Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Everyone, everyone, everyone wants the U.S. out of Iraq

Posted by Joshua Holland at 12:44 PM on February 1, 2006.


Except those cleaning up on the "reconstruction" funds ...
marchinggood
marching

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Joshua Holland in your
mailbox!

 

Democrats, Republicans and independents join Iraqi Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds in their desire for the U.S. to at least set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. That leaves only corporate and political elites - both here and there - and those Americans who want to show the world who's boss saying that we should stay until the security situation improves.

A majority of Americans of every political persuasion support Congressman Jack Murtha's call for a rapid redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. More Republicans support it than Democrats.

A poll of 1004 registered voters by Wright Consulting, commissioned by the blog MYDD, asked respondents to choose their preferred course of action in Iraq. Unlike many other polls, which asked questions like "Do you agree with Democratic Congressman John Murtha's withdrawal plan," this poll laid out the specifics of Murtha's proposal without attributing it to a Democrat. That removed the partisan bias. In all, 63.3 percent supported the "Murtha Plan." Chris Bowers of MYDD added:

What is perhaps most stunning about the Murtha proposal is how it is supported almost exactly the same by Democrats (59.3%), Republicans (63.7%) and Independents (65.9%).
That's a key finding, but knowledge of it is limited so far to the small number of Americans who read blogs. In a different political climate, we'd have headlines screaming: "64% of Republicans agree with Murtha's call for withdrawal!"

The American people are constantly told that our departure would result in chaos - a narrative that began before sectarian tensions in Iraq heated up. It may or may not be true -- it's certainly not a given -- but Iraqis, who should know best, want at least a definite timetable for a U.S. pull-out.

According to a new poll [PDF] of 1150 Iraqis conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, 70 percent of Iraqis want the fledgling government to request a U.S. timetable for withdrawal, including 64 percent of Kurds and 90 percent of Shi'ites.

Among the more than two-thirds of Iraqis who want the U.S. to withdrawal, the number is evenly divided between those calling for a rapid pull-out and others who want a withdrawal to be completed within two years. The Kurds - a small, historically-repressed minority -- are, understandably, the most cautious. The Kurds - who make up about a quarter of the population -- are the only group in which a majority (57%) wants the U.S. to stay until the security situation improves. Overall, only 29 percent of Iraqis desire U.S. forces to remain until then. There may be a risk of the country descending into civil war, but Iraqis are willing to take that chance.

One of the things we don't hear much about in analysis of what's driving the insurgency is that while a large majority of Iraqis want their government to ask the U.S. for a timetable to get out, three quarters of them don't believe the U.S. will honor such a request. That cuts across sectarian lines: two-thirds of Shi'Ites and three quarters of Kurds agree. Eight out of ten Iraqis believe the U.S. plans to build and maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

That, right there, is the difference between being viewed as a liberator or an occupier. That explains why almost half of all Iraqis -- including four in ten Shi'ites - approve of attacks on American forces.

Everyone wants us out, including Republicans. Everyone thinks of us as occupiers and not liberators, including Kurds and Shi'ites. The insurgency against U.S. forces has wide support. All the rest is just spin, and that's what our troops are now dying for.

Digg!

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


At Least 5 Need Government-Run Health-Care at Bachmann's Angry Protests Against Government-Run Health-Care
Milbank.
November 6, 2009.
Report: Hasan Snapped Under Weight of Bullying, Anxiety Over Deployment
That's not stopping the usual suspects from crying "jihad."
November 6, 2009.
Who's Been Held Accountable for the Crimes of Bush's "War on Terror"? Four Italians ... Sort of
Certainly not those who ran our shadowy network of secret prisons, nor their superiors who created it.
November 5, 2009.
What Tuesday's Election Results Mean for the Bigger Political Picture: Nada
Everyone's spinning it otherwise, of course.
November 4, 2009.
"America's Toughest Dictator"? FBI Investigating Joe Arpaio for Using Office to Bully Opponents
The feds are reportedly looking at a pattern of law enforcement being used to intimidate political opponents.
November 3, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well, not everyone....Halliburton wants the troops to stay.
Posted by: mythbuster on Feb 1, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great piece, but some more cynicism is in order. The anemic 1.1% 4th quarter growth rate is the huge, under-appreciated news from this past week. This is terrible news for Americans--and Iraqis. As a structuralist, I believe that most of our policy decisions are inevitable, i.e., you consume 25% of the world's energy, you will invade oil-producing countries. Our slowing growth--and the dependence of our economy on war-making--absolutely will affect the timing of our departure from Iraq. Do you honesty think that Iraqis will contract with Halliburton et al without the US military presence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

^(^
Posted by: decembrist on Feb 1, 2006 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much longer can Bushco keep up the occupation of Iraq with this kind of low support? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm interested to see what people think.

