Ok, my analysis of those polls. Firstly, it does look like they are all related to the one poll undertaken by the Oxford Research International group.
Secondly, I don't think that they show uncategorically that Iraqis overwhelmingly want the US there. The ABC stats show that a majority want the coalition forces gone, even though they don't support attacks on coalition forces.
And I think that this is indicated when you look at how hte Iraqis view their life post-Saddam. Indeed, looking at the stats one could say that a mjority think their life is better. BUT that is not the whole story - when you look at the breakdown, the majority of these people say that their lives are SOMEWHAT better (35%). Now, if they are only rating their life as 'somewhat' better, then that is a group of people who are going to change their views depending on temporal changes. Add these to the people who say 'about the same', and of course those who think things are worse, then the situation isn't so rosy. All it takes is one event (for example, Bremer shutting down the Shia newspaper) and then there can be a domino effect, where those who rate their lives as 'somewhat better' may change their views. This is increasingly likely if they end up as casualties in any US response to attacks.
If I were part of the coalition, I would not be too heartened by those polls, because obviously you want a clear majority saying things are much better now, especially one year into the occupation. If people are not perceiving a great benefit, then it makes for a volatile situation that can turn into the scenes we have seen the last few days. And the heavier the response of the troops, the more discontent will be fostered. Too many innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire, and like it or not, the blame is being put on the americans.
I mean, how 'secure' can things be if Sadrs militia can take over a few towns at will?
Secondly, I don't think that they show uncategorically that Iraqis overwhelmingly want the US there. The ABC stats show that a majority want the coalition forces gone, even though they don't support attacks on coalition forces.
And I think that this is indicated when you look at how hte Iraqis view their life post-Saddam. Indeed, looking at the stats one could say that a mjority think their life is better. BUT that is not the whole story - when you look at the breakdown, the majority of these people say that their lives are SOMEWHAT better (35%). Now, if they are only rating their life as 'somewhat' better, then that is a group of people who are going to change their views depending on temporal changes. Add these to the people who say 'about the same', and of course those who think things are worse, then the situation isn't so rosy. All it takes is one event (for example, Bremer shutting down the Shia newspaper) and then there can be a domino effect, where those who rate their lives as 'somewhat better' may change their views. This is increasingly likely if they end up as casualties in any US response to attacks.
If I were part of the coalition, I would not be too heartened by those polls, because obviously you want a clear majority saying things are much better now, especially one year into the occupation. If people are not perceiving a great benefit, then it makes for a volatile situation that can turn into the scenes we have seen the last few days. And the heavier the response of the troops, the more discontent will be fostered. Too many innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire, and like it or not, the blame is being put on the americans.
I mean, how 'secure' can things be if Sadrs militia can take over a few towns at will?
