Full story here; an excerpt:
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq....
The report profiles those likely to carry out attacks against British and American troops as being "less than 26 years of age, more likely to want a job, more likely to have been looking for work in the last four weeks and less likely to have enough money even for their basic needs".
Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction in which it hoped to improve the electricity supply and the quality of drinking water.
That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed....
Thanks to Frank Menetrez for the pointer; his comments on the story are also worth quoting:
Here's why this is so important: Lots of folks in the US who hate Bush and everything he stands for are still expressing a lot of uncertainty about whether immediate withdrawal of all coalition forces is the right thing to do. They worry that the chaos in Iraq will get even worse if we leave, that it will turn into full-blown civil war, etc.
Those worries might or might not be well founded, but the argument for immediate withdrawal is still irrefutable because THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT US TO LEAVE. I mean, it is THEIR country, for crying out loud. If they wanted us to stay, then we could debate about whether we think staying or going will yield the best consequences, and then we could decide on that basis whether to grant their wish. But given that they want us to go, we have to go, period. I see no way around this simple argument--immediate withdrawal is the only morally defensible option.
Given the obvious and fundamental importance of considering what the Iraqi people want, I am astonished that no American commentator (with the notable exception of Chomsky) has, to my knowledge, even seen fit to mention the issue. The only explanation seems to be the pervasive influence of an imperialist mindset, according to which the desires of our colonial subjects just never even register as a consideration that might be taken into account: WE will decide what's best for them, and THEY need not even be consulted. Revolting, isn't it?
Recent Comments