The dust left in the wake of U.S. forces departing from Iraq had barely settled when Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki intensified his crackdown against Sunni Arab leaders, deepening the country's sectarian divide. While American leaders may speak glowingly of Iraq's new democracy, all evidence points to serious problems on the road ahead. This can be discerned both from events on the ground and also from the results of our most recent poll of Iraqi public opinion.
In September 2011, in preparation for the Sir Bani Yas Forum, we surveyed Iraqis to measure their attitudes toward the impact of the war and their concerns about the future of their country in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. We also polled Americans, Iranians, and Arabs from six countries on many of the same questions. From the data several observations can be made.
First and foremost are the divisions among Iraq's three major groupings: Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds. In the United States, there is a deep partisan divide. And finally, there is a disconnect between the attitudes of Iraqis and their Arab neighbors.
All these patterns play out in response to almost every question asked in the poll. For example, when we ask "are Iraqis better off or worse off than they were before American forces entered the country?" we find that Iraqis are conflicted, with about one-half of both Shia and Sunni Arabs saying that they are "worse off," while 60 percent of Kurds say they are "better off." But on the U.S. side, 58 percent of Republicans say Iraqis are "better off" compared with only 24 percent of Democrats who hold this view. A striking 44 percent of all Americans either are "not sure" or say things are "the same."
When we looked more closely at how the war has impacted many areas of life in Iraq, this division amongst the groups in Iraq and the political parties in the United States once again comes through quite clearly. Kurds, for example, say their lives have improved in every area considered. At the same time, overwhelming majorities of Sunni and Shia Arabs say that conditions have worsened. Judging from their respective views, it would appear that Republicans and Democrats are looking at two different wars, with Republicans tending to see the war's impact as positive in every area, while Democrats largely judge the war as having made life worse for Iraqis.
Looking forward, Americans and Iraqis seem to agree, at least on the surface, that the departure of American forces from Iraq is a "good thing." By a margin of two to one, Iraqis say the withdrawal is positive, as do a strong majority of Americans from both parties. But when we ask what emotion they feel when contemplating the departure of U.S. forces, this consensus breaks down. Three-quarters of Americans say they are "happy" at the prospect of leaving Iraq. But this emotion is shared by only 22 percent of Iraqis, with another 35 percent saying they are worried and 30 percent saying they feel both emotions. The reasons for this mixed Iraqi mood can be seen when we look more closely at the concerns they have for the post-withdrawal period. Almost six in ten Iraqis say they are concerned about the possibility that the following might occur: "civil war," "the country will split into parts," "increased terrorism," "economic deterioration," and the fear that Iraq "may be dominated by a neighboring country." U.S. attitudes toward each of these concerns might best be described as ambivalent, with only "increased terrorism" registering.
Examining how Iraqis view issues close to home can also be quite instructive. About one in five Iraqis wants a democracy and believes a democracy "will work" in their country. Another two in five say that they would like a democracy but they don't "believe it will work." At the same time, one in five "do not want a democracy" because they believe "it won't work" in Iraq. Depending on how you add up these responses, it can either be said that six in ten Iraqis want their country to be a democracy, or six in ten Iraqis don't believe that democracy will work in Iraq. This is the definition of being conflicted.
We asked Iraqis to evaluate their leaders and found that most are polarizing figures. Iraqi List coalition Iyad Allawi has the best overall rating of any Iraqi political figure, receiving strong support from Sunni Arabs and Kurds. He, however, is not viewed favorably by Shia Arabs. The current Prime Minister, Nuri al Maliki, is more polarizing, with quite limited support from Sunni Iraqis and Kurds. In fact his numbers across the board are strikingly similar to those received by cleric Moqtada al Sadr, except that al Sadr does better among Shia, and receives approximately the same ratings as al Maliki among Sunni Arabs and only slightly worse among Kurds.
The bottom line is that America leaves an Iraq that is deeply divided. After decades of ruthless rule, Iraqis endured an invasion and occupation, suffered from terror and ethnic cleansing, and while the trappings of a democracy have been set-up, it remains in a gestational state. Iraqis appear to both want the occupation to end but have great concerns about what will follow. The problem for them is that the American public wanted an end to this war, and, it appears, most of Iraq's neighbors are neither equipped to help, nor would their help be welcomed. An additional problem, of course, was the troubled outcome of the last election, which left Iraq with a leader who is not supported by many in the country. America may want to wash its hands of the situation they leave behind and Iraq's neighbors may not want to face the real danger Iraq may pose for the region's future, but Iraqis have legitimate concerns about the post-withdrawal period and, as we see unfolding before us, these concerns must be addressed before it is too late.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: President Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Should Silence the Naysayers
Murray Fromson: The GOP Presidency
Chris Weigant: Republicans Disrespect Iraqi Democracy
Chris Weigant: The End of the Iraq War Is in Sight
Iraq War Attitudes Politically Polarized
Political Animal - GOP candidates decry Iraq withdrawal
Romney Cautions On Iraq Withdrawal On 'Fox News Sunday' | Fox ...
