The New York Times this week reports under the headline “Taking Lead, Iraqis Hope U.S. Special Operations Commandos Stay” that the security situation in Iraq “may be at risk now that American forces are withdrawing this year” as per the U.S.-Iraqi Status of Force Agreement (SOFA). “Even as few Iraqi politicians are willing to admit publicly that they need American help, Iraqi soldiers say that American troops must stay longer to continue training and advising”, the Times reports, citing “senior Iraqi military leaders” who “have advised Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that some troops should stay.” Naturally, “American officials have said they would agree to a such a request.” The article then goes on at length praising the abilities of the U.S. Special Operations units working with Iraqi forces.
The general theme is a standard narrative for the U.S. media, as I have long observed: U.S. military forces are a stabilizing influence in Iraq; the security situation could deteriorate if the U.S. withdraws; and Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in Iraq but their government is willing to risk a worsening security situation in order not to look weak and dependent. If there were a Pulitzer Prize for excellence in propaganda, the Times would surely consistently take home the award.
Noticeably and grievously absent from U.S. mainstream corporate media accounts like this one are the facts about what the Iraqi public actually have to say about the foreign occupation of their country.
A February 2004 poll by Oxford Research International showed that 39.5% of Iraqis supported the presence of coalition forces in their country, with 13.2% strongly in support, while a majority of 50.9% opposed the foreign occupation, with 31.3% expressing strong opposition.
In May 2004, a poll conducted for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) showed that “80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.” Presumably referring to the same poll, the Telegraph reported, “More than half of Iraqis would feel safer without American troops in the country, according to a leaked poll showing that a mere 10 per cent now backed coalition forces.”
In May 2005, the Project on Defense Alternatives issued a report noting that opinion surveys had consistently showed that, “On balance, Iraqis oppose the US presence in Iraq, and those who strongly oppose it greatly outnumber those who strongly support it”, that “US troops in Iraq are viewed broadly as an occupying force, not peacekeepers or liberators”, that “On balance, Iraqis do not trust US troops, think they have behaved badly, and — one way or another — hold them responsible for much of the violence in the nation”, and that “A majority of Iraqis want coalition forces to leave within a year or less.” The report suggested that the U.S. occupation was instigating a “Vicious Circle” (the title of the report), wherein its presence and operations in Iraq were the very thing driving the insurgency.
A November 2005 poll by Oxford Research International showed that 32.2% of Iraqis supported the presence of foreign forces (only 12.8% strongly in support) compared to an overwhelming majority of 64.5% who opposed the occupation (43.7% expressing strong opposition).
A leaked August 2005 poll undertaken for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, the Telegraph reported, showed that “up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks” on foreign forces (45% nationwide and 65% in the British-occupied Maysan province) and “fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.” 82% were “strongly opposed” to the occupying forces, and 67% felt “less secure because of the occupation”.
A January 2006 poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes showed that 80% of Iraqis believed the U.S. planned “to have permanent military bases in Iraq” and 76% believed the U.S. would not withdraw even if asked by the Iraqi government. 70% of Iraqis said they would like the Iraqi government to set “a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces”, 35% of whom favored a withdrawal “within six months”. Given a slightly different question, 87% of Iraqis said they would support a decision by their government to set a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. 47% of Iraqis approved of attacks on occupying forces, 90% of whom believed “that the US plans to have bases in Iraq permanently” and 87% of whom believed “that the US would refuse to leave even if asked to by the new Iraqi government.” 67% of Iraqis agreed that if the U.S. was to withdraw within six months, the “day to day security for ordinary Iraqis” would improve, compared to only 30% who believed it would worsen. 64% believed that violent attacks would decrease if the U.S. withdrew, compared to only 35% who believed they would increase. 61% believed that ethnic violence would decrease if the U.S. withdrew, compared to only 33% who believed it would increase. 73% of Iraqis felt that factions would be more willing to cooperate in the parliament if the U.S. withdrew, and 67% felt that the availability of public services such as electricity, schools, and sanitation would increase. 64% believed the amount of crime would decrease with a U.S. withdrawal. 59% wanted the U.N. to lead the international effort for economic reconstruction compared to only 21% who felt the U.S. should take the lead role (18% wanted neither).
