I couldn't find the polling data. I'm interested in:
-the number of people polled.
-the time of the day the polling was done.
-what areas the polling was conducted.
-the dates the polling was conducted.
-the exact questions asked.

The only detail I could get from the report was one poll from Maysan province involving support for suicide attacks. I appreciate the Post's polls which include the eact wording of the question, the number questioned, etc... It helps understand the environment the questions were asked in. Polls are like statistics, they can be manipulated though I don't find these results too surprising.

The majority of US soldiers do not favor being in Iraq either as our view from the outset that far too many of them always looked to us to fix everything they could have done so on their own. This is a result of a welfare system put in place by the Baath party which punished initiative and rewarded blind loyalty.

Unless people are willing to fight for their own freedom, sending others to do so will always end up as a losing proposition.

Duh!

I'd like to know the sample sizes and details of the polling done. However, since this is a leaked report from the British Military I doubt that any of that will be forthcoming. What gives the report credence for me is that this wasn't produced for public consumption. It seems to be an unspun poll done purely for the military itself, and if they were going to manipulate it surely they'd do it to get a far rosier picture than this poll appears to give.

I am Shocked! Shocked that the Iraqis are not grateful for the "freedom" brought to them. When will these Americans ever learn.

Aahh I find the arrogant and all knowing Sully here again trying to worm his way from the truth. As I said before Sully. LEAVE US ALONE - I guess the Iraqis feel exactly what I was saying. Take your "democracy" and shove it!!!. Let us wallow in our authoritarianism. At least we are not asking you to do the same at the barrell of a gun. If its our oil we seek then say so but do not insult our intelligence with all this talk of "democracy." Bush talking about installing "democracy" is like Ali Baba teaching "thou shalt not steal."

Oooh, a secret poll. Hey, I've got a secret poll too. It says that 100% of Iraqis want the US to stay and help. And also 100% of Iraqis love all Americans!

Want to know my sample size, who was polled, etc.? Too bad!

Obviously, the problem in Iraq is that there are too many pro-Saddamists -- people like this Yara -- who long for the good old days of his genocidal oppression. They haven't yet realized that they've lost the war, and they must be shown that they have. That means we need to increase the number of US troops in the country and increase the amount of offernive operations.

Actually, Al, the problem is too many people like yourself who are sticking their dirty mits into someone elses business. Then you get all guts and glory from your armchair, thinking you've got "the" solution, when you really have no clue what's going on in Iraq. Tell me, when were you in Iraq lately and how long?What reason do "you personally" have for invading and occupying Iraq, what have the Iraqis done to you?

Yara:
Like it or not the USA was attacked by Arabs, mostly Saudi. They continue to plot and attack. That is why we are in the Middle East in various ways. As I've said, I disagree with the way Iraq was handled, but we had a right to go after Afganistan and have a right to pursue those who continue their war against the US. You want the US out, stop bin Laden and his cronies. We are in a state of war against those who claim to represent you.

Beside being Illegal, one of the main reasons I opposed the Iraq War is that it was almost universally opposed by the people of the Middle East. While American reporters were saying how wonderful it would be if the Middle East became democratic, they mentioned, as a side note, the people of the region opposed the war. As we are still involved in the "war on terror", It didn't seem to me to be very smart to annoy the people whose support we needed. It also took away resources needed in Afghanistan.

Well said P.J. Casey.

Sully can you please make up your mind? what P.J. said supports my thesis. Also stop sounding stupid and arrogant. If you want Bin Laden what are you doing in Iraq and what about all this democracy talk. So if the US were attacked by Saudis and Saudis are such close US allies should not the question asked be WHY?? which none of you bright well -educated western elites cannot bring yourselves to answer. Thus you give Bush the support to go kill more innocent people than Bin Forgotten ever dreamed of. Well done - Now we love you here in the middle east. Why don't you come visit. You just played into the hands of the fundamentalists. THINK before you ACT. and stop blaming Arabs!! Once again we did not invade you and install "democracy." Your buddies that you trained in Afghanistan came home to roost.

Leave it to Jeff the Stalinists' friend Morley to find an anti-war, neo-isolationist anti-liberal reporter on the staff of a paper where most of the reporters are generally in favor of spreading the benefits of self-government where it did not exist previously. Favoring the spread of self-government is a position that's becoming more and more rare among self-described liberals. That's because most of them, Jeff included, are not - that is, neither liberal nor in favor of the spread of self government (two things that used to be recognized as synonymous).

No, this is about Morley doing what Morley does and what the Post (otherwise a pretty good paper), to its shame, gives him a platform to do: consistently looking to spin reporting about the war to portray the US and British efforts as wrong or even evil. It would upfront and honest for Morley to give us a little background on Telegraph reporter Rayment -- like maybe he could tell us that Rayment has never written a story without a cut and run spin. But Jeff's not an upfront and honest kind of guy, at least not when there's information that doesn't fit his twisted anti-liberal opinions.

