On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 09:06 -0600, *** *** wrote:

> little old ladies etc. coming out of the polling
> places and proudly holding their ink-stained
> fingers to the press to show how proud they
> were of finally getting to vote in a democratic
> election?


Have you stopped to consider what they are actually voting for?

If you check the actual record rather than just believe the TV news propaganda, it is clear that the US government has been resisting elections since the beginning of the occupation. It blocked a quick election for the interim government which could have been carried out back in June or July 2003 (using ration cards as the basis for ID). Instead they preferred to install their own former Ba’athist to run the country – Allawi. The situation in the country was inflamed by US and British murder and torture, predictably leading to armed resistance and terrorism, as well as an upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism to levels previously unheard of in Iraq (both of which were predicted long before the war by the Western intelligence agencies). Meanwhile, the Shia masses under Sistani have been non-violently and consistently demanding two things, almost since the very beginning: immediate elections and an end to the occupation. Every opinion poll that has come out of Iraq since the beginning of the occupation has shown that the vast majority of the population are demanding an end to the occupation (these are only two Iraqi commentators, but the polls tell us the same story).

In fact it is clear that an end to the occupation is what pretty much everyone who voted in the elections was primarily voting for. The United Iraqi Alliance (the Shiite coalition) would not have won the election without calling for an end to the occupation. UIA’s 22-point platform includes a demand for “a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq.” Unfortunately, this is one election pledge they are going to find hard to fulfil because of the control the US maintains over Iraq, an essential component of which is a massive, permanent military presence in the heart of the region with the world’s largest oil reserves.

A prominent Iraqi politician in the Shia coalition told the New Yorker in January that the US had quietly told the parties before the election that there were three conditions for the new government: it should not be under the influence of Iran; it should not ask for the withdrawal of US troops; and it should not install an Islamic state.

> These people turned out in absolute record numbers
> to vote...


If (for some reason) you mean as compared to other countries, then that’s by no means clear. Saying that, the fact that any turned out to vote at all (against the occupation, don’t forget) in the face of terrorist attacks (which where unknown in Iraq before the invasion) is awe-inspiring. The victors have a clear mandate to start immediate negotiations with the Americans on the modalities of the withdrawal of American troops, as well as make a start on development of other planks of its electoral platform that the US may not find to its tastes.

Obviously, the US is not going to let such efforts succeed. So what will happen? Will Ibrahim Jafari be persuaded to sell-out his electorate somehow or will it come to a confrontation with the US? Eventual ousting of Jafari and installation of another Sunni Ba’athists thug in some sort of military coup or (more likely) eventual wrangling of a US preferred candidate within the UIA such as the reactionary Adel Abd al-Mahdi? I predict nothing.

> they [the GIs] can't wait to get back over
> there [Iraq]...


What planet are you living on? Do you actually read the news? A small sample: “For the Few and the Proud, Concern Over the ‘Few’ Part”, “Hundreds of U.S. Soldiers Emerge as Conscientious Objectors” (April 2003), “Meet the New COs”, “Three US soldiers killed in bomb attack in northern Baghdad”, “Extent of US abuse cases revealed”, “For Some, a Loss in Iraq Turns Into Antiwar Activism”, etc. etc. etc.

So to summarise; in your words Iraqis voted “in record numbers” for “a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq” (UIA/Sistani). Bush is seemingly intent on defying the expressed will of the Iraqi electorate: “We will not set an artificial time table for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out,” (State of the Union speech, February 2).

> What say you to that?

I say that the US and UK should live up to their rhetoric about freedom and democracy (i.e. leave the country).

An even more specious argument made by Bush and cronies was the supposed “al-Qa’eda” link to Saddam. Note the retrospective concession that this justification was always a complete fallacy. Of course we also knew this in advance of the attack. By now we even know that they knew there was no link before the attack.

Predictibly, the reaction of the Islamists to the invasion was, and still is, to use it as an effective recruitment tool to their destructive cause. Meanwhile, the solutions to the private terrorism of bin Laden and the like were obvious .

by Asa Winstanley

The national survey of Iraq conducted this February by Oxford Research International hit the news on the 16th of March. The poll of well over 2000 Iraqis was sponsored by the BBC in the UK, ABC in the US, ARD of Germany and the NHK in Japan. A news bulletin on the BBC’s Radio 1 claimed that “most Iraqi’s think their lives are better than before the war a year ago” according to the poll. In the US, the New York Times also covered the story, but gave it less prominence (1). They write that the poll finds “an upbeat sense among most that their lives were better than before the war” although “other questions about the invasion provoked more negative reactions”. The BBC news website headlined with the story (2), musing that the poll will “make good reading for US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair”. This is no doubt true when viewed through the ideological bias of the New York Times and the BBC. A cursory look beyond their ‘liberal objectivity’ at the actual facts of the survey suggests very different conclusions.

