April 6, 2004
THE RIGHT'S KNOTTED PANTIES:
A Marked Difference: Most Shiite Arabs Oppose Attacks; Islamic State Is Not Preferred (Gary Langer, April 5, 2004, ABC News)
Shiite Arabs in Iraq express relatively little support for attacks against coalition forces such as those that occurred Sunday. And while most do express confidence in religious leaders and call for them to play a role in Iraq today, most do not seek a theocracy, and very few see Iran as a model for Iraq.
A nationwide poll of Iraqis conducted in February for ABCNEWS also found that very few Shiites express support for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia mounted the deadly attacks against the U.S.-led occupation. Nine coalition troops, including eight Americans, and more than 50 Iraqis were killed in the clashes.As reported previously, anger at the United States peaks among Sunni Arabs in Iraq, not Shiites. According to the poll, Shiites are about 30 points less likely to say the invasion was wrong or to say it humiliated Iraq, and 12 percent of Shiites say attacks on coalition forces are acceptable, compared with 38 percent of Sunni Arabs. (That rises to 71 percent of Sunnis in Anbar province, which includes the city of Fallujah, a hotbed of the resistance.) [...]
In terms of al-Sadr, a bare 1 percent of Iraqis name him as the national leader they trust most. On Iran, just 3 percent name it as a model for Iraq in the coming years, and just 4 percent say it should play a role in rebuilding Iraq.
Sixty-nine percent of Shiites say "a government made up mainly of religious leaders" is something "Iraq needs at this time" (southern Shiites, especially, say so); that compares with 44 percent of Sunni Arabs. But more Shiites say Iraq needs a democracy or a single strong leader, and about as many say it needs a government of technocrats.
You expect the Left to head for the hills at the first sight of blood, but it has been terribly disappointing to see so many on the Right work themselves into a hysterical fit over the events of the past few days. Ignorance is to be expected, but their lack of patience is unbecoming. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2004 10:50 AM
Ah excuse me. Who on this site was wanting to run to the hills at the first site of blood?
I do recall someone saying that the US was overstaying their welcome, as it were.
Posted by: h-man at April 6, 2004 11:49 AMIt's not lack of patience. It's lack of nerve. People are prone to panic - it doesn't matter what political persuasion they hold.
You hold firm, crush the revolt, and then leave on time anyway. But you cannot allow this level of unlawfulness.
However, afterwards I think we need to do more to deprive these gang leaders of ready recruits from the unemployed. Put these people in make work projects. If they're busy and bringing money in for their family, they won't have time to do this kind of stuff and be lead by some turkey in a turban.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 6, 2004 11:58 AMh:
Yes, I've said all along--since before the war--that we should leave after winning. They don't need us. But now we're there until the deadline or else we look craven, even though it's counter-productive.
Posted by: oj at April 6, 2004 12:49 PMI love it when the same media that questions whether Iraq is ready or suitable for democracy relies on Iraqi public opinion polls as the basis of their analyses.
Posted by: Peter B at April 6, 2004 12:54 PMoj, I am glad you are clarifying your view on the issue. h-man beat me to the observation. So far, I give the Weekly Standard the award for articulating a sound and consistency view on the issue and the choices.
Posted by: MG at April 6, 2004 12:56 PMMG:
Unless it's changed recently, the Standard's position--that Iraq should be a permanent forward base and that we should stay just to show we're tough--is idiotic.
Posted by: oj at April 6, 2004 1:05 PMFor more than a year, the rightwing of the blogosphere has been predicting an imminent rebellion by the Shias.
Now they've got one, except, oops!, it's in favor of the mullahs and not against them.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 6, 2004 1:11 PMwho favored a rebellion by the Shias against the US? shias stand to lose power in this deal, of course they don't want the US to succeed.
Posted by: a at April 6, 2004 2:09 PMa:
That's not true at all. The Shi'a win as soon as we leave.
Posted by: oj at April 6, 2004 2:27 PMTrue, and that's why we shouldn't leave.
If the Shias had any sense -- obviously they don't -- they'd have waited till we drew down our forces. It wouldn't have to be to zero. We're on the knife's edge as it is for infantry.
Nothing happening yet leads me to change my opinion that Arabs are incapable of self-government.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 6, 2004 5:07 PMToo many people here seem to think that its "the Shi'a" who are revolting. Baloney. It's Sadr's circle of thugs and the usual suspects from Falluja. There's a decided difference. If OJ is correct and the Shi'a do take power, Sadr will not be involved. He has no standing outside his cult of personality among some of the lower class.
Posted by: Timothy at April 6, 2004 5:30 PMThe demand to be allowed to govern themselves seems a pretty good indicator, as does the fact that al Sistani has had a better handle on the constitutional questions than we have every step of the way.
Posted by: oj at April 6, 2004 7:30 PM