The reason I ask is that the whole point of the invasion was the occupation - which includes the reconstruction, the oil contracts (both for US corps.), and a "garrison" right in the heart of the Mid East oil producing region and in the country with the second largest reserves of oil in the world.

This is quite a prize for an imperialist with hegemonic wet dreams to give up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pyhhric defeat
Posted by: kenhymes on Feb 2, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Craig Reinermann's book on the drug war, "The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Prison." It lays out the theory of the Pyhhric defeat, the point being that elites benefit privately from public failures.

Clearly, Bush and co. expected this to go more smoothly, but the deaths and the chaos have not so far stymied their essential goals, stated in policy papers by the major players, but never aired in public speeches: control of oil, building of bases, insertion of US as the strongmen rather than the use of proxies as in the past. It's a stupid and crazy goal, but it is their conscious aim, and there are also other, more subtle benefits: A permanent state of war is part of the governing strategy of the neocons, and is really just a replacement for the cold war.

Remember, the same process occurred in more or less the same way starting in 1948. With Communism as the bogeyman, policy bigwigs and military brass convened, secretly at the time (like the PNAC cabal meeting in the 90's), and decided on a hard line against the Soviets as a way of maintaining, in their own words, a "permanent war footing," to prevent a return to economic depression and to sustain public support for high levels of military spending.

Now, the Soviets were involved in various strongarm tactics in Eastern Europe, just as Islamic militants really were blowing things up. But the key point is that success in ending Soviet control of Eastern Europe would have been considered (and indeed turned out to be) disastrous for the aims of these men. Just as the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the conversion of the Middle East into secular democracies, and the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be disastrous for the political and financial aaims of this bunch now.

Pyhhric defeat. Remember this everytime a Democrat or moderate Republican lays out their constructive, logical plan for resolution of the crisis - the radical neocons want none of that. Resolution is failure to them. Chaos and failure mean victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not even hidden
Posted by: redjenny on Feb 2, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the "The 3rd International Trade Exhibition for the Rebuilding of Iraq" - Scary stuff.

For 2006, they are advertising: "Enjoy direct access to international companies and decision-makers who recognize Iraq’s vast economic potential."

This.Is.So.Wrong.
It makes me furious!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

XX Rated
Posted by: Kneel on Feb 2, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is behind a lot of the problems with aid workers.

The first American aid worker killed wasn't killed by extremist insurgents. Fern Holland was executed at the roadside by US backed Iraqi police officers, along with former Marine Bob Zangas and Salwa Oumashi (they were caught; they vanished when someone somehow left the prison door open).

More recently Steven Vincent was reported to have been picked up by people with Iraqi police vehicles.

It's embarassing if they're caught overcharging for gasoline when it can be purchased for much less locally.

So what happens when, after three-years and 38 million dollars, they're no closer to supplying clean water to a community while an aid organization in the next town over finishes job in 7 months for 3 million?

I'm not saying there's some official cabal, but a lot of locals involved in the reconstruction (being undertaken as competantly as the Katrina relief - although, handily, it's a lot more difficult for Anderson Cooper to go stand amongst the bodies and and get uppity with a senator), getting cut in on the deal, might resent aid workers for that reason.

I think all aid money to Iraq ought to go through women. That's how I'd deal with it. From this point on, all the money is given only to women. We only do business with women - if you've got a Y chromosome, you'll have to find a woman to convey your viewpoint or hire you.

At first, there'd be a lot of figureheads, sure, but I think we'd see one heck of a feminist movement emerge (as one might from Iran, if we don't bomb it) in a hurry, and that would change the country, and the maybe the region in some pretty dramatic and positive ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disabled Marine...Vietnam era
Posted by: bayway35 on Feb 2, 2006 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHERE...ARE...THEY...GETTING...ALL...THIS...MONEY???etc Don't they realize we have priorties here...are they in total darkness on this subject...it is time for TAR & FEATHERS!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]