"Be Cursed You Iraqi Optimist!"
On Sunday evening, I was invited to be part of the audience during the taping of a CNN talk show titled "Voices of a New Generation" that will first appear on CNN International Tuesday evening at 6:00 pm GMT. The show is part of the Eye on The Middle East series that the station is filming this week throughout the region.
The idea was that a panel of young people, two from Lebanon, an Iraqi, a Saudi, a Jordanian, and an Egyptian, would discuss various issues of the day, and interact with the audience. Interesting moments ensued, but perhaps the most remarkable thing was how the Iraqi was angrily taken to task by both the Egyptian and Jordanian panelists, and by some people in the audience. The Iraqi, Ahmad Shames, heads an organization to promote democracy called the Iraqi Prospect Organization. On his first attempt to make it to Baghdad Airport to fly to Beirut for the show, he couldn't take his flight and had to return to the city. His car was shot at and not long afterwards he found himself some 100 meters away from a car-bomb explosion. Despite this, Shames was upbeat about Iraq's future, but also underlined that Iraqis had very little patience for the surrounding Arab countries, which, they felt, were fueling the war in Iraq.
The optimism infuriated the young Egyptian woman on the panel, a member of the Kifaya movement opposed to Hosni Mubarak's rule, who joined after being beaten by police. She accused Shames of arguing the American line in Iraq, and affirmed that Iraqis were opposed to the occupation, and that "we all read the [anti-war] blogs." The Jordanian participant suggested that Iraqis could be descending into a form of paranoia when it comes to the behavior of surrounding Arab countries, and wondered what Shames suggested the Arab states do.
While just one aspect of the show, these exchanges were interesting because they showed the extent to which many Arabs adhere to ideologically-charged certainties when it comes to Iraq, which no amount of actual experience by Iraqis will undermine. When CNN ran a series of interviews with Iraqis denouncing "terrorism" in their country, the Egyptian accused CNN of filtering out the interviews that didn't match its agenda. The terrorists, she said, were also resistance fighters.
In reality, it was the Egyptian who could not stomach an Iraqi narrative that failed to quite match her own agenda and preconceptions. A liberal at home, she was all hardened Arab nationalist when it came to distant Iraq, where she probably never set foot. The problem for her was America, and while one can perhaps make that argument, far more disturbing was the Egyptian's virtual labeling of Shames as a renegade, though he argued in favor of using the U.S. occupation to advance Iraqi national interests.
The Jordanian, in turn, never explained why the burden was on the Iraqis to be less than paranoid vis-a-vis their Arab neighbors, given that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria all have in different ways allowed the Iraqi insurgency to continue, even while insisting, on their scout's honor, that they oppose terrorism. The Washington Post has a good piece in today's newspaper qualifying that as far as Jordan goes, less than two weeks after the bombings in Amman. Some people, it seems, were not as disturbed by the hotel bombings as you might think.
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
"these exchanges were interesting because they showed the extent to which many Arabs adhere to ideologically-charged certainties when it comes to Iraq, which no amount of actual experience by Iraqis will undermine."
Good thing Americans are immune to such things.
Turned any corners lately?
well joe...
If American ideology with respect to Iraq is so wrong, why don't all neighboring Arab states declare war on America?
Oh blah etc. Once again we're reminded that those with whom one disagrees seem brainwashed and closed-minded. It's fallacious to accuse someone of towing someone else's line in lieu of arguing why that line is wrong (assuming Young's description is accurate), but what's new about that? I'm as shocked as a thoreau! 🙂
Wouldn't it be nice if we could laugh this off, and say "That's absurd, the American government doesn't pay people to go on programs and spout its line while pretending they're arguing their own opinions!"
Cause if we could do that, that would rule.
"well joe...
If American ideology with respect to Iraq is so wrong, why don't all neighboring Arab states declare war on America?"
hell if you want to make that point why not ask why the shia and the kurds of iraq don't declare war on the US....or at least an insurgancy.
but i should check myself on making such false claims...the sunnis are the only intrests we should consider in iraq right joe?
these exchanges were interesting because they showed the extent to which many Arabs adhere to ideologically-charged certainties when it comes to Iraq, which no amount of actual experience by Iraqis will undermine.