The poll question that the media have most focused on is also the most vague one: “compared to a year ago, I mean before the war in spring 2003 [sic], are things overall in your life [better or worse]?”. Although it is true that 35% replied with “somewhat better” to this question, 36% said it was “about the same” or “somewhat worse”. Considering that one of the worst dictators the world has seen in modern times was still ruler of Iraq a year ago, these should be astonishing figures to those (such as the BBC) who expect gratitude from Iraqis. It seems the majority of respondents think the occupation is at best only “somewhat better” or “about the same” as the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Seen in this light the brave face that the liberal media have tried to put on this starts to melt away. A basic examination of the rest of the poll tells us even more about the imperialist ideology of Western media, considering the figures they have chosen not to discuss.

It should tell us something that Iraqi support for a war that has led to the toppling of such a tyrant is extremely shallow. The respondents were split, with 39% saying the invasion in March 2003 was wrong and 49% right. The reasons for this should be seriously considered by anyone in the West who cares about the conduct of their government. The western media often try to imply that Iraqis are somehow naturally inclined towards dictatorship. The BBC Online article continues: “Dan Plesch, a security expert at Birkbeck college in London said that the poll was good news for the leaders of countries who began the invasion a year ago this week. ‘This poll indicates that Iraqis strongly support a unified country with strong leadership’ ” (3) who will run the country with the same discipline as Saddam Hussein that “presentable young man” with an “engaging smile,” who we can “do business” with according to the British Embassy in Baghdad in 1969 (4). The New York Times article takes a similar view: “the largest share of respondents – 47 percent – said what their country needed most in 12 months was a ‘single, strong Iraqi leader’. Twenty-eight percent said an Iraqi democracy was most important, and 10 percent said the priority should be ‘a government made up mainly of religious leaders’ “. This result is for the question “What do you think Iraq needs in 12 months time? Five years time?”. The results of the part of the question that takes a five year perspective are reversed: 42% prioritised democracy, while 36% mentioned a strong leader. Note the selection of facts: the second aspect of the same question is unmentioned by the New York Times. The BBC omits the entire question. This only serves the imperialist ideology that views Iraqis as irresponsible Arabs who need to be led by enlightened Western powers. Unsurprisingly, Iraqis overwhelmingly disagree with this point of view. In fact the support for a broad, indigenous, representative democracy seen in the poll is striking when the actual figures are viewed without the ideologically tinted sunglasses of the Western media. In fact, 72% agreed with the statement that Iraq needed a democracy. Again; out of fourteen options of political configureation, the most popular was a “democracy” run by “democrats” (42%) with “an Islamic state and religious politicians” receiving only 11%.

The BBC too implies that Iraqis actually want to be dominated: “[the US government's] favoured son Ahmed Chalabi had no support at all, while Saddam Hussein remains one of the six most popular politicians in the country”. True enough in relative terms, though it conveniently omits the simple truth that the respondents had no trust in any politicians: 58% said they trust none in the offered list or gave no answer. Saddam Hussein only scored 3.3% of the trust vote, with former CIA man Ahmed Chalabi accruing a mere 0.2 of a percent worth of trust.

The respondents overwhelming concern for the next 12 months is for security in the country (64%). When presented with a variety of parties from which to choose who should take care of securitry, the vast majority mention an Iraqi government and the people of Iraq, not the occupying powers. Thirty three percent say an Iraqi government while 17% reply “the people” (the two highest figures). Only 8% said the USA should take care of security and only 5% chose the “coalition forces” (even less chose the UN at 1%).

The BBC News Online article tries to present itself as an exploder of received truths claiming that the poll “suggests that the reporting of the daily attacks on the occupying forces in Iraq could be obscuring another picture”, one of Iraqis “adjusting to life with an occupying force” (5). Once again, the facts tell a different story. Most respondents (51%) still oppose the presence of the occupying forces, with 15% saying that they should leave the country immediately and 17% accepting armed attacks on “coalition” troops. Thirty percent even said that the immediate departure of coalition forces would be “very effective” as regards the security of the country, although 35% think that they should stay until an Iraqi government is in place.

Perhaps the most telling poll question answer of all lists several organisations and asks how much confidence respondents had in each. A quick look at the responses will tell you all you need to know about why neither the BBC nor the New York Times mention the question at all. An overwhelming 42% of respondents said they had “no confidence at all” in the US and UK occupying forces, with 24% saying “not very much” and only 25% expressing any sort confidence at all in the occupiers.

Whatever arrangements are made for self determination in Iraq, we should not delude ourselves that the current occupiers are trusted by the population, for reasons which by now should be too obvious to point out. Nor should we delude ourselves that the Western media are anything other than deeply indoctrinated in the service of great power.

(1) New York Times, 16 March 2004, “Ambivalence From Iraqis in Poll on War”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/international/middleeast/16SURV.html (accessed 16/3/2004)

(2) BBC News Online, 16 March 2004, “Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm (accessed 16/3/2004, 01:17 GMT version)

(3) Ibid.

(4) Biographic sketch of Saddam Hussein by British Embassy Baghdad, November 15, 1969. Telegram from British Embassy Baghdad to Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Saddam Hussein,” December 20, 1969. Public Record Office, London, FCO 17/871. Available online from the National Security Archive, George Washington University: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/index.htm

(5) BBC, “Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq”, Op. cit.

Copyleft article. You are free to made verbatim copies.