Redstate

Here's an idea--let's ask the Iraqis!

By AcademicElephant Posted in 4th Anniversary | War — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The "Life-was-Better-for-Iraqis-under-Saddam" theme has been gathering strength as of late; of course it always does when the grim anniversary on the invasion draws near. And Monday marks four years since we went in. Just to review, consensus opinion holds that Iraq is consumed by a civil war that makes the "brutal stability" of Saddam seem a preferable option. And women were better off with Saddam. Children too. Not to mention gay Iraqis. Health care was better. As one crack analyst put it, "Pretty much all you had to do in Saddam's Iraq was shut the hell up and mind your own business"--et voila! Before those pesky sanctions, the economy boomed and the people were happy (or rather they knew their place--at least they should have if they knew what was good for them, as this author clearly does). Even the oracular Hans Blix says so. Oh, and the sainted Kofi Annan.

There's lots more here.

Read on...

In the face of all this certainty, it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that even giving the levels of violence in the capital, Saddam's Iraq was not a haven of tolerance for gays and religious minorities, nor was it a model of progressive care for women and children. It was not a utopia of economic opportunity and prosperity. And those who so loudly and self-righteously trumpet their constitutionally-mandated freedoms here in the US might reflect that "shutting up" is a pretty high price to pay, even to live in the paradise that was Saddam's Iraq.

Of course, that's just my opinion. Everyone has an opinion. But maybe we should ask the Iraqis?

Luckily for us, an independent British polling company did just that. They deployed 400 employees to interview 5000 Iraqis on a range of subjects. Some of the results are not surprising, given what we see on the news everyday. Iraq is a violent place, and murder and kidnapping are a huge concern for many. But, even so, the survey came back with some other results that seem to fly in the face of the "Iraq-was-better-under-Saddam" crowd:

But 49 per cent of those questioned preferred life under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to living under Saddam, while 26 per cent said things were better in Saddam's era, 16 per cent said they were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in the statistics: Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba'ath Party regime (51 per cent) while the Shi'ites (66 per cent) preferred the Maliki Government.

Mr Maliki, who gets much of his support from hardline Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army, has begun to address criticism that his Government favours the Shi'ites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders.

The poll shows a marked increase in support for Mr Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September found only 29 per cent of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the Prime Minister.

A surprise was that only 27 per cent believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41 per cent of Sunnis believing Iraq was in civil war, while 15 per cent of Shi'ites thought things were that bad.

That is a surprise. But we should probably take note, because with all due respect to Matt Lauer, wouldn't the Iraqis know better than he if they were in a civil war? I wonder of some Iraqis participating in earlier polls over there that fueled Saddam-nostalgia over here reflexively shaded their answers in favor of a violent tyrant who might yet return to power, especially if the Americans were to lose heart and leave. After all, Saddam survivors might feel that you never know for sure who's asking, or what they're really trying to find out. Now that Saddam is truly gone--and as gruesome as those photographs were, they do demonstrate the finality of his execution--a post-Saddam Iraq may be a more conceivable reality. Or perhaps it's even more simple, and the majority of Iraqis are realizing that the difficult battle waged over the last year is emerging as a success, not a failure. It follows that their lives can be better now. The future may well be bright--why waste time on a civil war?

Of course, if you really want to, you can still tease a negative headline out of this data, as Susan Page of USAToday demonstrates with "Poll: Most Iraqis live in fear of violence 4 years after invasion." But as the train that is the new Iraq starts to pull out of the station, Ms. Page and her defeatist cohorts might find themselves, like the Iraqis who would prefer Saddam, in a dwindling minority.