In September 2006, the BBC reported that a Department of Defense (DOD) poll showed that 75% of Sunni Muslims “now support the armed insurgency against the coalition”, compared to “14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department carried out back in 2003.” (The U.S. onslaught against Fallujah in 2004 was attributed with greatly spurring the anti-coalition sentiment.)
Another poll the same month conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) in cooperation with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) showed that 71% of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to withdraw its forces within one year, and an additional 20% wanted withdrawal within 2 years. Only 21% saw the U.S. military as a stabilizing force in Iraq, compared to an overwhelming 78% who believed that the U.S. presence was “provoking more conflict than it was preventing.” 79% said that the U.S. was “having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq” compared to just 14% who said “that it is having a positive influence.” 58% believed that if the U.S. was to withdraw within six months, it would lead to a decrease in inter-ethnic violence, and 61% said the day to day security situation for ordinary Iraqis would improve. A majority of Iraqis, 61%, approved of attacks on U.S.-led forces. 77% believed the U.S. planned “to have permanent military bases in Iraq”, and 78% believed the U.S. would refuse if asked by the Iraqi government to withdraw. Most expressed confidence in the Iraqi police and security forces to handle the job on their own.
A November 2006 poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies covering the cities of Baghdad, Anbar, and Najaf found that nearly all respondents, 95.2%, felt that the security situation was worse than before the U.S. invasion. 50.7% wanted U.S. forces to leave “immediately”, and an additional 20.4% wanted the U.S. to “start to withdraw now according to a timed schedule”. 65.7% said that if the U.S. left, “The security situation will be improved and violence will be decreased”, compared to only 14.4% who said the violence would worsen.
A poll conducted in February and March of 2007 by D3 Systems for the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today, as the U.S. was implementing its “surge” of American forces into Iraq, showed that only 22% of Iraqis supported the presence of Coalition forces, while 78% opposed their presence, 46% strongly so. Only 29% felt the “surge” would make the security situation in Baghdad and Anbar better, while 49% said it would make it worse and 22% said it would have no effect. Only 21% felt overall that the presence of U.S. forces was improving the security situation in Iraq, while 69% said it was making it worse. 77% said the U.S. was playing a negative role in Iraq, compared to only 12% who perceived it as positive. More Iraqis blamed the U.S. for the violence in the country than any other contributing factor.
In May 2007, an Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll showed that only 16% of Iraqis believed the surge would improve the security situation in Baghdad (4% “a great deal better” and 12% “somewhat better”), while 69% believed it would only serve to escalate the violence (20% “somewhat worse” and a whopping 49% “a great deal worse”).
A September 2007 poll for the BBC, ABC News, and NHK showed that 63% of Iraqis believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq in 2003. Far from perceiving the surge as effective, only 24% said the security situation had improved in their neighborhood in the last six months, compared to 31% who said it had worsened and 45% who said it had remained the same. Only 11% said the security situation had improved in Iraq as a whole, compared to 61% who said it had worsened and 28% who said it had remained the same. 58% expressed no confidence at all in U.S. and U.K. occupation forces (27% expressed “Not very much confidence”). 80% felt that the U.S.-led Coalition forces had done a “bad job” of carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq. Only 21% supported their presence, compared to 79% who opposed the occupation, 53% strongly so.
In December 2007, another ORB poll prepared for BBC Newsnight showed that only 5% of Iraqis in Basra believed a continued presence of British troops there would improve the security situation there, while 66% felt that the situation would improve if the British withdrew, which is in fact what happened. As the commander of British forces acknowledged, 90% of the violence in Basra was directed against occupying forces, and thus the British withdrawal meant the level of violence would drop. U.S. Gen. David Petraeus also testified before the U.S. Senate to the fact that the level of violence in Basra plummeted as a result of the British withdrawal.
The same month, the Washington Post reported under the headline “All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows“:
Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces” as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
And yet by citing only certain senior members of the Iraqi military to the exclusion of the vast majority of the general public, the New York Times would have Americans believe that “Iraqis Hope U.S. Special Operations Commandos Stay”. Naturally, the U.S. mainstream media also stays true to the narrative that the U.S. is in the country to help Iraqis build “democracy”, the rejection of the views and positions of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis notwithstanding.