Perhaps this democratization and westernizing project of the Middle East is advancing far faster then any of us have given it credit for.
"well joe...
If American ideology with respect to Iraq is so wrong, why don't all neighboring Arab states declare war on America?"
I don't know. Why don't they all declare war on Iraq? None of them have done that, either.
joshua, I have this wacky idea that we shouldn't favor any group in Iraq, because it's none of our business. Except now that we've made it so, we get to have every group with a grudge blame us. Yipee!
"joshua, I have this wacky idea that we shouldn't favor any group in Iraq, because it's none of our business. Except now that we've made it so, we get to have every group with a grudge blame us. Yipee!"
ah good so you would be in favor of dismantaling nato and pulling the US charter out of the UN?
If you are going to pull the isolationist card then good...i am not opposed to such an action...somwhow though i think you would be. Am i wrong?
Is there any reason to believe that there aren't significant numbers of shia ( and maybe kurds ) in the in insurgency?
"Is there any reason to believe that there aren't significant numbers of shia ( and maybe kurds ) in the in insurgency?"
I would think there would be good evidence if they were...reports and such. That is my evidence, the lack of evidence. I know the fallicy of it so feel free to chuck rocks at it.
I'm in position to chunk rocks. I don't know how much evidence we have to suggest that a bulk of whoever is setting off the bombs or going on suicide missions belong to one group versus another.
Most people assume that it is being done primarily by the Sunnis. What are they basing that assumption on?
I'm in no position that is.
i base my evidence on the location of most insurgancy attacks which seem to be focused around sunni areas...there was a shia insurgancey with al sader awhile back in najaf and other areas but that has seemed to end. I also base my assumption on what I see from pentagon breifing on c-span and what the media says...esentialy that the insurgancy is made up of forign islamic eliments, bathists and sunnis who will loose power do to the demographics of iraq (they are a minority) and what democracy will do to thier former power...i also think that the three groups are not exlusive of one another.
We're involved in the middle east for a couple of historical reasons, including our desire to keep the Soviets from dominating the region and to maintain (post-1967 especially) strong relations with the Israelis. There is also our commitment, made by FDR, to protect the Saudis in exchange for access to their oil, or as it is now, in exchange for a relatively robust amount of oil production by the Saudis. The question then becomes, are these historical relations, interests, etc. still worth pursuing? If not, what do we replace them with?
"Most people assume that it is being done primarily by the Sunnis. What are they basing that assumption on?"
....
Because usually when an IED/suicide bomb goes off, Zarqawi or some other Sunni group will claim its explosion. Not that there's any terrorist activity by the Kurds or the Shia (reports of Shia murder squads are VERY common, seeminlgy the Kurds mainly stay in their own territory and only f*** around with their own people vis-a-vis their millitias), but the Sunni insurgency claims seems to claim almost all of the headlining news of IED/suicide explosions.
.....
"joshua, I have this wacky idea that we shouldn't favor any group in Iraq, because it's none of our business. Except now that we've made it so, we get to have every group with a grudge blame us. Yipee!"
.....
Considering that we overthrew what was a mainly Sunni ethnic government,and that almost all Sunnis hate the US forces/are supportive/supporting the insurgency, and the political leadership plays games of political brinkmanship(even though we are the only thing that really seperates them from a good Shia/Kurd ethnic cleansing!), and that most Sunnis believe the Sunnis are the natural rulers of Iraq, I can see why our friendliness is in another direction. Considering what's going on there (that the Shias have not started cleansing out of the Sunnis or the Kurds creating the new state of Kurdistan, that the Sunnis have only recently started to negotiate with the US, that the secular opposition is still rather weak and segmented), it's not suprising that we've only favored the current Shia/Kurd leadership for so long. Also, considering that any Sunni political leader who changes their mind to support the US signs their death warrant to the insugency.
Not to say that we haven't been too favoring of the Shia or the Kurds (we seem to turn away as party millitias carve up more power, how convenient) and you can definitly argue that this favoring was an inevitable action from the invasion, but friendship is a two-way street and the Sunnis are not making it any easier.