Let's hear about the so-called nationwide poll. But let's hear about the sampling and other methodology. Let's hear about the conflicting information and its quality. If this truly is "World Opinion" Roundup, let's hear from a variety of viewpoints around the world. But despite the name of this feature, this isn't really "World Opinion" roundup. This is Jeff Morley's opinion with selected articles from like minded people who happen to live in other countries.

Let those that want war fight it, its clear we americans not wanted over in Iraq.

Let those that want war fight it themselves, its clear we americans not wanted over in Iraq.

Let those that want war fight it themselves, its clear we americans not wanted over in Iraq.

Like David Patrick and Sully, I wish we had more specific information about the poll. But I don't think the broader conclusions are at all surprising. It should have been foreseen from the beginning (indeed it was foreseen by analysts in the CIA and State).

The hatred of foreign occupation should have been obvious to us. The problem is that Americans are especially bad at imagining themselves in the shoes of others overseas. We've internalized a double standard. Thus it seems perfectly natural to us that we should have military bases in other countries around the world. But the idea of foreign military bases on US soil is unthinkable to us. And when the Northeast lost power for just a few days, amongst all the stories about how unbearably hot it was without electricity, I may have missed it, but I didn't see one single story pointing out that this was what Iraqis were putting up with on a daily basis, and in much hotter weather, with no end in sight.

What if the US were occupied? No matter how much we disliked our current president (Republicans, think 'Clinton, only more so'; Democrats, think 'Bush, only more so'), and even if he had been declared dictator for life, and even if we really wanted to get rid of him, very few Americans would be happy to be liberated by, say, the Chinese. For a few weeks or months the more optimistic of us might hold out hope that the occupiers were just going to free us and leave. But of course, things are seldom that simple, and once a foreign occupation started to drag on for years, we'd absolutely hate it. In addition to all the other problems, it would insult our national pride. And there would be some people here (ironically, it would probably be the ones who are most in favor of our current occupation of Iraq) who would be waving the flag, crying 'America for Americans', and would see attacks on the troops that were occupying the United States as acts of patriotism. If _we_ were occupied by a foreign power here in the US, the Hannities and O'Reilly's and Limbaughs (who think Iraqis should be thrilled by the occupation) would call anyone who suggested cooperating with the occupiers 'traitors'.

It's not only Americans that feel national pride. And even aside from that, no one likes being governed from many thousands of miles away by a people that speak a different (not even related) language and have very different cultural, political and legal traditions. (At one point in our history, we didn't much like the 'thousands of miles away' part, even when the cultural, political and legal traditions, along with the language, were the same.) And even if a population were willing, because it hated its former leader so much, to put up with all that, who would want to be governed forgetfully and at arm's-length, without accountability, by the same people whose efficiency brought us the Katrina response?

I don't think Iraqis should shoot at the occupying troops (it's not the soldiers' fault that they're there, and more importantly from an Iraqi perspective, it doesn't do Iraq any good to have soldiers always being shot at: it makes people in Washington think we need to keep the soldiers there because there's still violence going on). But anyone who can't understand why Iraqis would shoot at occupying soldiers hasn't yet tried to reverse the situation in his mind, and imagine how we'd react to the same situation.

Yara: Your anger at me and your hatred of the West blinds you to what I have been saying. To spell it out:

-The US is in Afganistan due to the attack by bin Laden and his Afgan supporters. Omar should have handed us bin Laden instead of accepting a war with the US.
-I agreed that Saddam needed to be overthrown. God knows no Arab would do it. 9/11 had nothing to do with it in my mind. My reasoning for the overthrow was Saddam's attacking US and UN resources he agreed to after his defeat in 1991. I did not think it was a good time to attack Iraq due to our fight in Afganistan and bin Laden and crew still being out there.
-I disagree with the current US occupation of Iraq. Bush's only correct step, though his reasoning was very flawed and timing too soon, was the invasion. Once he crossed the border its been nothing but idiotic decisions. Remember that Iraqi's cheered Saddam being deposed. I agreed with him being deposed. That's all Iraqis cheered about and I disagreed with what followed. You have a right to be angry about the way the occupation has gone, as I do. But remember, many of the Iraqi's killed have been purposely killed by al Qaeda and the insurgency. Where is your anger at them?
-Arabs culture is antithetical to democracy and the concept of a republic. It will not thrive in any place there is an Arab culture. So you can continue to live under kings and dictators. I really do not care as long as you do not bother us or our interests as Saddam did.
-The attack on America in 2001 and at other times was carried out by sources located at various places in the Middle East. Based on those attacks we are at war with those individuals. And bin Laden dreams of killing millions. The Saudi government seems to be cooperating in the war. al Qaeda come from many countries, not just Saudi Arabia.

