[article] Iraqi opinion poll...

mike65

from NY times

Ambivalence From Iraqis in Poll on War
By THOMAS J. LUECK

Published: March 16, 2004

A nationwide public opinion poll of Iraqis a year after the American-led invasion found deep ambivalence about the invasion and occupation, but an upbeat sense among most that their lives were better than before the war.

Among the results was that more Iraqis polled said the United States was right to lead the invasion than said it was wrong - 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion. The poll was sponsored by ABC News and broadcasting networks in Britain, Germany and Japan.

Other questions about the invasion provoked more negative reactions, with 42 percent of the respondents saying it had liberated Iraq, and a nearly equal 41 percent saying their country had been humiliated. Fifty-one percent said they opposed the presence of the occupying forces, compared with 39 percent who said they supported the forces' presence.

The poll indicated that there was a more negative feeling toward the United States among Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, than among the far smaller Kurdish minority. Only 40 percent of the Arabs, compared with 87 percent of the Kurds, said it was right for the United States to invade.

Still, when it asked about people's personal lives, the poll revealed a sense of optimism.

Seventy-one percent of the respondents said they believed that they would be better off a year from now, compared with 7 percent who said conditions would be worse and 9 percent who said they would stay the same. When asked if things were going better today than a year ago, before the war, 56 percent said conditions were better, 19 percent said worse, and 23 percent said they remained the same.

The poll was based on a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis ages 15 and older and carried out in face-to-face interviews across their country from Feb. 9 through Feb. 28. The other network sponsors were the BBC, ARD of Germany and the NHK in Japan. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

When asked about the political priorities for Iraq, 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."

But when a similar question was posed without any specified time frame, 49 percent said an Iraqi democracy was the most important goal. In response to the same question, 28 percent said they favored a strong leader "for life," and 21 percent said they favored an Islamic state.

Interesting and maybe overall slightly more upbeat than one might expect given the coverage of most media.

detail here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm

Mike.

BattleBoar

Yep, I'm a little surprised at those poll results as well, actually. Pleasantly, I might add. But I'm still not convinced that Iraq is capable of self-governance - I still think it's quite likely that Iraq will descend into a Islamacist theocracy along the lines of the Taliban with rule by religious clerics...albeit maybe not quite so extreme. In any case, I have strong doubts as to whether or not the liberation of Iraq will prove to have been a "good" move for the US to make...definitely in the short term anyway.

Sparks

Total population of Iraq is what, about 20 million people?
Total sample size of the poll is, for argument's sake, let's round it up to 3,000 people. That's 0.015% of the population.
I'm not saying that it's wildly inaccurate, you understand - just that I don't see how you can say that 0.015% of the population counts as being a highly accurate reflection of the way the whole population feels on almost any issue. I mean, if it could, we could just ask 450 people in this country to vote and that'd give us an accurate reflection of the entire population - even less if we're just interested in the electorate...

mike65

Every opinion poll is done with a tiny sample. The skill is in "weighting" the samples. A typical Irish Times/MRBI poll uses just over 1000 samples of opinion. They're considered acurrate to within 3% + or - of the stated figures.

Some stuff on polling
http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp

Mike.

MeatProduct

Where's the proof that it is an accurate poll? Why should we believe what these controlled news agencies write? We believe too much of what we are told.

Nick

Sparks

Originally posted by mike65
Every opinion poll is done with a tiny sample.

I know, but my point was that we don't trust polls enough to handle important stuff like elections, so I'm not sure how much you can trust them for other things without knowing a lot more information than one single figure. I'd like to be able to do so - there have been more than enough polls that support my point of view on many topics - but I don't know if I can.

Some stuff on polling
http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp

Any chance of a reference from someone who doesn't make their living selling poll results?

mike65

I suppose I'm willing to trust a poll supervised by 4 seperate organisations (BBC, NHK Japan, ABC and a German channel).

After all if the results were not as they belived them to be one of them would soon say so.

Reaction to poll -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3515884.stm



Mike.

MeatProduct

Wow, that's incredibly naive. Do you think we get accurate reporting from the news stations? It's amazing how we never see all the people being killed by Americans in Iraq. It mustn't happen then! Surely the news would cover that if it was true? Surely! Think again. We are not being told the truth for the simple reason that we don't have money and the people that do control the news stations and the press. Do you think the American public would support Bush if they saw all the innocent people that were being killed in Iraq? No they wouldn't! America is one of the most censored countries on the planet.

Nick

MrPinK

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Wow, that's incredibly naive. Do you think we get accurate reporting from the news stations?

