the 3 percent who expressed support for the deposed Saddam Hussein

 

The coalition's Iraq polling of 1,093 adults selected randomly in six cities — Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba — was taken May 14-23 and had a margin of potential sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. Crucial details on the methodology of the coalition's polling were not provided, including how samples were drawn.

 

The most recent independent polling by Gallup found more than half of Iraqis want U.S. and British troops to leave the country within the next few months.

An Oxford International poll taken in February found a higher level of optimism than more recent polling taken after months of bombings and other violence. Still, only a quarter of those polled by Oxford said they had confidence in coalition forces to meet their needs, far behind Iraqi religious leaders, police and soldiers.

[Guest J Thomas]

I have been a major supporter of USA efforts to restore Iraq to prosperity and freedom.. It seems most Iraqi's have unrealistic expectations of what the USA can do in such a hostile environment. You place the blame on your benefactors instead of the Sadamees and terrorist that want you to fail. . I can no longer support pouring more of MY tax dollars on this ungratefulness or sacrificing more of our children on your behalf . IT's time you Iraqis stand tall for your own future or fall back into the abyss’s of darkness that is totalitarian or theocracy based. Freedoms is never a given, …..it is earned daily. You have you a chance , dont blow it farther..

I understand your concerns. But try to see another side too.

 

We didn't get any tremendous amount of opposition for the first year or so. It got gradually worse. There were problems like we set up roadblocks and expected people to stop for inspection, and sometimes we didn't mark them well enough, and at night sometimes they were pretty near invisible, and we shot some civilians. If your state police put up checkpoints and if you looked like you were coming too close they shot to kill, wouldn't you be perturbed? A moment inattention gets your car shot up and your passengers dead?

 

And there was the business of detaining people without charge for indefinite times and making it hard for their relatives to find out where they were. We wouldn't consider acting that way at home. It's forbidden by the constitution.

 

And a whole lot of the reconstruction we said we were doing was not done very competently.

 

' A recent internal oil ministry report, which was leaked to Reuters, criticised the repairs carried out to oil installations under contracts mostly awarded to Halliburton, the US oil company, and its subsidiaries. Work had begun, the report said, on only 119 out of 226 projects due to have been completed by April and none had been finished. '

 

We've spent a lot of money without much effect. The iraqi people didn't have the chance to ask us to come in and liberate them, maybe they would have, but if we're running the place it's up to us to get the water works and power plants and garbage pickup etc running whether they invited us or not. We mostly didn't. We didn't want anybody else to organise things without our blessing, and we didn't give our blessing easily.

 

Similarly, there was no way we could do police work in iraqi cities. We didn't even have enough guys who knew the language. But we didn't want any local groups to do security work unless they had our training and our blessing, and so we tended to enforce anarchy. The main thing we could do was to confiscate guns, on the assumption that people we found with guns were against us. But how could we expect people to stay disarmed when no one was allowed to protect them? And then we tended to figure that people who had guns and money both, planned to do terrorism and we took the money too. That was the right thing to do when we were right about them, but we should at least have given receipts every single time and kept careful records. And when you break into somebody's house and point guns at them, and their dog tries to protect them and you shoot it, you have to expect they'll hold a grudge.

 

Then there was Fallujah. We sent troops in there fresh out of combat, and the sunnis tried to have a nonviolent protest, and somehow we shot them. We said some of them shot first. Then they tried another nonviolent protest to protest the shootings, and we shot them. That kind of thing takes all the enthusiasm out of nonviolent protest. I think if I was on the other side of that I'd start trying to aim my violent protest from a safe distance. Relations got worse and worse until we thought it was the whole city against us and we had it completely encircled with air strikes and such, kind of like the Warsaw Ghetto except we would have let them surrender. That got a lot of iraqis upset at us. And about the same time we had the troubles with al Sadr. He looked like a troublemaker and we wanted him brought in dead or alive, preferably dead. When we didn't manage to kill him right away, we made him more and more popular. We killed maybe 1500 of his followers with no particular gain from it. They weren't well trained and he can pick up plenty more if he wants them. They think we shot at the holiest shi'ite shrines and so we likely got 130 million shi'ites worldwide mad at us, while we accomplished basicly nothing. But maybe now he will relax and give us a chance to kill him. Anyway, we made a big deal that everybody had to obey. Iraqi police would do the same but it was us doing it. And we took awhile to try to set up some iraqi police. We were pretty incompetent at getting things started.

 

And then there was Abu Ghraib. We had been saying "Saddam is gone, no more rapes.". So now it looks like we did some rapes, some of them women. Not very many, I hope, and not following orders, I hope. Meanwhile we were doing things that iraqis consider torture. These are things we don't take that seriously. Being forced to eat pork. Being stripped naked at gunpoint while strangers -- men and women -- watch and take photographs. If that happened to you in Washington, DC and nothing worse happened, you could probably get them arrested, and likely some sort of mild jailtime. But to get an idea what that's like for iraqis, imagine you went through that and then got anally raped too.

