Gallup Goes to Baghdad
Gallup today is releasing the (subscription-only) results of, in its words, "the first scientific and projectable poll assessing the postwar social and political climate of Baghdad?s 6.4 million citizens." There's a NYTimes story here. Among the findings noted in Gallup's announcement:
? Nearly two-thirds (62%) of Baghdad?s citizens think ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships they have personally endured since the invasion.
? Nearly half (47%) thinks the country as a whole is currently worse off than it was before the invasion ? only a third (33%) thinks it is already in better shape.
? Two-thirds (67%) believe Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S. and British-led invasion; just 8% think it will be worse off.
? Most (61%) take a favorable view of the new Iraqi Governing Council, but see its policies and decisions ?still mostly determined by the coalition?s own authorities? (75%).
? Fully half (50%) think that the Coalition Provisional Authority is doing a better job now than was the case two months ago, while just 14% think it is doing a worse job.
Results are drawn from "1,178 hour-long, in-home interviews in a cross section of Baghdad - including Sadr City (formerly Saddam City)."
UPDATE: Here's an earlier AEI/Zogby poll; thanks to Ambit via Glenn Reynolds.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I want to see Justin back that "unequivical" NO up.
I would also love to see someone with a contrarian viewpoit offer something other than ad hominem attacks.
It's more a matter of losing the forest for the trees than being an asshole.
Gallup is pretty experienced at polling. The key to getting something out of this is interpreting responses in context. I think this is a useful exercise, but it doesn't necessarily tell you how Iraqis really feel about the questions asked.
It can be indicative of how they feel about being asked questions by Gallup, how they are utilizing their freedom of expression, and so on. To establish these sorts of things, you have to look at trends over repeated polls. Take one every 2-3 weeks and see what you come up with.
Well...I don't see what is wrong with thinking that the primary concern of American policy should be how it affects Americans/America.
I guess I'm just an asshole, too.
That said, now that we've invaded their country and overthrown their government, it isn't like we can (or rather, should) just pull out and leave them to their own devices. We have to rebuild.
And THAT is why we're going to be involved in Iraq for a long time...and why we shouldn't have been in the first place.
One statistic left out of the Gallup poll:
58% of Iraqis are literate (source: UNICEF)
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html
I'm always amused to read x% of Iraqis think this, x% of Iraqis think that...folks, these are NOT well-educated people that we're dealing with. Many of these people will basically believe anything they are told to believe, be it by Saddam or be anyone else for that matter...
speaking of anti-war types being too truthful...
"overthrown their government"
THEIR government? a dictator? gimme a fucking break. do you call yourself a libertarian?
speaking of anti-war types being too truthful...
"overthrown their government"
THEIR government? a dictator? gimme a fucking break. do you call yourself a libertarian?
In reply to Brad S.'s elitist comment about the literacy rate in Iraq....
You really don't need PhD to figure out if you're happier without a megalomaniac dictator who has murdered your relatives. You don't need an advanced education to decide that you disliked living in constant fear of your government.
You don't need any education at all to draw conclusions about these things.
Brad S, I think I've figured it out:
x = 50
right?
...assuming this and that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive opinions.
Mathwiz - very good. Your algebraic aptitude is absolutely amazing.
Hmm - I suppose that's true, but it still amuses me that people look at poll results from a half-literate nation as if they are looking at some oracle of divine wisdom.
Then again, the poll of a half literate nation is being read in a half math literate nation.
USA person 1: I read that 50% of the people in Iraq don't have teeth. That's terrible, I hope some of the $87 billion is going towards dentures.
USA person 2: Yeah, but I read somewhere else that half of the Iraqis do have teeth and that the US military is worried about possible ambush biting attacks by the Fedayeen Saddam.
USA person 1: OH God, that's horrible. I don't know who to believe.
USA person 2: True, you just can't trust the big corporation print media, that's why I get all of my news from blogs, like cnn.com
USA person 1: Cool
USA person 2: Hypercool
Anon @ 3:11 and 3:13--
Way to infer FAR too much meaning from a quickly typed possessive pronoun.
Relax.
Seriously.
You'll live longer.
Brian:
Sorry, but your original use of the term "their government" to describe the Iraqis' decades-long horror was revealing, whether you choose to admit it now or not. No government that fails to respect individual freedom and the rule of law is legitimate, no matter how many guns are used to prop it up. Such a government has no "sovereignty" to be violated, and its people usually (and in this case evidently) feel no sense of having been wrongfully "invaded" when a legitimate government acts to liberate them.
You'd think this was self-evident to libertarians, but I can't tell you the number of times I've had maddening conversations with libertarians who have argued otherwise. One Cato official told me that the Treaty of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years War established the concept of state sovereignty and we should respect that tradition by staying out of Iraq.
Huh? I can't think of a more anti-libertarian notion.