The Sunni-backed insurgency is by no means the only source of extremism in Iraq. They just happen to be the ones attacking the US. The Shia extremists are attacking the Sunnis, as Steve Vincent found to his cost. And the Kurds are attacking Arabs (mostly Sunnis).
I agree with joe. I think it's a mistake to back one particular group and oppose another. One of the common messages I get when reading Iraqi blogs is their annoyance with the neat way everyone splits Iraq up into the three sectarian groups.
From my point of view someone is either an Iraqi or not an Iraqi and that's all that counts. I consider the constitution to be a failure in this regard because it didn't specify what constitutes and Iraqi citizen and rather only served to deepen the sectarian differences.
joshua,
Isolationist? No. Avoiding running headlong into quagmires in the most stupidistic manner possible? Yes.
If American ideology with respect to Iraq is so wrong, why don't all neighboring Arab states declare war on America?
Who says they haven't? Remember the folks who actually learned how to fly planes into buildings?
Badges: we don't need no stinking badges..nor "talk". What "we" -- i.e. the USA, Israel and What's Left Of The British Empire -- need to do is forgo conventional wisdom/diplomacy and do whatever & however we like to protect ourselves from these murderous thugs (I will never call them "terrorists" as they don't terrify me, just strengthen my resolve that they be destroyed for the human debris they are).
Recent poll shows 80% of Iraqis strongly disapprove of American presence in Iraq.
Joint statement from Sunni, Kurdish, and Sunni representatives released today calling for an end to US military occupation, and linking the end of this occupation to the defeat of terrorism.
Support Iraqi democracy. Fight terror. End the occupation.
shecky, you complete me.
joe, provide a link to the 'recent poll' or forgoe its use as a debating point.
--------------------------
If any Shia are helping the Sunni insurgents, I postulate that they are Persian Shia (possibly vie Lebanese Hizbollah).
A reasonable request...
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EHKTKXOYLVOOVQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/23/ixportaltop.html
It's a British military poll.
Sorry, me no do html thingy.
here ya go, joe: joe's poll reference
If any Shia are helping the Sunni insurgents, I postulate that they are Persian Shia
The idea that they are joining the "Sunni" insurgents is what I question. I think it might be more of an "Iraqi" insurgency.
I suspect that a substantial percentage of the people attacking US forces are motivated by a wish to get Americans out of Iraq rather than some kinship with groups like Al Qaeda.
It might be like Frank A. and others have said, that it is almost exclusively a Sunni effort, and that they have an abundance of evidence to support that idea. But so far, I've only heard the usual talking heads making these claims. I don't have very much trust in those talking heads.
The talking heads on the other side, claiming that the insurgency has popular support and the situation is hopless, are equally suspect.
Where are people reading about notes claiming primarily Sunni responsibilty? I usually don't here any details of that sort. Maybe it's the liberal media bias.
Many of the claims in the article are unwarranted, for example this one:
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.
It may indeed be that their well-being has improved, but their perception doesn't pick up on such.
BTW, since the publication of this "secret" poll comes with no indication of methodology, etc. its hard for me to assess its credibility. A too common practice by the media IMHO.
Hakluyt,
"It may indeed be that their well-being has improved, but their perception doesn't pick up on such.
BTW, since the publication of this "secret" poll comes with no indication of methodology, etc. its hard for me to assess its credibility. A too common practice by the media IMHO. "
Indeed. Furthermore, check this out:
....
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 findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it.
Under the heading "Justification for Violent Attacks", the new poll shows that 65 per cent of people in Maysan province - one of the four provinces under British control - believe that attacks against coalition forces are justified.
The report states that for Iraq as a whole, 45 per cent of people feel attacks are justified. In Basra, the proportion is reduced to 25 per cent.
....
Am I the only one confused as to how or why they pollsters at the anonymous Iraqi U came up with their numbers (of course it is 4am so maybe I'm just too damn sleepy)?
Also, from what I can tell at least from the areas the British control, they had a more "hands off" attitude as to what happened in the provinces they control and allowed the militias to gain too much control such as Basra being a SCRI/Sadr contolled city. Therefore, I am wondering if there was any political/militia pressure involved in taking this poll (such as people being intimidated into giving info as to what the local politicians/milita leaders want). Another thing, couldn't the Iraqis also be like normal Americans, where most feel burdened by the govt but will raise hell when any perks from said govt might be taken away (such as that the Iraqis may feel both hostility towards the US/British as well as knowing that their situation is bad without them)?