 

And then there's rape. We simply don't take it as seriously as they do. Our generally-accepted expert opinion says that about a third of american women get raped sometime in their life. I think it's probably lower than that, maybe a tenth, but I'm not the expert. The women get upset about it, and maybe go through some therapy, and they get over it. A rapist who gets caught might serve 2 years in prison, or maybe 7, if he gets convicted. Mostly they don't get caught. As near as I can tell, iraqis consider rape as bad as we consider combined rape, torture, and murder. It is even harder to get iraqi women to admit they were raped than american women. People will assume they were raped, but they won't report it to the US authorities. It's a big deal when we put them in prisons with sometimes only men guarding them. And it's a big deal when we put them in prison because of something their relatives might have done. You can't do that in the USA, it's forbidden by the constitution.

 

I'd like to believe all the rape and murder was in the one wing at Abu Ghraib. But the part about public nudity and making people eat pork and talking about raping them and sleep deprivation and making them hold contorted postures and hitting and kicking them a little, and making them lick boots, that wasn't just there. To us it isn't that serious but to them it is.

 

If I was iraqi I'd sure wonder what the USA is doing there. We said we were after WMDs, but it turned out we should have known there were no WMDs. We said we were after al qaeda, but it turns out we had no reason to think al qaeda was there -- then. We said we wanted iraq to be a democracy. But how many countries would spend 2000 lives and half a trillion dollars to turn another nation into a democracy? We said there would be so much money from oil that it would pay for the whole reconstruction. But that was another lie, or else another glaring mistake. We should have known it will take ten years of heavy investment to bring oil production that high. (Unless oil prices go a lot higher than we want.) Were we stupidly there for the oil, and when we found out it was too hard to get we gave up? Or were we not after oil at all, and that's why we paid Halliburton so much money to fix the oil machinery and we didn't mind that they didn't do it? Did we want to invade syria and iran through iraq? We said we did. But it turns out not to be practical, we don't have the troops. Why would we say that if it wasn't true? Did we simply not know how strong our own army was? Did we want to make sure israel was safe? We said we wanted that. We said we wanted to turn the entire middle east into democracies that loved israel. Failing that, would we settle for turning the entire middle east into a set of weak disarmed nations that couldn't do anything no matter what they wanted? It's hard to tell what Bush intended. He told us several things that were mistaken. I'm an american and I'm kind of confused what we're doing, I can only imagine how confusing it would be for an iraqi.

 

I can understand you expecting them to be grateful. But it's a lot to expect. Some ways things were better under Saddam with the sanctions. At the least things were reasonably predictable.

[Guest Guest_tajer]

I would like to go completely different..

I think during the last month there was a huge CPA policy change that make Iraqis be more suspicious at a time not getting harts of Sadammees.

 

First Falouga, and the deal with the Sadamees to rule the city while easy the city siege without capturing the foreign fighters. Then the politically motivated war against Alsader, at a time he was not raising his militia's Arms against the Americans.. Worse was the ride on Alchalabi house, which a lot of Iraqis consider him as hero of the liberation.

 

Later, the signs of pushing away the anti Baathification measures..

There was a dramatic change by Iraqis toward the Americans in May and June, so why it is the case?

 

Iraqis were kept trusting American mission in Iraq , until they started to notice that they are not doing in their interest.

 

Though most Iraqis are now very suspicious about the real motive by Americans, but deep in harts they feel so grateful to them.. I used to hear that what was happening in Iraq of turning away from Iraqis by Americans , is just another wrong thing that the Americans are doing and they will soon realize .. Just look to all car explosions after the release of Falouga siege.. Every one remember how calm was Irai streets before that. Some Iraqis told me that they think that some American don't like to wipe the terrorists inside Iraq because this would make their presence as harder. That is why they they didn't get after them in Falouga while all sources confirmed that Alzarqawee was their with his terrorists.

 

Though might be a conspiricy theory but are n't they right in their concern.?

My message to the Americans, don't lose harts of your allies by trying to strik deals with your rela enemies..

[Guest J Thomas]

Thank you!

 

Americans don't all think the same and we don't know what the ones who make decisions in iraq are thinking, so it's easy for us to do conspiracy theories too. I can say some things that seem obvious.

 

First, we did not want religion to be too important in iraqi government. Democracy is based on making deals. In america we have had only one time when we chose to fight each other rather than make deals, and that time we killed more than half a million of us and did a lot of property damage. We say, it doesn't matter what I think of you, can I make a deal with you that we will both keep? And that is harder when one side says "I am good, you are evil, I cannot make deal with evil.". So we started out trying not to let religious organizations help in the reconstruction or the security or the government.

 

Second, when the Fallujah problem came it was (probably) not at a time we wanted it. We had been saying that the fighting was only a few Saddamis. When we saw pictures of large angry crowds in Fallujah supporting the Saddamis it bothered us. We thought most of the people should be on our side, and they should find the criminals and give them to us. But we found out that most of the people in Fallujah were on the Saddamis' side. So our marines wanted to attack them all, to kill them until they knew they had lost and they surrendered. But it was taking a long time to do that, and we took casualties ourselves, and it would look very bad to the rest of the world if we killed too many people.