So Yara, get angry all you want. If you're mad that our war with al Qaeda is spilling over in the Middle East then maybe YOU should do something to help stop bin Laden and his supporters. bin Laden dreams of killing millions in the west and installing a caliphate across the Muslim world and controlling its millions, including you. Bush, if you can take him for his word, dreams of supporting the creation of a democratic Iraq without US troops there. But if US troops leave today you will have a Baathist Iraq and/or an Iraq ruled by al Qaeda. If you favor bin Laden and his dreams over those of the West, then I have to wonder where you mind is. If you want the Baathists back, well, you deserve them. If all you want to do is bash the US and say get out, well, you are not offering an idea that has much thought behind it.

I agree that our buddies came back and bit us. You're right Yara, we should have left Afganistan to the Soviets. But then, you'd probably just blame the US for not saving them. I don't remember other Arab nations coming to the defense of Afganistan when the Soviets occupied it. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Sully,

What makes you say that "Arab culture in antithetical to democracy"? I'm no fan of Bush's latest ex-post-facto justification of the invasion, because I don't think he or his government have the competence to pull it off. It is very hard to bring democracy in from the outside (among other things, because the first step, imposing democracy, has to be un-democratic). Democracy flourishes much more when it is home-grown.

But why should Arab cultures (plural intentional) be incapable of democracy? What aspects of the culture would you identify that make this the case? I think the problem with a lot of arguments that I have heard in favor of that proposition is that when they say "democracy" they mean "democracy as it exists in the US". When they've proven that an Arab democracy wouldn't have an Establishment Clause or a tripartite government, they think that they've proven that Arab democracy can't exist. But there are many ways of constructing a democracy and if (as I very much hope) people in the Arab world create their own democratic governments from within, they will probably have their own unique features. That is all to the good.

Another common set of arguments against the possibility of Arab democracy really boils down to pointing out that there haven't been lots of Arab democracies yet. Fair enough. But that's been true of every culture: it had no tradition of democracy until it developed a tradition of democracy.

Correction: the quote from Sully should have been "Arab culture is antithetical to democracy". Sorry for the typo.

Beren:
My notion that Arab culture is not conducive to democracy comes from many parts of the culture. Arab culture is paternalistic to a fault. That alone would not be a problem as it was not an issue in the US or other new democracies. The most serious problem is the history of benevolent authoritarianism. Its not only historic but entrenced deep into the culture at many levels. Favor is how you obtain things in Arab culture. Jobs, land, anything of real value. Laws prevent many from rising above a certain living standard or job level. Now this can be found in many cultures, both democratic and not, but what I find prpblematic is the acceptance. Corruption is accepted. Cronism is accepted. And worse, people who must bribe and curry favor to further themselves accept it as normal and would feel uncomfortable in loosing the "system". It may exist in states that are democratic, but it is not accepted as the recent American response to the exposure of Bush's cronism can attest to. How can democracy, where the power is obtained and lost by the will of the populace ever develop in a society where power is in the hands of those who have the wealth or army to take it, and the populace considers it normal, not just the way things are today, but the normal way of life. And those in power will never let the populace control that power. Not because they dislike the people, as I said, its accepted in the culture. Look at Sadar's militia. Many dislike these armed men coming into town, but they do not suggest that they should disarm or don't have legitimacy. Those with power are allowed to wield it as they like. That is the how things are accepted whether they are liked or not. If you don't like it you ask your favorite person with power to change it. But the notion that YOU would help put that person in power through a ballot box is not only strange, but not the normal way of life.

To overcome this the populace must say to the rulers that the ruler's power must derive from them. In Iraq you hear that the powerful clerics are telling their people how to vote, and that they faithfully do so. That is not democracy. But the culture says that is how decisions are made. Its very entrenched and I just do not see how they can break out of it.

Sully - is actually Andrew Sullivan who is a self-hating gay and a racist to boot so I know where he is coming from. No wonder he hates my MLK and Ghandi references. Read his blog. He pushed for the war and is now only disapointed because the West looks bad. He really really hates the middle east because of solely the gay issue and could care less about any other thing that is why he keeps using "democracy" as a crutch.

Andrew lets just say Bush used your reason to start a War. What in God's name gives you and an idiot like Bush the right to come and rearrange my world. Also since when do you and Bush decide what kind of tyranny we in the middle east should live under. You have this racist and superiority complex that the western rule is some how better than our indigenous culture which is why you cannot answer my question (if so why are no Arabs begging you in DC to come show us democracy). Why are you guys getting killed. To try and draw stupid nuances as if Al Qaeda is what is driving the insurgency or doing the bombings. Let me put it as simply as I can my neocon friend. Even if the DEVIL himself is blowing up Iraq we still want the West OUT!!!. You have no right to decide for us what we want. Iraqis went to vote for their own right to get YOU OUT so please do not spin me like a Whitehouse reporter. Do not insult my intelligence with your stupid arguments.