Of course, I could be very wrong and this could be very represenative of what Iraqi opinion is, but I am still skeptical as to what any poll from Iraq says as a result of all the various influences and pressures that exist. Any criticism is welcome since I think we are all in the dark as to what the true situation is in Iraq...
" When CNN ran a series of interviews with Iraqis denouncing "terrorism" in their country, the Egyptian accused CNN of filtering out the interviews that didn't match its agenda."
How would Michael Young know one way or the other? Did he work for CNN at some point? Is there a way to get the interview footage that CNN discards?
I am not saying the Egyptian lady is correct, but none of us would have any way of knowing if she is right or wrong.
Advice to Michael Young: *you* need to get a bit more agnostic about these issues. No more faith based blogging (and esp no entries where you call out kettles as black).
All things being equal:
The reason why Arabs will always hate us = Israel
Right or wrong, we're buried in this crap. It is not a good time to equivocate or be soft.
As for whether there are Shia insurgents, one need only remember the story that was so artfully buried and forgotten by the statist MSM - the British used a tank to bust out three of their soldiers from an Iraqi jail. That's huge. It tells you that the local governments are as much our enemy as anything else. And that was in the Shia area, where the leadership at least gives lip service to the idea that we need to be there.
As far as the poll - look at the recent article about depression in the U.S. Trying to poll people on the quality of their life is pointless. Happiness is a totally subjective index. So it is a worthless number, that you can expect to give vastly different results on any given day with any given sample population.
The problem is that if you put yourself in the position of being an agent of change, especially by force, and especially if you are not "us", people will blame you for their unhappiness, whether you deserve it or not.
It is not a good time to equivocate or be soft.
I dunno. Cutting off military aid to Israel and pressuring Israel to give up their nukes is a nice hard stance with no equivocation. It just seems so different. Okay by me I guess. Everyone else ready?
"The reason why Arabs will always hate us = Israel"
I don't know that I buy this completely. Israel is certainly an excuse they will trot out, but an improved situation for Palestinians would mean less than nothing to the Syrians, the Iranians, and wahabbists in general.
"Cutting off military aid to Israel and pressuring Israel to give up their nukes"
Arab countries may well at first welcome this development, but I scratch my head about something. If the big concern is that the US supports Israel to the extent that it can exert overwhelming force, does that imply that the real motive is to be able to engage Israeli forces? To what end?
All I'm suggesting here is that there is a stability in a strong Israel, and that there is a nagging suspicion on my part that stability would be the first casualty. With overwhelming deterrence gone and the geopolitical situation being what it is, Israel would be backed into a corner should anyone decide to get frisky. A lot of people could get dead.
"Is there any reason to believe that there aren't significant numbers of shia ( and maybe kurds ) in the in insurgency?"
the shia militants wear the uniforms in iraq -- and that should go some distance toward explaining why the insurgency (which is largely sunni, i think there can be little question) attacks the targets they do.
but we should recognize that iraqi (shia) militias are not on the same side as the western occupation forces, as the degeneracy of basra has shown. as mr quasibill correctly pointed out
the British used a tank to bust out three of their soldiers from an Iraqi jail. That's huge. It tells you that the local governments are as much our enemy as anything else.
exactly.
there was a shia insurgancey with al sader awhile back in najaf and other areas but that has seemed to end
al sadr hasn't gone anywhere, mr corning. he's simply found it easier to coopt administrative power and put his many of his toughs in american-recognized uniforms.
All I'm suggesting here is that there is a stability in a strong Israel, and that there is a nagging suspicion on my part that stability would be the first casualty.
amen, mr ligon. the answer isn't abandoning israel. it's engaging the israeli left instead of constantly feting likud and its radical vision of israeli manifest destiny in the levant.
sharon's defection from likud will hopefully disempower these militant nationalists -- but i fear to think of their disenfranchisement as israel moves away from settlements. it could be the return of the stern gang; the settler movement essentially functions like a terrorist gang already.