 

Maybe that told our government that the problem was bigger than we had thought. For each *successful* guerrilla fighter there are a hundred sympathizers. If there are a million Saddamis, they can have ten thousand people making IEDs and doing ambushes, and while we kill those ten thousand they might easily replace them with five thousand more. Americans can't possibly kill a million iraqis, even if they're Saddamis. We have to make some kind of deal with them. The obvious deal is to let them make a political party that makes deals with everybody else, provided they give up violence. And then the iraqi police and army can kill them if they do violence. But they might not take that deal. A bad deal would be to let them run the secret police and be the ones who suppress violence. I'm concerned that this is what Allawi wants. Is it true he was in the secret police before he ran away from Saddam? And a lot of his support is from other secret police who also ran from Saddam? If so they would be the best choice to start a new secret police like Saddam's, if he or anybody wants that.

 

How many Saddamis do you think there are? When you get a democracy you will have to live with them somehow, or else kill them. Where there are whole neighborhoods or whole cities of them, nobody will report terrorists unless you can persuade a lot of Saddamis to give up violence.

 

"My message to the Americans, don't lose harts of your allies by trying to strike deals with your rela enemies.."

 

I am not sure who our real enemies are. Maybe the french, the russians, the germans, the japanese, the chinese. They are our *competitors*. We are not willing to kill them so we have to live with them, and so we have to make deals with them.

 

I'm sure Sistani is very difficult for the americans who try to make deals with him. If he made a promise he could deliver on it, people would go along with him. But he doesn't make deals, he just thinks about what the right thing is and then at some random time he makes a public announcement what he thinks is right. No bargaining. Frustrating as badWord. They had a shi'ite cleric they thought they could make deals with, and somebody killled him, and they think it was Sadr who killed him.

[tajer]

Americans don't all think the same and we don't know what the ones who make decisions in iraq are thinking, so it's easy for us to do conspiracy theories too. I can say some things that seem obvious.

 

Same to Iraqis,yet the issue here is about Iraqis.. Any whey they might be changing their minds toward the American mission in Iraq. One reason for conspiracy theory is the lack of trust and transparency. Iraqis with all of the sufferings , before and after Saddam, have all the reasons to feel isolated and lack of putting trust in any one.

 

 

First, we did not want religion to be too important in iraqi government. Democracy is based on making deals. In america we have had only one time when we chose to fight each other rather than make deals, and that time we killed more than half a million of us and did a lot of property damage.

 

I think we have two problems here.. First, Iraqis a lone are the one who should decide what good for them. Secondly, others experiences, while being important to learn from, should n't be a bible to follow. Though Iraqis might be looked at by some outsiders,as non civilized uneducated people that need learn a lot about what is good for them, Iraqis on the contrary showed deffirently. Due to historical reasons, religion in Iraq never interpreted as path to political domination. During the last year of full freedom , those who call for it were losing power "Alsader" , while those who go different, gained more support "Alsystani".

 

Second, when the Fallujah problem came it was (probably) not at a time we wanted it. We had been saying that the fighting was only a few Saddamis. When we saw pictures of large angry crowds in Fallujah supporting the Saddamis it bothered us. We thought most of the people should be on our side, and they should find the criminals and give them to us.

 

Falouga was known are the playground for all the Sadamees and Salafees terrorists, I don't know from where you got this impression that you might find such population "with large percentage of former Party, security police and republican guard members" to be supporter for the Iraq stability. Yet I agree with you that the mass punishment was wrong. The siege is different.. American did that in Tikreet, and was very successful, ending with Saddam capture without going into the mass punishment.. Protecting Iraqis from terror deserve the scarify of sieging falouga for a while. The mass punishment in falouga was wrong and the release of the siege was the other wrong.

 

 

The obvious deal is to let them make a political party that makes deals with everybody else, provided they give up violence. And then the iraqi police and army can kill them if they do violence. But they might not take that deal. A bad deal would be to let them run the secret police and be the ones who suppress violence.

I don't know if had heard about the Taliban style government in Falouga today, where the terrorists keep publicly punishing those whom they suspect of having sympathy with new Iraq. Last week the police station and some clergy participated in the killing of six Iraqi drivers and burn them a live just becouse they were Shia. Having such criminals rule a city should not be in the interest of new Iraq.

 

I'm concerned that this is what Allawi wants. Is it true he was in the secret police before he ran away from Saddam? And a lot of his support is from other secret police who also ran from Saddam? If so they would be the best choice to start a new secret police like Saddam's, if he or anybody wants that.

Allawi was 24 years old medical doctor when he left Saddam party, that before Saddam take over the Baath party. I don't know from where you get this info of being part of security police. Most of the Iraqi opposition leaders where working with him closely over the last twenty five years.. However, we used to hear such allegations from western anti Iraq liberation media when ever there is some one who might be of great help to Iraqis.. Some time security member and other as CIA agent..and so on.