I would like to thank you for writing this great article Jeremy. It’s about time somebody used the media in order to expose the media propaganda being spread. But what i cannot understand is why the USA insists on staying and putting their soldier at unnecessary risk and for what? It will create political turmoil whereby the sadrists would withdraw from the government and unleash his militia. Do the americans want to see this happen?
I think American policymakers calculate that it is worth the risk to maintain a permanent military presence. It seems insane, I know, to rational, moral people. But in their own twisted minds, it’s all perfectly logical.
The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly Session, Claimed that it has the Objective of Strengthening the Organization’s Effectiveness and Efficiency.
The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe has Stated that it wants a New Start after the Astana Summit.
If that is True, then they will a New Start by Obeying the Law, and send a Communique to encourage certain European Union Countries to Revoke their Recognition of the Unilateral declaration of independence by the Albanians of Kosovo.
This is because Such Actions are Totally Inconsistent with Democratic Principles, and with European Standards.
The Lithuanian Foreign Minister will be in Attendance and he will give a Speech, which may include the topic of the Full Implementation of the SAA Agreement with Serbia.
We know that we will hear lots of Claims of how the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe supports Serbia European Union aspirations.
There will be the Usual Claims of Supporting the European aspirations of the Western Balkan Countries, because Poland Recently Stated that this was among its First Priorities during its European Union Presidency.
There is an old saying that Actions speak Louder than words, and Lithuania is one of seven remaining European Union Countries that have not as yet Fully Implemented the SAA Agreement with Serbia.
Belgium, Finland, France, Ireland, Holland, Poland, and Romania are the other European Union Countries who have not as yet Fully Implemented the already Negotiated SAA Agreement with Serbia.
The Ethnic Albanian Political Party, the Democratic Progress Movement in Southern Serbia, has decided to leave the Coordinating body of Southern Serbia.
This appears to have occurred on the same day that the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly Session has arrived in Serbia.
It could be that the Ethnic Albanian Political Party, the Democratic Progress Movement in Southern Serbia, did this because of their busy work schedule, and because they wish to now concentrate on Lobbying the European Union to Fully Implement the SAA Agreement with Serbia.
Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly Session would like to see Clear Evidence that the Kosovo Albanians want Genuine Reconciliation between the Serbian People and the Albanians of Serbia’s Province of Kosovo.
The Polish Ambassador to Serbia recently said that it was very realistic for Serbia to get European Candidate Status in December, just before the next Serbian Election to help NATO Candidates win the Election.
This Could be why the Serbian Prime Minister made the Claim that it was impossible for the Governing Coalition Political Parties to loose the next Election.
The Polish Ambassador reminded everyone that Nobody was asking Serbia to recognize Kosovo, and Good Relations with all of Serbia’s Neighbours would undoubtedly be a European Union Membership requirement in the Future.
Regardless of all Disinformation Attempts; the Truth of the Matter is, that as far as it ever was, and as far as it ever is up to Serbia, Serbia has always Pursued, and will always continue to Pursue have Good Neighbourly Relations with everyone; thus Fully Qualifying for any Future Membership of the European Union.
People have the Right to their own opinions in a Proper Democracy, and they are also entitled to their opinion, even if they are wrong.
I am entitled to my own opinion, and I reserve the Right to be wrong, but if I am wrong at times; then I will correct my thinking.
My opinions are genuinely held opinions, even if some of them are wrong, but some People will always deliberately and maliciously vomit lies and slander, because that is the lowlife scum that they are.
There are People who say that Slobodan Milosevic was good for Serbia, and there will be those who will say that he was bad for Serbia.
These People are Serbian, or they could be People who claim to be Serbian, but they could are really another Nationality.
As I have said before, I do not look at the person, but I judge any and all statements on their Own Merits.
I think the Truth of the Matter is that Slobodan Milosevic was never going to be given an opportunity by Anglo-France to prove that he was good, and Anglo-France were only interested in making him look bad.
They had to use Slander and Lies and do this Constantly to the point of Demonizing the entire Serbian Population.
The supposed Logic is that if all Serbs are evil, then their President must also be evil.
Those who say that Slobodan Milosevic was guilty of alleged genocide and war crimes, are unknowingly saying that all Serbs planned genocide, when the Reality was that the Serbian People were defending themselves from unprovoked the attacks of their enemies.