I've got to hand it to Sharon. He's genuinely surprised me. First with the Gaza pullout, then with his defection from Likud. Can a West Bank pullout be next?
How long before someone calls Sharon "objectively anti-Semitic?"
Israel is certainly an excuse they will trot out, but an improved situation for Palestinians would mean less than nothing to the Syrians, the Iranians, and wahabbists in general.
i think what arabs throughout the region generally detest is the cultural invasion of westernism/globalization. they want to be able to pick the aspects of the west that they will interact with or emulate and reject others.
israel, in their mind, as a western incursion onto arab prerogatives, is a threat to that liberty to choose. the plight of the palestinians, in a very definite way, represents then the potential plight facing all arabs as westernism advances on their ancient cultures -- the palestinian physical homelessness is an easy metaphor for the cultural rootlessness that many feel themselves in danger of. this is the same reason that "crusade" has re-emerged as a very sensitive word in the arab lexicon.
as such, i think the palestinian problem really is a focal point (though not necessarily a source) of a lot of antipathy for america and the west -- and its reversal would be heralded as a reprieve from the western onslaught.
Can a West Bank pullout be next?
it's why he's building the wall, mr joe. i think he has realized that there will be no peace for a militant israel dedicated to expansive zionism.
joe,
Can a West Bank pullout be next?
Which means what exactly? A pull-out to the pre-1967 borders? No way. All of Jerusalem will always remain part of Israel so long as Israel remains a viable state.
gaius marius,
...a militant israel dedicated to expansive zionism.
If post-1948 is an example of an expansive Zionism then it certainly is a rather tepid form of expansionism.
If post-1948 is an example of an expansive Zionism then it certainly is a rather tepid form of expansionism.
agreed -- but then, this radicalized likud hasn't been running things since 1948.
and it isn't fair even to paint likud's entire history as one of militant revisionist zionism. but that has been its increasing tilt since the failure of the oslo accords -- men like uzi landau, who are dedicated revisionist zionists, who believe that israel should span the jordan and include parts of syria, lebanon and jordan, have come to have far too large a voice in likud for likud's own good. sharon now sees this, it seems, thankfully.
the perversion of likud is very similar, imo, to the cooption of the republican party by militant imperialist neoconservatism.
"I've got to hand it to Sharon. He's genuinely surprised me. First with the Gaza pullout, then with his defection from Likud."
Ditto. Maybe the Israelis get the government they want just like we get the government we want. You kind of have the feeling that people are just tired of the whole thing and government is re centering with former Likudites at the fringes.
Also agree with Hak. Pre 1967 is probably not on the table.
the right wing of likud is, after all, the lineal political descendant of national-messianic factions irgun, lehi and tnuat haherut -- openly fascistic militarist totalitarians who believe that israel is mandated by god to conquer and rule the inferior peoples of the mideast. revenge for nebuchadnezzar and ramses, as it were.
Pre 1967 is probably not on the table.
agreed with all -- but 90% of the west bank (and gaza, obviously) certainly is, and i think that would be enough for a successful compromise.
Certainly there are areas that were outside of Israel's 1967 borders that will have to be included in that state in the final borders. But leaving it there will not produce a satisfactory outcome for the Palestinians. There would have to be an equitable land swap, and there is the contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank. Part of the Negev is going to have to become Palestinian, probably as two triangles extending from east and west, and meeting at a point, with a highway running across.
Then they get to argue about who gets the surface road, and who gets the overpass.
i think that would be enough for a successful compromise.
I never thought I'd see the day where I was less optimistic about something in the modern world than gaius!!!
From the New York Times:
"CAIRO, Nov. 21 - For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule."
Does this make Michael Young a teensy bit less optimistic?
lol -- if it makes you feel better, mr fyodor, sucha compromise only managerially addresses the surface issue of palestinian displacement. it does little to resolve the more basic conflict arising of western intrusion.
Well gaius I'm glad you still a basic conflict in need of resolution or I would have had a heart attack! Though I'm still a little disconcerted at your utter lack of dire and despairing language...
With overwhelming deterrence gone and the geopolitical situation being what it is, Israel would be backed into a corner should anyone decide to get frisky. A lot of people could get dead.