 

How many Saddamis do you think there are? When you get a democracy you will have to live with them somehow, or else kill them. Where there are whole neighborhoods or whole cities of them, nobody will report terrorists unless you can persuade a lot of Saddamis to give up violence.

There is a difference between Sadamees and Baathees.. While there are million of baathees, who used to be to make their living, there are very limited number of criminal Sadamees.. Those who committed crimes should be prosecuted.. How many Nazis were there after world war 2, were they allowed to escape with their crimes?

 

I am not sure who our real enemies are. Maybe the french, the russians, the germans, the japanese, the chinese. They are our *competitors*. We are not willing to kill them so we have to live with them, and so we have to make deals with them.

 

In fighting terror , there are one enemy: terrorists who kill people any where.. In Iraq or else where.

I'm sure Sistani is very difficult for the americans who try to make deals with him. If he made a promise he could deliver on it, people would go along with him. But he doesn't make deals, he just thinks about what the right thing is and then at some random time he makes a public announcement what he thinks is right.

I keep hearing people talking about systani as a political leader.. He is a scholar that academically evaluate things.. Over the last century of prohibiting Shia from ha=ving any political rights, the only institution that people still think as legitimate in expressing their voice is the Margia.. This should not be confused with the religious control on people.. Shiasim is not believing in political rule of clergy and that is why they are different from Sunni.. Trusting some Clergy is different issue. If we return back , we might found Alsystani call for democracy was the only great achievement that the American led liberation of Iraq had accomplished

[Guest Guest]

I agree that in principle iraqis should be the ones who make their own choices. Americans will mostly agree with that in principle. However, we have been a very strong nation since WWII when the rest of the industrialised world got badly damaged, and we tend to believe that our strength comes because we are generally doing the right things rather than believe it is an accident of history. And so we tend to try to make others do what we think is right, because we think we can do so and we think it's the right thing for us to do. Our voters tend to approve of what we think is right, and our politicians often do what they think is best for the USA, or best for themselves personally, and try to persuade the voters that it is best for the world. This wouldn't matter as much if we weren't so strong. Our extended aid to vietnam reduced our strength some and our occupation of iraq is likely to reduce it more.

 

For whatever reason, Bremer etc said that they wanted an entirely secular government in iraq, and did what they could to create that. When they saw mosques trying to organise security or attending to other needs that government should do, they tried to stop it. They would rather those needs go unmet than have religious organisations meet them. And when al Sadr called for the US occupation to end he was declaring himself their enemy.

 

 

About Fallujah, it was stupid of us to expect that our problem was only a few "dead end" terrorists with little support. But we wanted to think that. Our government repeated the claim many times. We wanted iraqis to love us and be grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam and for giving them democracy, and we wanted them to want to do what we wanted them to do. It looks stupid to me when I write it down, but it was what we wanted. We didn't have a plan set up ahead of time to deal with a whole city of people who were against us. So we we saw pictures of americans killed and their bodies mistreated and it looked like the whole city approved, we got angry. The american public thought of "contractors" as only people who did repairs. When we heard more about that incident some of us decided that all the contractors were mercenary soldiers. I don't think the government has counted how many of them are doing security. So we have the two extreme views, all aid or all unoffiical soldiers. And the marines *wanted* to do collective punishment. They wanted to kill their enemies until the survivors surrendered. They were unfit to do a siege because they wanted revenge too much. It looks like all the marines wanted that including all the officers. When they got orders to stop attacking and arrange a cease-fire they said they would and kept attacking and said the fallujans had attacked them. The big problem came when american TV reporters finally came to Fallujah and heard an airstrike during a cease-fire. It was very loud and they thought there was a big attack, and the marines told them that it wasn't, it was normal, they'd had airstrikes against the city every day during the ceasefire. Also there were reports from europeans and americans of marines shooting ambulance drivers, which was an obvious war crime. At that point the government had to get the marines away, and rather than just pulling them back and making it a complete Saddami victory they took the best deal they could get. The marines say it isn't over and they will attack Fallujah again if they get the chance.

 

If we hear about sufficient atrocities done in Fallujah like the shia drivers they might send the marines back in or maybe they'll send in new troops who aren't so emotional about it (but who wouldn't fight as well because it would be new to them). We don't have a good answer. What we want to be true is for a small minority to have taken over, helped by foreign terrorists. And we could move in, restore order, and the people would tell us which ones to punish, and then the people would be grateful to us for getting rid of them. We aren't ready to kill 200,000 people, or even 70,000 men. I think the americans will try to keep anything too bad from happening until we can give the problem to iraqis to deal with.

 

I'm glad to hear Allawi was not with the secret police. I read that he started out as an assassin for the secret police. I'm glad to hear it was wrong. I see nothing wrong with him working with the CIA when he wanted to get rid of Saddam and so did they. He would accept any help he could get, there would be nothing wrong with getting help from the CIA and the KGB at the same time, if he could do it.