I love the straw man these idiots like to set up. 1) who made Bin Laden powerful? us in the middle east or your boys from CIA? 2) I have never read anywhere except from US propaganda machine that Bin Laden only dreams of killing millions and wants a caliphate. - If you had ever been to the middle east you will laughed at in the face if you made such a statement. 3) Tell me where the millions are that are going to arise and make this caliphate? infact you and George Bush and are making UBL look more like a prescient sentient prophet. UBL is not a boogie man here so you cannot use him to negate an argument or assuage your killings. You only seem sad that the torture of INNOCENTS makes the US bad - I'll let you in on a secret - Torture is the leas of you problems here - we never trusted you, believed you nor I we stupid to think you silly propaganda of being nice soldiers works here. Have you seen what your bombs and guns do from Palestine to Fallujah. As Galloway said you nothing but a Popinjay - Sully. Shame on you.

You sound very very racist and you have that tone when you discussed your fellow traveller Bill Bennett equating lower crime rate with aborting black babies (oh yes I read your press). If you want to hang UBL around our neck then I will do you one better - Bush has killed many more people that UBL and he is your boy - you actually voted for him and still support his agenda only that he did not follow your wise instruction on how to rule we the Arabs. Thanks Sully.

I read your press and lately both Scowcroft and Wilkerson have said it - you have a "cabal" running it with an idiot at the head. At least Saddam wrote bad books before killing people rather than Bush who talks directly to God.

Yes I will take my local oppressors and demons any day over Western devils in tanks and planes. So Yes PLEASE LEAVE. You have not saved Afghanistan and you will not save the middle east and no one nominated you kind to come save. As you people used to say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" I am not mad at the whole West just your Gov't and idiots like you who defend it with your racist ideas.

Yara you have really lost it. I'm not Andrew Sullivan. I've hear of him but don't read his articles so I have no idea what you are talking about wrt to him.

I'll ignore your usual rant but your last rant, that the west has racist ideas, is a joke right? How many non-Muslims live near you? Are they surrounded by walls to protect themselves? Do you allow non-Arabs to own land where you live? Do women have the right to vote, drive, live as they like? Do the wealthy eat in the same restaurants as the less wealthy? Let go of the race card your waving. Arabs have not respect in this area.

Your beginning to remind me of Bush. He also makes up things to support his position.

If you want to end the war right away, all you have to do is declare that, beginning tomorrow, the war will be fought only by those who support it.

Sully,

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I still don't agree though. But thank you.

You say that Arab culture is paternalistic. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean 'patriarchal', then, as you correctly point out, so was the US when it was founded. So also (to a very great degree) was ancient Athens. I don't think this qualifies as a bar to democracy at all.

You mention a history of benevolent authoritarianism. We might not both mean the same thing by that phrase, so forgive me if you're using it in a technical sense and I now proceed to mis-apply it. But it seems to me that one could easily say that, for example, revolutionary France had a tradition of benevolent authoritarianism (true, there were some ups and downs on the road after that, but it's a democracy now). Japan absolutely had a tradition of benevolent authoritarianism, though perhaps you would argue that only massive intervention from outside countered it? (Yet Japan continues to have a tradition of 'benevolence' offered by those in authority to their supporters to this day). Modern Turkey is a democracy, despite the legacy of Ottoman 'benevolent authoritarianism'.

Rome wasn't a democracy, but since you also mentioned the concept of the republic, everything that you later write about cronyism and the need for important connections, powerful benefactors, a patronage system, etc., all of it was true of ancient Rome under the Republic. Indeed what you write is an admirable description of Roman Republican politics. So even if the aspects of Arab culture that you describe make democracy impossible, they certainly wouldn't make Arab republics impossible (they wouldn't look like the Roman republic, for other reasons, but they would still be republics).

Staying on the same peninsula for a moment, modern Italy is a democracy. And yet, powerful connections are important there, much is done behind the scenes and there is certainly a tradition of 'authoritative benevolence', if not of 'benevolent authoritarianism'.

I think that you're really combining two separate issues. One is the disctinction between authoritarianism and self-determination. The other is the distinction between the formal and the informal systems of government. In a formal system, power is based upon position/job, there's a set hierarchy, written rules for how it will function, the rules are obeyed, no one has more influence than his rank prescribes, and so on. In the informal system, personal connections are what matter - it's whom you know, and whom they, in turn, know. There isn't a simple hierarchy that can easily be identified from the outside, rules are modified at will by those who can command the allegiance of enough other people, and much of what keeps the system running is the mutual exchange of favors through a system of alliances and patronage. No system is completely formal (our executive branch is getting more and more 'informal') or complerely informal (usually there's some sort of official hierarchy even if it doesn't match the real hierarchy).

An authoritarian government can tend either to the informal side (perhaps the House of Saud might be an example), or to the formal side (30's Germany might be an example). A democratic government can also tend either to the informal side (Japan) or to the formal side (US-British political tradition). The issue of whether there's a strong tradition of informal patronage or not is really separate from the issue of whether democracy is possible or not. When a culture that has a strong tradition of personal, informal authority becomes a democracy, it accepts (indeed demands) that some degree of that tradition continue within the context of a democracy. From the perspective of a more formal, impersonal system (like the Anglo-American tradition), we may consider much of this informal influence in government to be 'corruption'. Fair enough. But whether there's corruption or not is a separate issue from what sort of government there is.

