What Iraqis Want You to Hear
- 03.19.2008 - 11:31 AMTwo days ago ABC News released a new poll of Iraqi public opinion, and John Burns at the New York Times made a very perceptive observation that should be taken into account when looking it over.
Opinion polls, including those commissioned by the American command, have long suggested that a majority of Iraqis would like American troops withdrawn, but another lesson to be drawn from Saddam Hussein’s years is that any attempt to measure opinion in Iraq is fatally skewed by intimidation. More often than not, people tell pollsters and reporters what they think is safe, not necessarily what they believe. My own experience, invariably, was that Iraqis I met who felt secure enough to speak with candor had an overwhelming desire to see American troops remain long enough to restore stability.
This feels right to me, not only thanks to my experience in Iraq, but also in places like totalitarian Libya where no one dared criticize the regime in public, and where everyone I spoke to did so in private where they were safe. Saddam Hussein commanded a murder and intimidation regime in Iraq, and today’s insurgents wage a murder and intimidation campaign in the streets. In Fallujah and Ramadi, Iraqi civilians were murdered just for waving hello to Americans, and for accepting bags of rice as charity. Fear should not be ignored when gauging Iraqi public opinion, and that includes fear of American guns as well as fear of insurgents.
I’ve been to Iraq five times, and never once have I heard an Iraqi say anything hostile about Americans. Partly this is because I don’t spend time in insurgent circles. How could I? The Iraqis I’ve met don’t represent the full spectrum. Middle Easterners are also famous for their politeness and, unlike some people from other parts of the world, they will not get in your face if they don’t like where you come from. (Al Qaeda members are an obvious and extreme exception, but they’re hated everywhere in Iraq and are violently atypical.)
Burns is right, though, that there’s more to it than that, and there’s also more to it than he let on. Why would Iraqis say to me, an embedded American reporter, that they want Americans to get out of their country while well-armed Marines are standing nearby? Marines won’t punish Iraqi civilians for saying so, but I doubt very seriously that everyone in Iraq understands that.
I often suspect Iraqis tell me what they think I want to hear. What they’re really doing, more than anything else, is telling me what they want me to hear. The difference is subtle, but crucial.
The evidence that this is happening can be found in the public opinion polls, and in the obvious fact that not every Iraqi wants American troops in their country. If everyone were really supportive, as it appears to me when I’m there, the insurgency would not exist. The amount of pro-American opinion – or at least neutral and passive opinion – that I’ve been exposed to in Iraq is artificially inflated.
None of this, though, means the polls are accurate. If 42 percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable, why has almost the entire country turned against the insurgents?
Here is where I think Burns’ keen observation explains the discrepancy between my experience as a reporter, the public opinion polls, and the reality of a radically diminished insurgency.
A single individual may tell me that he supports the American military presence, and the very same day tell a pollster that he opposes the American military presence. That’s the safest thing to say in each instance. The pollster will be given a safe anti-American opinion as a hedge against retaliation from insurgents, while I’ll be given a safe pro-American opinion as a hedge against retaliation from the Marines who are standing right next to me. It’s impossible to know what this hypothetical person really believes without additional data.
John Burns provides additional data. Let me quote him again. After a five-year assignment in Iraq, he writes “My own experience, invariably, was that Iraqis I met who felt secure enough to speak with candor had an overwhelming desire to see American troops remain long enough to restore stability.” Some of these Iraqis may have been merely polite when they said so, but I think it’s safe to say none feared retaliation from an unembedded and unarmed reporter from Scotland who spoke to them off the record.
Iraqi public opinion is more hostile than I can see and hear for myself as an embedded reporter. But it’s less hostile than what you see in the polls, and it always has been.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 19th, 2008 at 11:34 AM
so we should or should not read anyting into these or any polls?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:47 AM
“…and in the obvious fact that not every Iraqi wants American troops in their country.”