 

 

About Baathees and Saddamis, I think you have two different questions. One question is, what do you do to the criminals you find? The other is, which people will continue to cause trouble?

 

After WWII the high nazi officials got trials and executions. Some lower-rank criminals got severe punishment. The nazis all knew that they had lost and so mostly they didn't make much trouble. A lot of them went to south america and started new lives. The israelis looked for former nazis who might have done crimes and kidnapped them. Almost all of those are gone now, all that are left are prison guards who were very young during WWII. Recently the israelis got the USA to send them an american citizen that they said had been a nazi prison guard, so they could punish the old man. Iraqis must decide about punishment. In chile they decided that to end the violence they would forgive the criminals of the old government. So people try to live with the torturers and murderers. It must be hard. But if you put most of the criminals in prison for a few years that will be just as hard. Either way, twenty years from now you will have murderers who say they saw the man who had tortured them and they got mad and killed him, and you will have to do something about that.

 

If you were to kill them, how many would you want to kill? How many really bad guys was it? Was it 25,000 evil torturers and jailers and secret police? More?

 

Apart from justice to the old criminals, you need people to be good citizens. The Saddamis who will not be forgiven cannot be good citizens, and their families and friends may not be either. They will become a big criminal gang that will hope to get back in power. How many people is it? Is it all of Fallujah and all of Tikrit etc? They might cause a lot of trouble.

[tajer]

I agree that in principle iraqis should be the ones who make their own choices. Americans will mostly agree with that in principle. However, we have been a very strong nation since WWII when the rest of the industrialised world got badly damaged, and we tend to believe that our strength comes because we are generally doing the right things rather than believe it is an accident of history.

Thanks for this great briefing on how Americans might think of. Let put down how Iraqi might think. Iraqis think that they never get the chance to set their choice of government for hundreds of years. First because Iraq ia a frontier country where different culture interact . Second because the population of Iraq never be of same .. Iraq was under the continuous Arab tribes migrations over the last two thousands years. After the first world war, Iraq get into a stabilized social state with the creation of political border, however the western powers "England" never allowed Iraqis to have the say on their political system. Today Iraqis think that it the unique chance of stand a lone and have their word on what type of system that they might choose. That would explain why Iraqis are so sensitive when it comes to occupation. Even those who kept very good relations with the Americans, like Talabam\ni and Chalabi, had said clearly to the Americans from day one , that it would be easy to liberate Iraq but would be impossible to occupy it. That is why I think , Americans should leave the Iraqis who already showed a very high level of maturity, to have their free choices. I would assure you that they would never choose any system but the democratic federal choice of full human right respect. Indeed that is why the terrorist are so afraid from the transfer of power and the push for elections and democracy, that Alsystani was calling for .

 

And so we tend to try to make others do what we think is right, because we think we can do so and we think it's the right thing for us to do. Our voters tend to approve of what we think is right, and our politicians often do what they think is best for the USA, or best for themselves personally, and try to persuade the voters that it is best for the world. This wouldn't matter as much if we weren't so strong. Our extended aid to vietnam reduced our strength some and our occupation of iraq is likely to reduce it more.

 

 

I don't agree with your comparison. In Vietnam America was a super power that fight the other supper power. Democracy was not the main issue. In Iraq , Americans are fighting the terror ideology, by promoting democracy. In iraq , majority of people are with the American mission. In Vietnam, the majority were against it.

 

 

For whatever reason, Bremer etc said that they wanted an entirely secular government in iraq, and did what they could to create that. When they saw mosques trying to organise security or attending to other needs that government should do, they tried to stop it. They would rather those needs go unmet than have religious organisations meet them. And when al Sadr called for the US occupation to end he was declaring himself their enemy.

 

There much more Salafees mosques that call for the kill of Iraqis and American, Iraqis didn't see any reall push by Americans. Alsader, I don't agree with his attitude against the Americans, was a peacefull movement, unile been attacked by CPA. A lot of Iraqis, including those who fully refuses his claims, saw this as a suspecious step toward opening the doors for the Sadamees . And that is why in my opinion, we saw most of the SHia didn't accept the American intervine.

 

About Fallujah, it was stupid of us to expect that our problem was only a few "dead end" terrorists with little support. But we wanted to think that. Our government repeated the claim many times. We wanted iraqis to love us and be grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam and for giving them democracy, and we wanted them to want to do what we wanted them to do.

Indeed this was the only thing Americans were right about. Falooga don't represent more than 3% of Iraqis. The change by Iraqis was because they started to suspect the reall intentions of Americans.

 

We aren't ready to kill 200,000 people, or even 70,000 men. I think the americans will try to keep anything too bad from happening until we can give the problem to iraqis to deal with.

No one ask for this , but siege of Falouga is different

 

I'm glad to hear Allawi was not with the secret police. I read that he started out as an assassin for the secret police. I'm glad to hear it was wrong. I see nothing wrong with him working with the CIA when he wanted to get rid of Saddam and so did they. He would accept any help he could get, there would be nothing wrong with getting help from the CIA and the KGB at the same time, if he could do it.