It was a mistake to go into Iraq. The people in the Middle East are not ready for democracy. They will all need to have a nice long talk with their f%)#@ing god and decide what they want to do...

The majority of Arabs are sick and twisted... They will hate us not matter what we do because they think they are racially superior, and we pray to the wrong gods.

I wish we never went over there... and that they never came over here...

Al: where exactly in the Sunday Telegraph can I find the results of your poll?

"They haven't yet realized that they've lost the war, and they must be shown that they have"? Feel free to go over there and show them. Let us know how you make out.

I think we all have to stop and take a breath. Neither George Bush or any President is America, Bin Laden is not the Middle East, and Sharon is not Israel. It has been my expereience that there are good people in every country, and it is our duty to make sure that they survive. They won't survive unless we take the time to listen, and treat each other with respect.

Yara,
Sully can't be Andrew Sullivan, because Andrew Sullivan thinks that the US can build democracies in the Arab world and Sully thinks that democracy is impossible in the middle east, even for Arabs themselves without the US interfering.

Sully,
In response to Yara's comment about US racism, you reply with several issues of discrimination in the Muslim world, none of which, however, has to do with race.

For example, you write, "How many non-Muslims live near you? Are they surrounded by walls to protect themselves?" Well, it varies from country to country, but in several Muslim countries there are significant non-Muslim communities that usually get along well with the larger community. If Yara is writing from the UAE, then certainly the non-Muslims nearby don't have to live surrounded by walls to protect themselves. And I've never heard of any rule there that non-Arabs can't own land. But maybe I just haven't heard of the law you're referring to. Where is it from? (Certainly not in Dubai!)

On women's rights, it's a more complex issue than the western press usually acknowledges, but still, you're right that the Arab world has problems in this area. It's not an issue of racism, though.

You also write, "Do the wealthy eat in the same restaurants as the less wealthy?" Can you think of anywhere on earth where they _do_ generally eat at the same restaurants? The Post's food articles certainly often refer to restaurants I couldn't afford to go to!

At any rate, you're right that on human rights the Arab world has some issues that it really needs to work on. We do too. And race is probably more of a problem here than there.

Just-being-Frank:

You write, "The majority of Arabs are sick and twisted... They will hate us not matter what we do because they think they are racially superior, and we pray to the wrong gods."

What on earth is the basis of your sweeping psychological diagnosis of millions and millions of people? How many Arabs do you know? Have you ever lived among them? (And experienced, among other things, their excellent hospitality and generosity?) And do you even mean 'Arabs', anyway, or do you mean 'Muslims', since you mention 'their god'?

P. J. Casey: Thanks for the breath of sanity and reason.

I don't know why this poll is considered a revelation. It's not the first time Iraqis have been polled, with similar results. It's just that these polls get hardly any coverage in the States.

Anyone wanting to see a detailed poll (with the questions) could check out this American one from last year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
"Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll..."

"When asked whether the Americans were 'occupiers' or 'liberators', 81% of Shiites and Sunnis said occupiers.

"This negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him."

OF course that's more than a year old. US/British troops are even less welcome now.

"Al: where exactly in the Sunday Telegraph can I find the results of your poll?"

My poll is in my mind. And the Sunday Torygraph poll is in the mind of the Sunday Torygraph.

"Feel free to go over there and show them. Let us know how you make out."

That's utterly silly. We have a military for that. I no more have to join the military to advocate military actions than I have to join the fire department to advocate fighting fires.

Anyone wondering why Iraqis hate the occupying forces so much could start by reading this summer's LA Times piece "Shots to the Heart of Iraq". I recommend giving it a google.

Some Iraqi comments:

..."Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition," said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. "The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them."
--- Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit, after being wounded in an unexplained drive-by shooting by a US convoy outside Baghdad police HQ. The soldiers, who killed one of his passengers, never stopped to explain why.

..."This kind of incident makes people hate the Americans more and more," he said. "They don't care about the lives of the people. Each day they make new enemies."
--- Abdul-Jabbar Jmor, architect and Kurdish tribal leader, after his brother was shot dead at the wheel by a US convoy who felt he was following too close in heavy traffic. The victim, Salah Jmor, a supporter of the US invasion, was visiting his homeland after many years spent representing Iraqi Kurds abroad. He had played a leading role in publicising Saddam's gassing of Halabja. The Jmor family leads 20,000 Kurds.

..."Now, after they killed my husband, I hate them," she said. "I want to blow them all up."
--- Dr Raghad al Wazzan, another initial supporter of the invasion, after her husband was killed by a US sniper while driving home from work. Yasser Salihee, 30, was also a physician and was an Iraqi special correspondent for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He failed to notice a US operation in his neighborhood, having passed no signs or roadblocks. The bullet passed through his palm before hitting his head, suggesting that he was holding his hand up at the time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8437692/
"Iraq's U.N. ambassador accused U.S. Marines of killing his unarmed young cousin in what appeared to be 'cold blood'..."