So what. People die in foreign wars all the time. Lots of them. As long as the US and Canada (nationes where I pay taxes) stay out of it, I say let them kill each other to their hearts content. Like they do in Africa. However, if either side uses nukes, they get nuked out of existence. That would keep the war from going nuclear. Simple.
not that there would have to be a war. personally, I think there wouldn't be. I think that withdrawal of the looming US presence would shift the whole dialectic in drastic and positive ways. But I could be wrong and I don't think the outcome is relevant anyway. Ain't my country. Israel boosters need to understand that, to a libertarian, Israel's right to exist is not the same thing as its right to require others to pay for Israeli defense with their taxes.
yeah i will give nothing to Joe's secret poll that somehow lacks a methodology and runs counter to other none secret poll's with published methodologies exept this...his god damn "link" fucked up the comments as to make them unreadable and they now spill over the edge of my browser..
god damn it Joe you commi, happy thanks giving. 🙂
joe,
That poll is highly questionable, since we can't see any of the methodology.
The Palestinians have never accepted Israel's right to exist. They were promised all of Israel when the Arabs originally declared war on Israael, and have never been willing to accept less.
Also, people need to grasp an essential difference on the withdrawal debate: Everyone wants to withdraw from Iraq at some point, the question is whether we do so on the terms of the democratic Iraqi gov't, or essentially run from the fight with the anti-democracy insurgents.
Now, joe and the Sunnis and the antiwar crowd may be fine with the latter. But as a Marine colonel put it the other day "Marines don't cut and run. Cowards do." Freedom is worth fighting for.
Actually, it was the Marine colonel who was called a coward, you reprehensible tool.
That poll is highly questionable, since we can't see any of the methodology.
that's another very convenient method of maintaining your delusions, mr talldave. any poll that concludes something disturbing is "highly questionable" on grounds of "methodology" -- even though the british military itself conducted the poll for its own edification and had, if anything, motivation to skew toward more positive results.
essentially run from the fight
the problem with your logic, mr talldave, is that you don't consider the probability that you can't win the fight you started. your delusion of american invincibility blinds you to it.
but the fact is that murtha's point is very clear: we cannot win, and should therefore leave a loser before we leave a very big loser, having wrecked much more than we had to, simply because we didn't want to believe we could lose and were losing.
no, for you, simply platitudes like
Freedom is worth fighting for.
are sufficient to throw good money after bad, and toss countless more bodies into the meat grinder with precious little chance of ever seeing a positive return.
i agree with mr joe in this case -- you are reprehensible.
But as a Marine colonel put it the other day "Marines don't cut and run. Cowards do."
and, fwiw, it was a rookie republican congresswoman, jean schmidt, who said this. the marine corps reserve colonel (danny bubp) who she was supposed to have quoted not only disavowed saying any such thing -- bubp commented on the impossibility of implicitly denigrating murtha, for whom he apparently has immense respect.
"even though the british military itself conducted the poll for its own edification and had, if anything, motivation to skew toward more positive results."
i love this. Apparently a secret military poll with no published methodology is somehow more reliable then open polls with published methodologys that contradict the secret polls numbers is made reliable becouse of some magical motivation the British military must have.
I guess it is impossible to fathom in gaius's mind that elements in a western military might have different motivations....and seeing as how the "secret" poll was leaked one would deffinatly conclude that thier is someone with a different motivation in the British military.
And this does not even touch upon the possibility that a military is in no way proven competant in conducting polls...who knows what crazy group put this thing together and who actually did the interviews?
Joe's secret poll is, at best, highly questionable.
Great post. Arabs need to be challenged in their prejudices. It is one of the key of the salvation of the Arab world. Al Jazeera and their alikes don't make them a favour when they brain-wash them with anti-western propaganda.
joe
is it not curious that your reading of the Iraqi temper hasn't been reflected in three succeeding elections there?...but then you routinely make the same mistake here in the States, I s'pose.
and, hell, we don't even know if there WAS a poll - it was a "leak" in the Telegraph, right? And if you're ready to believe leaks in the Tel., you're ready to hang Annan and Galloway, right?