A lot of Iraqi today put have a lot of faith in Alawee.. The most imporatant, he is a former Baathi, Shia, secular and and keep gopod relation to all parties inside Iraq. That is why there was a lot of fire on him by all the anti Iraqi freedom.

 

About Baathees and Saddamis, I think you have two different questions. One question is, what do you do to the criminals you find? The other is, which people will continue to cause trouble?

There is a big difference between Baathists and Saddamists.. Saddam killed from Baathists party leader more than he did with any other party leaders , including Islamist or Kurds.I would ask you same question, though.. What you would do in America with acriminal? get prosecuted and have the right sentence.

 

After WWII the high nazi officials got trials and executions. Some lower-rank criminals got severe punishment. The nazis all knew that they had lost and so mostly they didn't make much trouble. A lot of them went to south america and started new lives.

That exactly what Iraqis wanted...It is important to send them the message that they had lost. Open doors for Sadamees would make them feel that their chance of return back and that would encourage all the insurgence. After the fall of Saddam, for at least three months, they were in that mode, and so Iraq was so stable. Then the found the Americans not so series in follow up after them and soon started all the violance.

 

If you were to kill them, how many would you want to kill? How many really bad guys was it? Was it 25,000 evil torturers and jailers and secret police? More?

 

It enough for iraqis to procecute the top inner circle of about 100 Saddam's leadership. That was requested by Salhideen confrence of Iraqi opposition parties in 1992. The rest should be integrated in the society.

The problem is that Iraq started to suspect that such prosicution might not happen. I Islam, the punishment for criminal is to for itself but to be a lesson!!

[Guest Guest]

http://www.alrafidayn.com/Story/News/N_19_06_6.html

 

إقبال شديد على الانضمام الى قوات الشرطة والجيش العراقيين

 

البصرة ـ قاسم قصير

 

تشهد مراكز وثكَن الجيش وقوات الدفاع المدني والشرطة العراقية إقبالاً شديداً من المواطنين العراقيين للانضمام إلى هذه القوات برغم كل عمليات التفجير والاغتيال والقتل التي تطال هؤلاء المجنّدين ومراكز التدريب والتجنيد.

 

وتعزو الأوساط العراقية في البصرة هذا الاقبال إلى رغبة العراقيين في الدفاع عن وطنهم والحاجة الماسة الى فرص عمل في ظل الظروف الصعبة التي يعانيها العراقيون وخصوصاً بعد تسريح عناصر الجيش العراقي السابق وعدم حصول حركة اقتصادية كبيرة بعد سقوط النظام السابق.

 

In arabic, very inetersting article, never to see in the main strean media. Huderds of thousands of Iraqis apply for the new police and military units dispite the continouse attacks on the applicatons centers by the terrorists.

A friend of mine told me that the applicants are sleeping over night at the doors to have the chance of getting in..

 

In Basara, the officer in one of the centers told the repoter that they accepted about 13 thousand only and turned the rest becauase of no place.

 

Iraqis are so montivated to protect their new system !

[J Thomas]

After the first world war, Iraq get into a stabilized social state with the creation of political border, however the western powers "England" never allowed Iraqis to have the say on their political system. Today Iraqis think that it the unique chance of stand a lone and have their word on what type of system that they might choose.

 

The british found they could control iraq somewhat because the different groups of iraqis did not get along well. Americans who want to control iraq somewhat will naturally look for the same possibility.

 

In Vietnam America was a super power that fight the other supper power. Democracy was not the main issue. In Iraq , Americans are fighting the terror ideology, by promoting democracy. In iraq , majority of people are with the American mission. In Vietnam, the majority were against it.

 

The american government told our people that we wanted south vietnam to have a democracy instead of a communist dictatorship. Also we were afraid that if vietnam fell then the rest of southeast asia would also come under chinese communist control. That didn't happen, the communist vietnamese later invaded communist cambodia and the communist chinese invaded communist vietnam and there wasn't much of an attempt to conquer thailand or malaysia etc.

 

The american people strongly supported the vietnam war at first, and gradually began to oppose it as they saw blunders we were making. The french minority controlled the 'democracy' and were mean to buddhists and bao-bao etc, and when they couldn't win elections they sometimes faked the vote and sometimes had coups. We didn't have much democracy there, and the vietnamese didn't support their government well -- it was only a little better than the communists. Also we put so much money into vietnam that there was a whole lot of room for government corruption, and we didn't like that. The troops we sent to help the vietnamese troops were resented and that caused problems too, many people thought they had a puppet government. We were paying the money so of course we made the decisions, and they didn't like it.

 

The difference between opposing communism and opposing islamic terror is not so big. One difference is that the CIA had a good idea how strong the communist nations were (but lied to the public and even the Senate about it) while they probably don't know nearly as much about the terrorists except that they are weak and need to hide.

 

And when al Sadr called for the US occupation to end he was declaring himself their enemy.