Mohammed, an engineering student at the University of Technology in Baghdad, was visiting his family in the village of Al-Shaikh Hadid when the Marines knocked on the door, the ambassador said. The young man rushed to open the door and greeted the group of about 10 Marines and an interpreter who appeared to be Egyptian pleasantly, "happy to exercise some of his English," he said.

The family hadn't worried at first when he took the soldiers took him into his room, even after they heard a muffled thud. But they became nervous when the Marines started beating up a younger brother in the hallway. Then the Marines ordered the family to wait outside. After an hour the soldiers left. Their interpreter told her on the way out that they had killed her son. He was found dead in his bedroom with a single bullet wound to his neck.

Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie, a supporter of the United States and the Iraqi equivalent of John Bolton, said: "The mother let off a deafening cry of anguish, but the Marines were smiling at each other as they were leaving."

The ambassador wrote that he believed "a serious crime has been committed -- a crime that may be repeated up and down Al-Anbar" and demanded an investigation into what he said appeared to be the "killing of an unarmed innocent civilian -- a cold blood murder."

Sumaidaie, in a telephone conversation with Reuters and a lengthy written statement, called for an investigation of the killing, saying outrage over the incident could jeopardize public support for the U.S. led reconstruction of Iraq.

That's the current situation amongst America's FRIENDS in Iraq, never mind its far more numerous enemies. The battle for hearts and minds was lost long ago. Really, America's remaining option is to choose the level of its humiliation. The longer America delays leaving, the more its final departure will resemble flight.

Day in, day out, we face ever more overwhelming evidence that Bush's ill-conceived, illegal, mendaciously-marketed war has been an unmitigated disaster. When even a pro-war rag like the Telegraph is reporting stuff like this, you've got to wonder how this president can possibly see his term out. Just how long will it take for this idiot to be impeached?

Both sides in this argument have to realize that things are rarely black and white: Saddam was a dictator and its good that he's gone; but we americans and brits are now refereeing a civil war & the average iraqi can't go out on the street without fear of getting blown up.

No matter what you think of why we westerners started this war, it's clear that we have lost control of it. The Iraqi civil war is in full swing, and even the administration doesn't believe we are capable of stopping it anymore. Both Rumsfeld and Connie Rice have said publicly that they think it would require 5 to 10 more years of military effort to put an end to it. We don't have 5 to 10 more years.

You can argue back and forth all you like, but the "insurgents" are just waiting for us to leave. Being right or wrong, determined or weak, loved or hated by most iraqis, doesn't make any difference - time is on their side.

Beren:
Your post at 5:39:14PM was well written but there are a few points I would make. The growth of democracy has pretty much been a western concept, which goes along with the western concept of individualism. Democracy has come and gone in western countries as you point out. Japan is unique in its conversion to democracy due to their defeat in WW2 but it does show what it may take to shock a culture to change into a form that would turn away from their authoritative leaders to democracy.

Your distinction between formal and informal systems of government is not what I am talking about. Governments, formal and informal, typically reflect the culture of the people, or at least those who enjoy power. In Japan's past, peasents politely bent over to have their heads chopped off to test a warrior's sword. That's cultural. Trying to get the peasent to think in terms of electing leaders and controlling the leaders in power would be impossible. So would getting the warrior to see the peasent as an equal. You are correct that elements of Japanese society continue to look to authority for favor. But, no Japanese today would bend down to have a sword tested. Arab culture looks to strong leaders. Leaders who do not look for support, but who raise armies through strength. Many wonder why many Iraqis supported Saddam even when he killed members of their family. They also wonder why Saddam's defying the US and UN played so well in Iraq. Its cultural. He comes off as a strong leader and the culture is drawn to it, no matter how monsterous he is.

In a nutshell, Arab democracy is as improbable as Japanese democracy pre-WW2. Japan changed its culture after defeat to allow equality, freedoms and individualism. Democracy then flourished. I don't see anything, including the occupation, changing Arab culture.

Turkey's conversion from the Ottoman caliphate to a republic is credited to Ataturk, who changed the culture of the Turks. Cultural change is difficult and it would not be possible without a receptive populace. Turkey was receptive after three centuries of economic decline under the empire. Some in Iraq are receptive, but I don't think most are. I don't see Iraqi or Arab culture in general shifting in any way. In fact just the opposite. When the Arab culture begins changing to support equality, secularism and personnal freedoms, then democracy may take root.

Beren:
Responding to your comments at 6:03:55 PM, racism was Yara's term. Discrimination, based on class, skin color, ethnicity, etc is all the same to me. Why you think someone is "different" and thus less deserving of equality should not be as important as the discrimination itself. And the discrimination in the Middle East is widespread, and as culturally embedded as white/black racism was in the early 1900s.

