82percent of Iraqis oppose U.S. occupation

By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive
Most e-mailed articles

WASHINGTON — Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.
In the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the United States and allied militaries in Iraq.

Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available, "generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities in late March and early last month, before the surge in anti-coalition violence and the detainee-abuse scandal.

The findings appeared consistent with a poll taken about the same time by USA Today, CNN and Gallup, which found that 57 percent of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to leave immediately.

The new poll, which has not been released publicly, is a concern among occupation authority officials and in Washington, D.C., because the data provide evidence that the U.S. effort is not winning over Iraqi public opinion.

"How to ... win the hearts and minds of the people (in Iraq) is one of the things that we really have to work at," Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, head of Army intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. "I mean, that is the key to solving not only that problem but the rest of the problems in the Middle East."

Hamilton, who said he oversees public-opinion issues for Bremer, declined to provide the number of Iraqis surveyed or other methodological details but said in an e-mail that "polls here are generally reliable" and that the new findings were consistent with those of other polls.

The new data reflect the fact that "the occupation, and the occupation forces, are getting increasingly unpopular," said Jeffrey White, a former Middle East affairs analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency. "A lot of people, including me, have been getting very pessimistic."

Reflecting that trend, the proportion of Baghdad residents who reported worries about safety has increased steadily: 70 percent named security as the "most urgent issue," up from 50 percent in January, 60 percent in February and 65 percent in March.

Overall, 63 percent of those polled said security was the most urgent issue facing Iraq. In addition to Baghdad, the poll was conducted in the northern city of Mosul and the southern cities of Basra, Nasiriyah and Karbala. Some questions were asked in the troubled western Ramadi.

There were a few bright spots. Iraqi police received a 79 percent positive rating, the best of seven institutions about which questions were asked. The reformed Iraqi army was not far behind, with a 61 percent positive rating.

Those polled were broadly divided on who should appoint the interim government that is supposed to take over limited power at the end of next month. The largest group, 27 percent, said the Iraqi people should appoint the new leaders, while 23 percent said judges should. Only one-tenth of 1 percent said that the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council should name the government, which is supposed to run Iraq until elections are held next year. None said the occupation authority should.

Indicating a general skepticism of foreign involvement in their political future, 83 percent of those polled said that only Iraqis should be involved in supervising the 2005 elections.

should read: 18% of iraqis afraid to answer honestly, or whatever the arabic equivalent is of an 'uncle tom'.

The Media Portrayal of Issue: The U.S. wants to occupy Iraq, but Iraqis don't want to be occupied by the U.S. Currently, the U.S. is occupying Iraq. What's the solution to this problem? Why, convincing stubborn Iraqis to like the occupation, of course. It would be inconceivable for the U.S. to get out of Iraq.

Analogy:

Joe wants to have sex with Suzy, but Suzy doesn't want to have sex with Joe. Currently, Joe is having sex with Suzy. What's the solution to this problem? Why, convincing stubborn Suzy to like being raped, of course. It would be inconceivable for Joe to get out of Suzy.

Sticky one for the fascists. If they pull out it could look stupid if all the 'terrorists' haven't been subdued; ie, if senseless bombings continue after they pull out. It's no surprise that the Iraqi's consider security to be the biggest concern. They may or may not be wise in assuming (if they are) that the US pulling out is good for security (they may not be connecting the two questions on the survey). As long as the US is there, bombings can be focused on convoys, etc, not Iraqi police stations. (I am coming at this from an Iraqi POV, not an anarchist.)

In the end time will tell. I predict at least a partial pull out before the Nov. elections. The question is what the resistance will do once the pull out is finalized; inact their own policies (ie, consider the Iraqi police stations illegitimate among other things), or stop the bombimg. If they continue bombing after that point, Bush is toast. If not he may actually get reelected. So it's a double edged sword, really...

This is the fundamental weakness of the resistence. If the US can set up functional puppet police & military they will be able to defeat the resistence Somoza-style.

a lot of the current iraqi police and army people aren't keen on being puppets of the U.S. even tho they work for the occupation authority right now

remeber the fair number of Iraqi police and soldiers who switched sides to aid the resistance when the U.S. went after Sadr

the new iraqi unit in fallugah is also refusing to disarm the resistance

from today







"FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The Iraqi general leading a force that controls Falluja said he had no plans to disarm insurgents, defying demands by U.S. commanders who appointed him and raising tension with Marines encircling the restive city.





Mohammed Latif, a former intelligence officer who now heads the Falluja Brigade, also told Reuters in an interview late on Thursday that U.S. forces should go home if they wanted peace.

"Weapons are not the problem. They are easy to collect," he said. "What we need to do is rebuild our country. There is no need for American

perhaps the iraqi police get higher ratings because of this but that's just speculation on my part

Yes, but if the US can change that - build a loyal police & army willing to slaughter their own people - then the resistence is screwed unless Iraqi public opinions changes.

The Iraqi police are geniune, they're not authoritarian power mongers (imho). Watch any interview with them. Not all of them say it explicitly, but they want the US out, but at the same time they do see virtue in the job of being a policeman, and they certainly see "the resistance" (at least that part which blows up school busses and police stations) being wrong.

I don't think the US is in any position to have a majorly fascist state here, because in all the other situations the US did it via the CIA, the world news didn't cover it, and the reality is we never knew about it for 30+ years after it occured. Look at Venezuela. The US simply couldn't do shit in that situation. There was too much information and the spotlight is on Iraq.

Not true. In it's gunboat imperialism days, before the CIA existed, the US created several client dictatorships in countries it invaded. This typically came as a response to insurgencies, it's a way to control them. In Nicaragua Augusto Sandino waged a guerilla war against the US occupation of his country. This recieved significant news coverage and was the occupation was criticized around the world, even in Congress. The US responded by building up a local force to fight the guerillas, the national guard. They were often more effective at fighting the guerillas, didn't bring the bad publicity and were cheaper. Why have your marines die when you can get the brown people to kill each other? Eventually, the US troops withdrew but the national guard maintained control for the US and murdered Sandino. The leader of the National Guard at the time of the marines departure was Anastasio Somoza, who became dictator over Nicaragua. He and then his descendants ruled Nicaragua until 1979.