The poll wasn't taken by any news stations, it was taken by Oxford Research International.

BattleBoar

I'm willing to trust the poll in so far as that it was an accurate response to the questions asked within the margin of error. However, the manner or the order in which the questions are asked can widely affect the results. Ex: CNN recent poll puts Kerry ahead of Bush beyond the error margin of that poll, while an MSNBC poll meant to elucidate the same puts Bush ahead of Kerry beyond the margin of error.

So what can we take from this? Polls aren't really *news*. Polls are little statistical models meant to represent data created by news agencies on slow news days. What I will be willing to say is that I was pleasantly surprised at the percentages even if the margin of error is 10-15%.

sovtek

I'd be a little more convinced of that polls accurate reflection of what people feel in Iraq if the insurgents weren't able to carry out attacks with impunity on "coalition" forces.
I think that if people were anything more than ambivalent to the US then that wouldn't be the case.

mr_angry

Does anyone else think this is the most worrying aspect of the entire poll?

47 percent - said what their country needed most in 12 months was a "single, strong Iraqi leader."

Out of the frying pan...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MeatProduct

Why attack the credibility of the poll?

Are you serious?

If the poll is fabricated then we have a serious issue, that's why.

Nick

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MrPinK

Originally posted by MeatProduct
If the poll is fabricated then we have a serious issue, that's why.

But other than the results not being what some people were expected there is nothing to suggest the poll was fabricated.

MeatProduct

We don't know for a fact if that poll is accurate. That's my point. Money can make these things happen.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
So the next time the BBC come out with a story about American troops killing a kid or something will you be equally dubious about it's authenticity

Well said

Me...I think the poll is interesting. I think its guilty of some sleight of hand - which one should always expect in a survey, to be honest - but its interesting.

For example...the question about is life better concerns "today vs a year ago". So that would mean "have things gotten better since the war ended"....and not "are things better then they were before the war began" as many might immediately think.

There are some discouraging signs, such as the fact that Saddam has emerged as the 6th most popular politician today in Iraq.

Similarly, while the article shows a 48/43 split in saying the war was right, they fail to note in the article that this actually breaks down as :

Absolutely Right : 19.8%
Somewhat Right : 28.6
Mostly Wrong : 12.9
Absolutely Wrong : 26.2
Difficult to say : 12.7

Now, to me, that says that the right vs wrong is actually more in the order of 20 to 26, with those saying "its a mix of both" holding the vast majority at 41.5%.

So before anyone starts knocking the poll, I would suggest that you look at the figures (available off a link on that BBC page supplied by someone earlier) and interpret them for yourselves, rather than reading the media-slanted, dumbed-down interpretation of them.

You'll also notice that despite things getting better, over 40% have no condfidence at all in the US and UK occupying forces, and over 30% in the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Overall this poll shows a deeply divided nation...which to me is perhaps the most depressing result possible, as it means that the job of the coalition is as hard as possible. The only thing there seems to be far less division on is whether or not people support/trust the coalition forces today, in terms of security, leading the country, etc.

Thats a bad combination. Thats a dangerous combination. The longer things go on, the harder it will be for the coalition to keep the faith and trust of the people which is essential to their job...but while the country remains so deeply divided on many issues, it will be difficult for them to make progres to the point where they can honestly justify removing themselves without putting the nation in severe jeopardy.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
it will be difficult for them to make progres to the point where they can honestly justify removing themselves without putting the nation in severe jeopardy.

jc

...and maybe that's the desired effect.

Originally posted by sovtek
I'd be a little more convinced of that polls accurate reflection of what people feel in Iraq if the insurgents weren't able to carry out attacks with impunity on "coalition" forces.

Why wouldn't the insurgents be able to carry out attacks with impunity, they've plenty of places to hide, given that they have at least some support.
Their comrades may and more than likely carried out an atrocity in Madrid easily enough

As I mentioned some time ago, the police state that was Northern Ireland withnessed regular terrorist atrocities despite miniscule support for that on this island.
And that was possible with the province crawling with British Army and RUC personell.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by daveirl
So the next time the BBC come out with a story about American troops killing a kid or something will you be equally dubious about it's authenticity

Why shouldn't I be? There is an agenda here. Why are we not shown all the thousands that America and the UK has killed in Iraq recently?

Nick

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
Me...I think the poll is interesting. I think its guilty of some sleight of hand - which one should always expect in a survey, to be honest - but its interesting.

For example...the question about is life better concerns "today vs a year ago". So that would mean "have things gotten better since the war ended"....and not "are things better then they were before the war began" as many might immediately think.