I don't have any idea where Yara lives and I'll agree the Middle East is not uniformly discriminatory. However, Arab culture has its issues as you point out. Saudi Arabia discriminates against the minority Shiites. The issue of women's rights is only beginning in many Arab countries while others have made great strides. The greatest discrimination is hardly noticed, that is the discrimination against non-Muslims. Religious freedom is an issue many Arabs are only beginning to come to terms with.

Sully,

Thanks, in turn, for your post and for the points you make. There are a few things that I would say in response.

The main point that I was trying to make was that there are many possible forms democracy could take, depending upon the cultural (and other) circumstances of a country. As you say, "Governments, formal and informal, typically reflect the culture of the people." That means that if a democracy arises in a country with a tradition of patronage, patronage will be (democratically) included in the governmental system, but there's nothing undemocratic about that.

A similar point is that of secularism. You write, "When the Arab culture begins changing to support equality, secularism..." I think this is a (common) confusion arising from our American perspective. There is nothing inherently 'democratic' about secularism. (For that matter, Saddam's party _was_ secularist.) Nor is there anything inherently undemocratic about letting religion play a role in government. In fact, America's "Establishment Clause" is not a mechanism to enable democracy, but a mechanism to limit or control it: even if the people, through their representatives in Congress, _want_ to establish a state religion, they can't (without first amending the Constitution). Democracy and secularism are really entirely separate things. A person can approve of both, one, the other, or neither. A democracy arising in the Muslim world would very likely, although not inevitably, give a prominent official role to Islam, but that wouldn't mean that it wasn't a democracy - just that it wasn't a 'western-style democracy'. This is an excellent example of what I mean when I say that each culture in which democracy grows will create its own, individually adapted, democracy.

So we need to be clear whether we mean 'democracy' or 'western-style democracy'. The first, I think, can grow in the Arab world (or anywhere else). The second can't, and probably shouldn't. After all, even within western democracy there are great differences from country to country based on local circumstances, and the differences become even greater if you take a historical view. US democracy is vastly different from medieval Icelandic democracy, or Athenian democracy. And they, in turn, along with us, are very different from the parliamentary democracies of Europe.

I found your discussion of the historical examples interesting. But it leaves me with lots of questions. If Ataturk could, as you put it, change Turkish culture, why don't you think that an Arabic Ataturk could do the same thing (without the genocide, hopefully)? What about South American democracies? Didn't their cultures previously have traditions of authoritarianism? What of South Korea? A slow transition, perhaps, but it's now a democracy.

The second major point I would question is where you say, "Arab culture looks to strong leaders. Leaders who do not look for support, but who raise armies through strength. Many wonder why many Iraqis supported Saddam even when he killed members of their family. They also wonder why Saddam's defying the US and UN played so well in Iraq. Its cultural. He comes off as a strong leader and the culture is drawn to it, no matter how monstrous he is"

I'd first ask what you mean. In a sense nearly every culture likes strong leaders. (How did Bush try to portray himself during the campaign? How did Kerry?) So I think you mean more than just that they don't like weak leaders. From what follows in what you say, it sound to me like you're taking the point of view sometimes promoted by "middle east experts" who claim that all Arabs really understand is force. I don't know if this is your point of view or not, but it sounded as if it was. Whether it's your point of view or not, though, I think it's mistaken. So in what follows I'm mostly taking issue with expositions of this view that I've seen elsewhere, not with yours.

There _are_ channels in Arabic culture for things to get done, for agreements to be made, etc. In fact, one thing I think some commentators miss is how much of a westernized phenomenon Saddam and some other authoritarian figures were/are, in that they have really closed off a lot of the traditional (informal) channels for political activity. The worst of both worlds, in a way.

With all due respect to certain middle-east experts, I can't help thinking that "They only understand force," is what anyone would say who had tried to figure out the culture and failed. That's because, since people in every culture understand force, that's one thing that's easy to understand about any culture, no matter how alien. This same statement, after all, is typical of European colonialists in, well, really in an awful lot of places. India, China, Africa, the Middle East, the New World, to name a few. It's a theory born out of sincere frustration at trying to work with a foreign culture, failing, and resorting to compulsion. Languages, mores, expectations, modes of persuasion vary greatly; pointing a gun at someone is pretty universal (if ultimately costly) in its temporary effectiveness. A more benign parallel to colonialists and force is tourists and money. One often meets tourists who are convinced that, "The only way you can get people around here to do anything is to throw money at them." These tourists betray that they've failed to understand how to interact with the culture in the country they're visiting. Money, of course, is universal - it nearly always works. It's what you can resort to when you don't know what else to do. But people who live there don't have to resort to it, because they know how things are done there.

Again, this is not meant as an attack upon you, but upon the misconceptions promoted by certain 'middle-east experts' who speak at think tanks and write books.

I don't think that the fact that Saddam defied the UN proves that Arabs are incapable of democracy and want strongmen for leaders. Or at least, if it meant that for Iraqis, it would have to mean it for us to. What US president wouldn't be able to boast to the US public about having defied UN meddling in American business? In this respect, we're very much like them.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.