To this day, the Serbian People have to defend themselves from unwarranted Slander, and that task is getting easier by the day.
There are some People who think that it is just difficult to compete with lies; however, that attitude is only for cowards who have nothing to offer themselves or the Human Race.
The Serbian People should say that the Serbian People were the most Innocent of all of the Ethnic Groups in the former Yugoslavia, and say that other are entitled to their opinions.
I can understand it if some People think that it is expedient to say that he was bad, because Serbia might receive a Dog Biscuit for following the Anglo-French Script.
I think that Slobodan Milosevic never had a chance with the type of intentions and with the unfair tactics of the Anglo-French Enemy of the Human Race, who were assisted by others that were Euphemistically called the International Community at that time.
We all know that he did not receive a Fair Trial; neither was he going to receive a Fair Trial, just like some other Serbs that are at The Hague.
He was not allowed his own Lawyers, and the Corrupt and Bribed Judges would not allow him to ask Legitimate questions, and when things did become embarrassing for the International Nazis, then they Censored the proceedings.
The fact that the self proclaimed International Community went to all that trouble to cover up and deny Slobodan Milosevic a Fair Trial, means that as far as I am concerned they must have known that he was Innocent, and I believe that he tried to do the best he could for Serbia, under extremely difficult conditions.
That is the opinion that I am entitled to, and I Defy any Person on this Planet to deny me my Right to my Genuinely Held Opinions.
There are many People who are not Serbian who believe that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent.
I came to the opinion that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent, after stumbling on a five part YouTube documentary that is Titled; SHOCKING Slobodan Milosevic was INNOCENT, that is on the Internet.
He was not allowed his own Lawyers, and the Corrupt and Bribed Judges would not allow him to ask Legitimate questions, and when things did become embarrassing for the International Nazis, then they Censored the proceedings.
The fact that the self proclaimed International Community went to all that trouble to cover up and deny Slobodan Milosevic a Fair Trial.
This means that as far as I am concerned the American Led NATO must have known that he was Innocent, and I believe that he tried to do the best he could for Serbia, under extremely difficult conditions.
That is the opinion that I am entitled to, and I Defy any Person on this Planet to try to deny me my Right to my Genuinely Held Opinions.
There are many People who are not Serbian who believe that Slobodan Milosevic was Innocent.
I hope that we can Agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable, because that is how it should be in a Proper Democracy.
All the numbers you used are prior to 2007 and well before the surge. Do you have anything that is…well updated and current? Political feelings and minds can change a lot in four years. As evidenced by our own country.
Chris
Actually, a number of the surveys I mentioned were conducted well after the surge had begun, as you would have noticed had you read the article carefully (or at all). Several specifically point out that most Iraqis either felt that the surge had made the security situation worse or not affected it all.
Nevertheless, you make a valid point. Unfortunately, more recent surveys are hard to come by. If you have any evidence that the clear and persistent and growing opinion among Iraqis over the course of years has changed, you are welcome to present it. I don’t believe you’ll find any that this trend has reversed.
This survey from February 2008 (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf) shows that only 4% of Iraqis who thought the security situation had improved (36%) credited the U.S. with the improvement. Among those who thought it had worsened (26%), 20% blamed U.S. forces. 79% expressed little to no confidence in U.S. occupation forces. 70% thought U.S. forces were doing a bad job in meeting their responsibilities as the occupying power. 73% opposed the presence of U.S. forces, 41% strongly so. When asked specifically about the surge, 36% said it had made the situation better in their area compared to 53% who said it had made things worse (10% said it had no effect). 30% said it had made things better nationwide compared to 49% who said it had made things worse (21% said it had no effect). Asked overall whether the U.S. presence was making the security situation better or worse, 61% said worse compared to only 27% who said better.
Don’t forget there are 3 kinds of lies in this world: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
Perhaps you mean “Lies, Damn Lies, and the New York Times implying Iraqis want U.S. forces to stay”.
Have you seen any reliable data/polls since the decision has been more or less made to keep 3-5,000 troops past the deadline? Again, the NYT had an article citing various Iraqis who once opposed occupation, but are now uncertain since that number was introduced:
“Many Iraqis Have Second Thoughts as U.S. Exit Nears” September 10, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html
Thanks!