Iraq withdrawal: how a soldier's mother is coping with the loss of her ...
US Iraq withdrawal: Soldiers cheer as America closes the gates on ...
Iraq Withdrawal: U.S. Abandoning Plans To Keep Troops In Country
There is no doubt Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and all around SOB but under Huissein, Iran was held in check. There is an old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We lost that so called friend when we toppled the Saddam Hussein government and in the process, put all Iraqi's in harms way. IRAQ: THE WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN.....
Democracy in Iraq won't work because there is no understanding or cultural attributes that could make it successful.
There will either be civil war and partition or a new strongman will arise to unite everyone under fear and torture.
Another question: when Iraqis are surveyed, does that include the 1.5 million or more who are refugees outside the country? And what about the other 1.5 million displaced within Iraq? Hard to believe that more than a handful of either group would think the invasion was worth it.
i have not yet your post, but have opinions of my own which i would like to share with you.
I remember the days and years after the US War on Iraq when the SHias were constantly being killed by the SUNNis and insugent Al Qaeda , i REALIZED right then and there that the Sunnis are not going to STOMACK the Shias RULE even VIA Democratic Elections . Saddam was a Sunnis too and we all saw how he treated the Shias.
During the post war period , it wa always the Shias that were being killed by bombs , and up until 2006 when the Blue Mosque terrorism happened that was the LAST STRAW .
SO it is not surprising to me that now that the US troops are gone, the Sunnis start the insurgency agaisnt the Maliki Gov. AND remember , it was said that Sauid Arabia 's MONEY was at work here. On the other hand we heard also that Iran were involved in helping the Shias militias etc..........
So , all these extra meddling even from other countries who prefer IRAQ to go into civil war is really a horrible situation for Maliki. The Sunnis and the VP Hashemi should not be agitating against the GOV. There is another election and they can wait for that one to get POWER.
REMEMBER that IRAQ is a SHIA MAJORITY country.
Sunnis have to learn to accept Democracy.
1. Sectarian violence in Iraq will escalate.
2. Prime Minister Maliki will act in an increasngly totalitarian manner.
3. Somewhere in this process the Kurds will make a move to establish a breakaway republic.
Sum total: complete MISSION FAIL for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Still a good thing that the US is leaving (sort of, not counting thousands of embassy personnel and mercenary "contractors"). The US presence has been part of the problem and a continued US presence can't help.
your predictions might come to pass .
That is why the US Embassy itself is at risk.
I hope we can prevent a CIVIL war .
THAT IS WHY , I really think that VP Biden was so CORRECT to suggest a Federal System instead of that CENTRAL GOV idea. Because all the 3 FACTIONS , ie ShIA Sunni and Kurds LOVE to have POWER.
ACTUALLY Saddam started the destruction of Iraq with his way of attacking Iran and then Kuwait .........he was Secular.
Sadam's regime was the most liberal of all in the region. And despite economic sanctions the country was reasonably prosperous. Sadam was sending signals in the oil markets that oil should be paid in solid euros instead of weak dollars. That might have been the trigger that infuriated Wall Street and its Neocon allies.
More ...
http://alexeybraguine.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/iraq-the-real-strategic-disaster/
hey i did not know this. I hope that those in power will learn one day that STARTING wars has bad consequences .
faved because of the info , i hope is true.
There should be a state inquiry into Bush, Cheney, Wolfie, neocons etc. and how they have weakened America's geopolitical position in addition to causing thousands of US casualties and millions of Iraki dea...
I think that the miscalculation occurred in how long war with Iraq would take. Don Rumsfeld said 6 days, or 6 weeks, but doubtful it would take 6 months. I think all of the neocons believed that. After 6 months, on to Iran, and regime change there. I think the Abu Ghraib fiasco occurred in part in order to get the timeline back on schedule. The insurgency messed up the timeline.
All the neocons were well versed in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. They knew that a Sunni run Iraq was a counterweight to Shiite run Iran. That's why I think war with Iran was an integral part of war with Iraq, all part of the plan by the time Bush gave the "axis of evil" speech.
It is my opinion that we have set the conditions for Iraq to stand on their own
and now its up to Iraq to prove that they can support a society and quell the
Iranian backed violence by themselves.
I remember when we first arrived in Iraq and many Iraq citizens were pointing
to Iranians hiding in Iraq and asking the U.S. to 'handle them'.
Only the local Iraqi knows who belongs and who does not belong and its up
to them to now "handle" those that do not belong.
Good luck Iraq!
al Maliki has not filled some of his most important cabinet positions, instead taking them for himself. The arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president could be the first step in purging Sunnis from all government positions. There is little to no trust in al Maliki by the Kurds and Sunnis - and his actions could lead to civil war.
Will we be blamed for putting al Maliki in power? Of course. He was our designated choice no matter the outcome of the "free elections". We trained his troops and police units, we funded his government, we suppported him in every way possible. If he uses those troops, that money and our support against certain groups in Iraq, we will be blamed.