Sully,

One other point, from one of your posts that I meant to touch upon, because I think it's illustrative of what's at stake in democratization. You write," In Iraq you hear that the powerful clerics are telling their people how to vote, and that they faithfully do so. That is not democracy."

Actually, that's perfectly compatible with democracy. It may be a bad thing on other grounds, but it's not at all un-democratic. How could it be, since, in truth, a lot of Americans get told how to vote, not only by religious organizations, but by secular ones as well? I mean, the Post even announces whom it thinks people should vote for. I know that hearing something from the Post is different (very!!) from hearing something from a cleric. But other organizations, particularly partisan liberal and conservative ones, or movements dedicated to specific issues, tell people whom to vote for, and those people, like people listening to a sermon, are free to go and follow the advice or not in the voting booth. If there are problems at the booth, that _is_ a hindrance to democracy, as our own recent experience has shown, but so long as people are free to vote however they choose in the voting booth, advice they receive, even from highly influential people, does not mean that there isn't a democracy. The same occurs in other countries. Japanese corporations used to (I don't know whether they still do) tell their employees how to vote. But it was still a democracy. If people are free to vote, they have to be free to let others tell them how to vote if they choose to.

Your reference to clerics is important for another reason too, I think. It shows that the 'brute force' idea about Arab politics (which I'm not sure is yours) is wrong. The powerful clerics, and the organizations they have constructed, are an excellent illustration of the way Arab politics more traditionally function, and the key is not raw power, but authority and respect. What makes a Sadr or Sistani powerful is that they have authority - when they speak people will listen. If everyone chose to ignore them, they would have no power. As in most authority-based systems, power has a bit of a snowballing effect. The more people listen to you, the more authoritative you become, which makes other people start to listen to you too, and so on. But it's ultimately a system based much more upon persuasion, by influential and respected people, than compulsion.

Beren wrote:

"A similar point is that of secularism. You write, "When the Arab culture begins changing to support equality, secularism..." I think this is a (common) confusion arising from our American perspective. There is nothing inherently 'democratic' about secularism. (For that matter, Saddam's party _was_ secularist.) Nor is there anything inherently undemocratic about letting religion play a role in government. In fact, America's "Establishment Clause" is not a mechanism to enable democracy, but a mechanism to limit or control it: even if the people, through their representatives in Congress, _want_ to establish a state religion, they can't (without first amending the Constitution). Democracy and secularism are really entirely separate things. A person can approve of both, one, the other, or neither."

Wise words.

I hope our friend sully is learning from them.

Sally, you wrote:
"I agree that our buddies came back and bit us. You're right Yara, we should have left Afganistan to the Soviets. But then, you'd probably just blame the US for not saving them. I don't remember other Arab nations coming to the defense of Afganistan when the Soviets occupied it. Damned if we do and damned if we don't."

As far as Arabs as concerned, the issue of Afghanistan (which is not an Arab nation) was an "ideological war": America vs Soviet Union. Not so much about the Afghan people themselves.

Allow me to ask you this: how much do you know about the Soviet-Afghan conflict?

I sincerely suggest that you read in depth about it and to go beyond the "we were saving Afghans from the evil communists" slogan.

I hope you are curious enough to want to know why your government was financing (with cash and weapons) a clandestine guerrilla group in a foreign country.

As far as occupations are concerned, Arabs do not understand why occupations like the one of southern Lebanon (22 years) or Palestine (38 years and counting) are tolerated and even financed in favor of the occupier.

A white "christain" army is set to do a crusade {administrations early language} in a muslum nation...

starting a war by definition was and still is a civil war (i.e., attacking mostly Sunni areas) ...

... by bombing and detroying 70% of all buildings (homes) in Fullajuh for a 1,00 or so fighter {and never finding woh they were looking for ... repeating this again on a 200,000 people town in the west...

ANNND

Next Fallujah battle: hearts, minds

Marines converted a mosque into a food and medical distribution center for residents Monday.

hmmmm... a christain army in a non-christain land.... h-ear-ts and mIIIIInds...

It is given that one's actins in the world are often a reflection of one's internal state... this should draw questions...

finally ... even if Iraq was close to getting WMD's nothing ... I mean nothing would have changed if the decision was delayed (even a couple of years) to start a civil war in Iraq....

Where are the voices and pictures and stories of the war in Iraq... why do you think the soldiers in teh world report over 30-40% suffer from PTSD... that's because their belief systems do not align w/ what they are doing!?!

Karim,
The Afgan/Soviet conflict was yet another American/Soviet proxy war. The US didn't want the Soviet's in Afganistan. The fear expressed was that is would be a stepping stone toward's toppling other governments and having access to a warm water port. Something the Soviets openly stated was a long term goal. It was also a threat to Pakastan, an ally.

The CIA funding of the "Afgan resistance" is well known. You're right that the US did not have the Afgan people at heart. If it did they would not have left so quickly and would have offered some type of support/assistance.

I remember very well seeing on TV the CIA handing out stinger missles to the mujahideen and wondering to myself if that was such a great idea.