"Mr. Chirac's favorability rating was 42 percent to Mr. Bush's 29 percent and Mr. Blair's 20 percent"
Translation: Thanks. Now leave.
John--
With all due respect, your assertion that my choice of words is "revealing whether [I] choose to admit it or not" is a load of pop-psycho-babble horseshit. You know nothing of my internal thought process. Neither does anyone else.
I have made absolutely no arguments about "soveriegnty"...you and your anonymous friend have (incorrectly) inferred that.
My reasons for opposing this war were grounded almost entirely in a desire for America to not be entangled in the internal affairs of yet another country. I thought that was self-evident from my first post...but perhaps not.
I do consider myself a libertarian, but I don't check my opinions against some "libertarian checklist" before I express them. Do you?
Hey, I think it's great for the Iraqis that they're happier without Saddam. I don't see how any rational person would have expected otherwise. Don't assume that because I happened to oppose this war that I fall in line with the America-hating dictator-loving left. Far from it. That's one of the many reasons I've tended to air my opinions here instead of joining the granola crowd on the corner every Friday afternoon.
The truth is, I'm going to be paying taxes in this country for a long time, and I see every foreign adventure as a future tax burden. Is that a "libertarian" idea? Who cares?
A lot of bloggers spent a fair amount of time arguing against that inane "libertarianism is a religion" meme a couple of weeks ago. While I was among them, comments like yours make me understand why some folks might see libertarians in that light.
I'm glad I finally found someone with all the answers. Thanks, Justin. Now I can stop thinking.
Brian:
Didn't mean to suggest that I was dreaming up some "pop-psycho-babble horseshit" to explain your comment about the Iraqis and their government. Sorry about that.
My point was merely that Iraqis didn't have "their" government overthrown. They had a tyranny overthrown and are now in the process of constructing a real government with our assistance. I get, but don't agree, with your point about U.S. involvement. Shouldn't have mixed you up with the "states are sovereign if someone puts them on a map" crowd. Open mouth, insert foot.
All bow down to the power of the poll. It is always true, plus or minus a margin of error that has to do with the unpollable human condition.
Who cares what the Iraqis think? The real question is: was the "liberation" of Iraq good for AMERICA? And to that, the answer is an unequivocal NO.
Of course the Iraqis want our 87 billion bucks -- but there is no need to explain to a libertarian why that money should not be extorted from American taxpayers and shipped overseas to provide the Iraqis with subsidized healthcare and help them set up a Food and Drug Administration of their own.
If Freund is so jazzed about how wonderful Liberated Iraq is, why doesn't he move there? And take Matt Welch with him....
This is very good news. I wonder what the opinions are of the people who keep bombing everything over there. Hopefully, we can speed up this whole process and get out of there ASAP.
While I agree with Justin, I don't see where Freund is so "jazzed" about anything in his post.
Ha! If we really let the Iraqi's elect their own government it'll probably be someone of the more Islamic fundamentalist bent. I have a feeling our "assistence" will be more like "you can elect anyone you want, as long as we approve of him."
Justin,
I counted about 20 of Charles's own words in that post -- simply quoting a landmark poll that doesn't support the anti-war cause isn't promoting war. It's called reporting.
Sincerely,
One anti-war libertarian who enjoyed reading about the poll
I'm with Justin. We really fucked up! To think, a potential "ally" and trading "partner" with a "liberalized government" -- the humanity!
No worries, John. You kind of caught me on a grumpy day, anyway. Must be the rain.
Keep in mind that this poll was taken in Baghdad, not all of Iraq. As has been reported by Glenn Reynolds (among others), the situation outside of Baghdad is far, far better than that in Baghdad. So, the results would have been much more positive if the poll had included a true cross-section of all Iraqi citizens.
Thanks for the oh-so-scientific extrapolation, PLC.
Am I the only one who thinks any poll under these conditions is going to be useless?
Wow. I've never read anything more revealing than Raimondo's comment. I've always thought to myself, "self, it sure seems like a lot of those anti-war folks are real assholes. They don't give a shit about Iraqis or anybody real far away who doesn't talk like them (except the French). But you'd never get them to admit it. Everybody pretends to be a humanitarian."
And there it is! "Who cares what the Iraqis think? The real question is: was the "liberation" of Iraq good for AMERICA?"
What an asshole!
Can anyone provide any details about how Iraqi's perceived the pollsters?
If there ever was a WMD threat to us from Iraq (I'm being charitable) there isn't now. It isn't fair i.e. libertarian to force Americans to pay for the "liberation" (not to mention all the other stuff) of Iraq EVEN if it truly is one. Time to bring the troops and the rest of the government home. Private initiative is another matter of course.
The survey also states that Chirac has a 42% favorability rating, while Bush has a 29% favorability rating. š
EMAIL: draime_2000@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 08:32:42
To go to war with untrained people is tantamount to abandoning them.