Would we want Iraqi troops in our own country? I also suspect that many French citizens were not exactly thrilled with our presence in their country immediately after WWII. It is normal to be embarrassed by one’s need for outside assistance. This is why we must continue handing over power to the Iraqis, as it is practical to do so.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:44 PM
handing over power should have been THE order of business immediately after the invasion. taking control of you know what was too much of a temptation.
regarding polls, i’m sure that those who feel vulnerable in iraq and the educated segments would prefer the US to stay. however, most of the polls in the arab world are part demopathic, part going with the strongman of the moment and part to protect oneself from terror. public opinion blows with the wind. I would not put too much weight in what iraqis tell US journalists in the presence of US troops.
there is also the “europe syndrome”: the US has provided europe with a security umbrella, relieving it from undertaking its own defense to the point of having the call to criticize and oppose US fight against islamism which, unable to fight it themselves (the resources going to the welfare of polygamists), the EU is appeasing the jihadis.
america has a serious knack for policies with short-term benefits causing long-term disasters.
I would not be surprised if the current policy in iraq won’t prove to be similar to the building of the UBL against the soviets. there have been analyses making that point.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:06 PM
“…handing over power should have been THE order of business immediately after the invasion.”
It was! The Bush administration from the very beginning aimed to turn the government over to the Iraqi people. This must, however, be done in a reasonable manner. Rushing things will only result in a disaster.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:31 PM
“The Bush administration from the very beginning aimed to turn the government over to the Iraqi people.”
Exactly. The more strident and bizarre claims of the more extreme anti-war elements notwithstanding, this was never a “war for oil” or a war of American “imperialism”. Whether one believes the invasion to have been the right thing or not, only an idiot would truly believe the best thing for Iraq is a precipitous withdrawal of American and coalition forces.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:39 PM
The poll is substantially skewed. The survey polls 30% Sunni Arabs, which skews all the answers negative as Sunni Arabs are only about 15% of Iraq’s population and are much more negative on virtually everything.
Details here
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/17/iraq-poll-improvements-across-the-board/
Corrected poll numbers here
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/17/that-d3-systems-poll/
The 42% “support attacks” number is probably way too high, but I haven’t recalculated that one.
Perhaps most interestingly, 62% of Iraqis believe the invasion was the right choice. That flies in the face of conventional wisdom based on all the negative reporting about how “the war” has damaged Iraq, but quite understandable when you consider that some 2 million died as a result of the prior regime’s actions, abn average of 7,000 a month over the regime’s reign of terror, far higher than any month of the occupation — and that’s before we consider factors like much greater overall access to electricity due to the economic freedom to buy generators (private generation supplies as much as half Iraq’s electricity now, up from zero under Saddam) and the first vague semblances of freedom of press, freedom of expression, free elections, etc. Iraq is in bad shape but better in many ways than before 2003.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Eric, are you calling Hilary Clinton an idiot? LOL
March 19th, 2008 at 4:43 PM
It seems to me that many Iraqis have come to the realization that the fastest way to get the Americans out is to help the Americans reach their goals of neutraliizing extremist elements and creating a stable(ish) government. It’s pretty obvious, talking to troops there, that they want to “get the Americans out” too but not without completing the mission.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:44 PM
David Thompson said, “I also suspect that many French citizens were not exactly thrilled with our presence…”
I was reading just a few days ago this exact point. Right after the Americans and British Commonwealth troops liberated Europe from the Nazis, many of the French expressed extreme displeasure with us and our presence. The article surveyed articles in French newspapers from the post-war years. The study of history is fast becoming a lost art.
As Iraq (and Europe) stand up, we can stand down, but it seems the days of the United States shouldering the burden of global security are coming to an end.
Thanks for the great report, Michael
March 19th, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Tyree, David, sorry to disagree.
I am Italian, and I live in Italy. My dad witnessed the liberation of Milan on the 25th of April, 1945.
He was just a kid and he remembers the candies passed by the GIs. But he never said anything about Americans having to leave, quite the opposite.
My Grandma, his Mom, was grateful to the Americans: she said the fascists would come in the house and look for the partigiani (freedom fighters) in the drawers (implying they were stealing), and then the partigiani came and did the same thing purportedly to look for camicie nere (black shirts, the fascists).
Only the Americans and the Brits restored order. On my Mother’side, they were in Istria, and they barely escaped the ethnic cleansing then carried out by Tito’s followers; they were extracted by a convou of New Zealand soldiers. I don’t know about the French, and being Italian I love to hate the cousins on the other side of the Alps, but I have never heard any comments here about US or British forces being unwelcome here (except for the Moroccans fightging for DeGaulle, they left a trail of rapes and pillaging).