 

There much more Salafees mosques that call for the kill of Iraqis and American, Iraqis didn't see any reall push by Americans.

 

I don't really know why the CPA was so much against al Sadr. They once had a shia leader they thought would do what they wanted, and he was killed early after the war. They said they thought al Sadr had ordered it. Maybe they really believed that and were still angry at him for killing their cleric.

 

Falooga don't represent more than3 % of Iraqis. The change by Iraqis was because they started to suspect the reall intentions of Americans.

 

3%. That's about 750,000 people. That could give 7,500 terrorists or 75,000 militia. They must be killed, or ethnic-cleansed (persuaded to leave iraq) or persuaded to be good citizens. It looks like a hard job and the USA mostly won't do it.

 

I would ask you same question, though.. What you would do in America with acriminal? get prosecuted and have the right sentence.

 

When it's a few criminals, no problem. We have never faced 3% of the population supporting armed revolt. We did have about 35% of the population revolt, partly because they wanted slavery to be legal. When they had clearly lost and surrendered, the most important of them went to prison for awhile and the rest were sent home. The rich among them mostly lost their wealth. They did some guerrilla warfare and the US Army occupied them for some years. Mostly the guerrillas tried to influence local government against blacks, and they successfully avoided the army.

About 100 years later those areas accepted laws that officially said they couldn't be mean to blacks for being black.

 

After WWII the high nazi officials got trials and executions. Some lower-rank criminals got severe punishment. The nazis all knew that they had lost and so mostly they didn't make much trouble. A lot of them went to south america and started new lives.

That exactly what Iraqis wanted...It is important to send them the message that they had lost. Open doors for Sadamees would make them feel that their chance of return back and that would encourage all the insurgence.

 

Maybe they haven't really lost yet. Saddam said his forces would hide in the cities where the americans would kill too many civilians if we tried to attack them, and they would come back out after we left. Maybe that's what they are doing now. Maybe the plan is working, but without Saddam.

 

If you were to kill them, how many would you want to kill?

 

It enough for iraqis to procecute the top inner circle of about 100 Saddam's leadership. That was requested by Salhideen confrence of Iraqi opposition parties in1992 . The rest should be integrated in the society. The problem is that Iraq started to suspect that such prosicution might not happen. I Islam, the punishment for criminal is to for itself but to be a lesson!!

 

That looks good. I'm sure the US will give you all the ones you want to prosecute, except maybe a few that we still want to get secrets from. I would hate it if I was an iraqi that the US military thought knew nuclear secrets, and they interrogated me for years to get me to tell the secrets I didn't know.

[tajer]

The british found they could control iraq somewhat because the different groups of iraqis did not get along well. Americans who want to control iraq somewhat will naturally look for the same possibility.

 

Most Iraqi historians doesn't agree with this analogy.. British never promote a democratic system in Iraq but a a mechanism of letting minority ArabSunni to rule.. It is true that different Iraqi groups were racing for gaing more in the government, but it is not true tosay that the Brish were to solve this but to use it for their benefits by promoting the BanArab state with Sunni Arab minority to lead. A short minded selfish solution to have this isolated learder ship in full dependence on The britsh. Some thing that generate the brutal system of Saddam later on.

If American are willing same way as British did, some thing I personally don't think the currentadminstaration is willing to, , then we might as well need to expect one century of Iraq and mideel east violance.

 

BY the way, when I refere to Iraqis, I am not refering to have the majority SHia to decide, I am in full support of decisions to be made by all Iraqis.

3%. That's about 750,000 people. That could give 7,500 terrorists or 75,000 militia. They must be killed, or ethnic-cleansed (persuaded to leave iraq) or persuaded to be good citizens. It looks like a hard job and the USA mostly won't do it.

 

Following thsi analogy, there are 24 milion supporters to the The Americans in Iraq.. !!

 

No one asked for the killing of Iraqis.. Let me tell you this story that had happen to me in person.

One of my young cousins was shot publically in kerbala, in 1986. That was part of the regime policy to frighten Iraqis.. The shoting was in front of differnt Baath party members and millitary official. The younf man was about 22 years old , the youngest to a family of four other brothers from a very well known "Nasralla" family. He was no political figure.. I don't need to explain the shock that this family was running into.

After the war , people took over the Baath party offices, and as uauall they ran into all the secrect documents.. We were very anciece to know how was behind the kill of that poor youth.

When I called his elder brother, who is now one of the main leaders of kerbala, he told me that they got that document and found out the agent that wrote against his brother. He is a kebala's citizen secret police agent.

 

I asked him what you did for him, he replied that we collected the document and presented to the court and we will wait untill the court established.. I said , is possible that this is happening , no revenge.. He replied, our reliogion prohit killing people on suspection. We knoew that he is the one, but we should not have this a legitimate reason for applying punishment on him

 

Indeed there are thousands of such cases, did you heard about any revenge .. This is the type of Iraqis,,.. Let pray all that they could make it to the end..

.

