The People's Iraq Study Group

As of this morning, new polling data about American public opinion on Iraq is on the table. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), through its WorldPublicOpinion.org, has just released its post-election poll. It indicates that, on crucial issues, especially the matter of setting a timetable for withdrawal and the Bush administration's (in all but name) permanent bases in Iraq, American and Iraqi public opinion are remarkably similar: The Bush administration, as the election results indicated, is now distinctly a minority regime and Democrats are still lagging behind public opinion on Iraq, as is the media, as is James Baker's Iraq Study Group (ISG), which today releases its "consensus report" to the President.

The PIPA numbers indicate that, even if George W. Bush remains adamantly in his no-longer-mission-accomplished, but stay-until-the-mission-is-accomplished dream state, Americans have largely awoken. Yes, they do agree with the ISG recommendations by whopping proportions. Three out of four Americans (including 72 percent of Republicans), according to PIPA, believe that the US should be engaged in conversation and negotiation with Iran and Syria. They even more massively favor a major international conference on the Iraqi catastrophe; but those aren't actually the most interesting figures. Here are some:

In the poll, 54 percent of Americans believe that attacks on US forces are approved by half or more of all Iraqis; 66 percent (including a near majority of Republicans) believe that a majority of Iraqis oppose the establishment of permanent US bases in their country (only 28 percent disagree); and 68 percent--including a majority of Republicans--believe that we should not have such bases. This is an especially remarkable set of figures, given that permanent bases have received next to no attention in the American mainstream media.

Most important of all, given the arrival of the Iraq Study Group's "consensus" proposal for a "phased withdrawal" that is to begin without a timetable in sight, 58 percent of Americans, according to PIPA, want a withdrawal of all US troops on a timeline--18 percent within six months, 25 percent within a year, 15 percent within two years. Moreover, if the Iraqi government were to request such a withdrawal on a year's deadline, 77 percent of respondents (including 73 percent of Republicans) think we should take them up on it. In this they agree with the Iraqi public. As Middle Eastern expert Robert Dreyfuss wrote recently, "Polls have shown that up to 80 percent of Sunni Arabs and 60 percent of Shiite Arabs want an immediate end to the occupation."

These new numbers should act as a wake-up call. Without much help from anyone, politicians or the media, the American people, it seems, have formed their own Iraq Study Group and arrived at sanity well ahead of the elite and all the "wise men" in Washington.

On one other matter, Americans have reached a remarkable conclusion that you're not likely to find either in your local newspaper, on the nightly news, or in the ISG report. On the question, "Do you think the US military presence in Iraq is currently a stabilizing force or provoking more conflict than it is preventing?," only 35 percent opt for "stabilizing force," while 60 percent have reached the reasonable conclusion that American forces, rather than standing between Iraq and a hard place, are "provoking more conflict than [they are] preventing." Michael Schwartz argues just that case today in The Myth of More at Tomdispatch.com and offers a canny explanation of exactly why that is so.

Comments (42)

1. So, I'm confused. Is the argument here that foreign policy professionals are actually less capable of knowing what's going on in the world than the average population? I thought there was a reason that representative government and such existed.

   Posted by Thrawn at 12/06/2006 @ 08:54am

2. Well, somebody better let Speaker Nancy's new choice for the House Intell Chairman know...

   he's calling for MORE troops! [msnbc.msn.com]

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 08:54am

3. only 35 percent opt for "stabilizing force," while 60 percent have reached the reasonable conclusion that American forces, rather than standing between Iraq and a hard place, are "provoking more conflict than [they are] preventing."

   So the 35% are unreasonable??? interesting mantra...if you dont agree with us...you are crazy??

   As the ISG recommendations coincide with Iraqi own proclaimation that they will take over security next year...then what is the problem, this is what has been advocated all along.

   We have a consensus now as to the way forward. But that is not what i suspect the nation or its fans want.

   A withdrawal forthwith of all US forces and as we leave we must apologize present oursleves and kiss our own asses. (braveheart reference) This is what the nation wants.