I thought that myself at first, but it looks like they asked how life was before the war. Here's the exact question:

Q2 - Compared to a year ago, I mean before the war in Spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
I thought that myself at first, but it looks like they asked how life was before the war.

Oops. My bad.

Reading through that full edition, I couldn't help but smile at :

"What is the single biggest problem you are facing in your life these days?"

No problem/no single biggest problem : 18.0

Second largest (of only 2 significant large groups) answer.....which contains "everything is equally fscked" and "there's no real problem at all" lumped together in one answer.

I mean...honestly...

Anyway...time to go back to work. I'll read the rest later.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Total population of Iraq is what, about 20 million people?
Total sample size of the poll is, for argument's sake, let's round it up to 3,000 people. That's 0.015% of the population.
I'm not saying that it's wildly inaccurate, you understand - just that I don't see how you can say that 0.015% of the population counts as being a highly accurate reflection of the way the whole population feels on almost any issue. I mean, if it could, we could just ask 450 people in this country to vote and that'd give us an accurate reflection of the entire population - even less if we're just interested in the electorate...

Statistics doesn't work that way.

MeatProduct

Could you expand on that please?

Sand

Its a poll - nothing more and nothing less. What it says is fairly encouraging when you get past the frankly scary support for a single strong leader for life - its going to take a long time for that idea to seem as crazy to Iraqis as it does to us. But at the end of the day, the direct elections when they come around may bear little or no resemblance to the views demonstrated here. Hopefully if anything they will be more favourable to democratic ideals over theocratic or tyrant models.

We don't know for a fact if that poll is accurate. That's my point. Money can make these things happen.

Agreed. Ive got serious doubts over all those polls claiming people were against the war. Tripe so they were. Everyone I knew was wholeheartedly in support of the war. Damn lies and statistics.

sovtek

Originally posted by Earthman
Why wouldn't the insurgents be able to carry out attacks with impunity, they've plenty of places to hide, given that they have at least some support.
Their comrades may and more than likely carried out an atrocity in Madrid easily enough

One attack that was condemned by virtually the whole of Spain.
Setting up devices in board daylight and attacking convoys without significant detection is a different situation altogether.
That goes along with adopting the tactic of bulldozing orchards and sealing off towns because they aren't getting ANY COOPERATION.

As I mentioned some time ago, the police state that was Northern Ireland withnessed regular terrorist atrocities despite miniscule support for that on this island.
And that was possible with the province crawling with British Army and RUC personell.

That's taking your word that they received no support. The fact that they could tells me something different.

vorbis

he he I find this fear to accept something that counters your beliefs pretty amusing. After reading through some of the answers, most Iraqis polled seemed surprisingly upbeat. Also, if you look at the comments on the bbc site, I believe practically all the iraqi posters were upbeat. Food for thought I suppose.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Its a poll - nothing more and nothing less. What it says is fairly encouraging when you get past the frankly scary support for a single strong leader for life - its going to take a long time for that idea to seem as crazy to Iraqis as it does to us. But at the end of the day, the direct elections when they come around may bear little or no resemblance to the views demonstrated here. Hopefully if anything they will be more favourable to democratic ideals over theocratic or tyrant models.

Agreed. Ive got serious doubts over all those polls claiming people were against the war. Tripe so they were. Everyone I knew was wholeheartedly in support of the war. Damn lies and statistics.

Translated as: When I see a poll I agree with I'll say it's significant, but any poll which disagrees with my view is obviously 'tripe' - after all, several people I know share a different opinion!

Tripe is as tripe does.

Moriarty

It's pretty unfortunate some people can't pick up in-your-face irony.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Moriarty
It's pretty unfortunate some people can't pick up in-your-face irony.

Hmmm. Well, in my defence my irony-meter was pretty blunted by alcohol at that stage ... Let this be a lesson.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
he police state that was Northern Ireland withnessed regular terrorist atrocities despite miniscule support for that on this island.

Originally posted by sovtek
That's taking your word that they received no support.

/me is wondering which version of English sovtek is using, where "miniscule" and "none" are synonymous.

Maybe its the same one XME used for another thread when he tried to tell us that there were no hungry poor people in the US (except those who chose to be, or someting)

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
/me is wondering which version of English sovtek is using, where "miniscule" and "none" are synonymous.

Maybe its the same one XME used for another thread when he tried to tell us that there were no hungry poor people in the US (except those who chose to be, or someting)

jc

Feeling pedantic today are we?

sovtek

The person referenced in this article seems to reflect the poll but with caveats.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0317-11.htm