[J Thomas]

The british found they could control iraq somewhat because the different groups of iraqis did not get along well. Americans who want to control iraq somewhat will naturally look for the same possibility.

 

Most Iraqi historians doesn't agree with this analogy.. British never promote a democratic system in Iraq but a a mechanism of letting minority ArabSunni to rule..

 

I don't say it would go exactly the same way. Here is one concern. I have seen estimates that a workable iraqi government plus reconstruction would have to spend about thirty billion dollars a year. But the oil income for the foreseeable future will not be more than twenty billion dollars a year, unless oil prices rise more. So there is a strong chance you will need to get ten billion dollars or more a year from foreigners. If you get it from the USA we will use that money to get concessions about things the US government wants.

 

Here is another concern. In his quest for security the unpopular Dr. Allawi wants a large army and secret police designed to suppress terrorists, complete with a quick-reaction force intended to attack terrorists before they can carry out their missions. What is the difference between using this force to suppress terrorists and using it to suppress ordinary citizens? The difference I see is that ordinary citizens do not shoot back.

 

BY the way, when I refere to Iraqis, I am not refering to have the majority SHia to decide, I am in full support of decisions to be made by all Iraqis.

 

If Shia are united, they will make the decisions. If they are split then a coalition of some Shia and some others will make the decisions. Democracies have no general method to protect the rights of minorities who do not have many voters supporting them. Common sense and good will go a long way, but they don't work all the time.

 

No one asked for the killing of Iraqis.. Let me tell you this story that had happen to me in person.

 

<snip inspiring story>

 

This is the type of Iraqis,,.. Let pray all that they could make it to the end..

 

Thank you!

 

It is a hard situation and attitudes like that will aid the healing.

 

The interim rules say that no one will be punished for doing things that were not illegal when they were done. I don't know whether Saddam's rules made what happened to your cousin illegal. If the Saddamists are3 % of the population, and if they all vote for the same Saddamist party with a new name and no one else votes for it, they will get probably 8 members of the legislature. Some of Saddam's torturers and murderers may wind up in the legislature, and it's just something to accept as part of the democracy. When they have their fair share of the power and the chance to speak openly, they get to see how unlikely it is for them to take over again. But if they are suppressed then they have no better choice than to fight.

 

The US forces may suppress them just enough to keep them fighting vigorously, continuing the need for US forces to stay and suppress them.

[Guest Guest_tajer]

If Shia are united, they will make the decisions. If they are split then a coalition of some Shia and some others will make the decisions. Democracies have no general method to protect the rights of minorities who do not have many voters supporting them. Common sense and good will go a long way, but they don't work all the time.

 

Indeed this would apply to any mechanism.. Under the transition law , the vito is given to any three provinces.. What about those minorities that are less than this size, such as the Shia kurds "Felia" , Christians, Sabea, Turkman..my self, etc...

 

In kurdostan, no one Felia is taking rule in in any leading position while they are at least representing 25% of Kurds and who were the most punished by Sadaam. Being Shia and Kurd ...Ah!Ah! Ah!

 

Most Iraqis that I talked to inside/outside Iraq never accept any constitusion that might push minorities.. One friend told me that Dr. Aljaaferee " head of Daawa islamic shia party", was one of key figure in getting the two main Christian parties " Ashur and keldan" together , to make their voice stronger.

 

That is Iraq, don't look to those very weired minority of Terorists, Iraqis will take care of them once they they took over with the great support of our friends!

[Guest Guest]

http://www.sotaliraq.com/newiraq/article_2...06_22_5247.html

 

 

An article by An Iraqi talking about some evidences that the house was related to Alzarqawee

1- The huge no. of Quran copies .. A normal house in Falouge don't have more than couple not tens..

2- The Clergi of Fallouga prohibted the " fatiha" funiral of the killed, so as not to declare their idenedidty

3- The Aljazera wasn't allowed to phote the killed, so that their relatives don't recognize them

4- Many Treerorist web sites announced that some of their members were killed by bombing over the last days without mentioning where

[J Thomas]

That is Iraq, don't look to those very weired minority of Terorists, Iraqis will take care of them once they they took over with the great support of our friends!

Would anyone who has some understanding of iraq be willing to critique this?

 

http://www.saag.org/BB/view.asp?msgID=5895

 

Terrorism and Complex Warfare in Iraq

 

By Ahmed Hashim

 

Ahmed Hashim works at the US Naval War College. Some of his information comes from prisoners in Baghdad, Karrada, Ramadi, Tikrit, and Mosul all in November 2003. But I expect most of his knowledge of recent events in iraq is second-hand. Do his views of the current situation seem realistic? What about his guesses about what could happen?

 

My guess is that his views are likely to represent a back-up position for the US military. On all levels officers will follow their orders, and they will consider the possibility that things will go his way, and they will make backup plans along those lines. If the orders change in line with their plans they will be particularly ready.

[Guest Mustefser]

أغلب العراقيين يؤيدون حكومة إياد علاوي

QUOTE

 

 

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