   To go further, i think the ramifications would suit the Nation wirters just fine...an immediate withdrawal and the resulting spike in violence would be ok to them...it would justify their criticisms and allow those who genuinely hate the US to come into power.

   To the nation this is acceptable, merely because these factions would work to counter US "imperialism" throughout the region.

   If there is some other explanation, then i am open to them.

   I do not believe that the nation writers really believe that if we left...right now...that all the violence would subside.

   Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 11:17am

4. Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 11:17am

   Big surprise here. Another deadend Republican who insists that the only ones who can solve a problem are the numbskulls who created the problem, against all advice, and that it's critical for everyone to listen to them. I wonder how loudly you were clamoring for the minority to be heard in June of 2003 when you were busy creating the problem by being a good lemming.

   When, if ever, are you going to get a clue that the invasion of Iraq was a disatrous policy before it even happened, has only gone from bad to worse, and the only course of action your perpetrating dear leaders can come up with is "Let's just keep doing what intelligent people knew wouldn't work and hasn't, nor ever will."

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 11:31am

5. As the ISG recommendations coincide with Iraqi own proclaimation that they will take over security next year...then what is the problem, this is what has been advocated all along.

   The problem is believing that the Iraqi proclamation is anything more then wishful thinking.

   ...an immediate withdrawal and the resulting spike in violence would be ok to them...it would justify their criticisms and allow those who genuinely hate the US to come into power. ?

   McCarthyite drivel. Further, I think there's a serious questions as to how much violence would increase. There may very well be more Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence but there would be no Iraqi-vs.-US violence and I think it's iffy at best to predict the extent to which they would offset each other. Finally, Sadr generally hates the US and he is already in power.

   We have nothing of the kind

   Posted by brunowe at 12/06/2006 @ 11:40am

6. Tom, There is no such word as "awoken". Kate

   Posted by Kate Hunter at 12/06/2006 @ 11:41am

7. For those benighted souls who thought the Democratic Party was going to actually have a policy different than the Republican policy:

   Pelosi says the meeting highlighted that there are no easy answers to "the very difficult challenge" in Iraq, but she nonetheless stated her firm opposition to any funding cutoff:

   "Absolutely not," she said. "Let me remove all doubt in anyone's mind, as long as our troops are in harm's way, Democrats will be there to support them. But we will have oversight over that funding."

   Pelosi was responding to reporter's questions after Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich urged fellow Democrats to cut off funds for Iraq.

   "Why in the world would we want to appropriate an additional $130 billion? This would keep the U.S. in Iraq through mid-2008," he said.

   http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-12-05-voa59.cfm

   In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to "dismantle the militias."

   The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

   Time to wake up "liberals".

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 11:42am

8. :)

   Yes there do:

   Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 10th Edition

   Main Entry: 1awake Pronunciation: &-'wAk Function: verb Inflected Form(s): awoke /-'wOk /; also awaked /-'wAkt/; awo·ken /-'wO-k&n /; or awaked also awoke; awak·ing Etymology: Middle English awaken (from Old English awacan, onwacan, from 1a-, on + wacan to awake) & awakien, from Old English awacian, from 1a- + wacian to be awake -- more at WAKE intransitive verb 1 : to cease sleeping 2 : to become aroused or active again 3 : to become conscious or aware of something transitive verb 1 : to arouse from sleep or a sleeplike state 2 : to make active : stir up

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 11:48am

9. Sorry. Meant to say, "Yes there do be."

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 11:51am

10. So, I'm confused. Is the argument here that foreign policy professionals are actually less capable of knowing what's going on in the world than the average population? I thought there was a reason that representative government and such existed.

    Posted by THRAWN 12/06/2006 @ 08:54am

    The purpose of representative government is to provide a means to get rid of those who are unrepresentative. At this point in time that would be the Republicans and their partners, the Democrats.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 11:57am

11. "only 35 percent opt for "stabilizing force," while 60 percent have reached the reasonable conclusion that American forces, rather than standing between Iraq and a hard place, are "provoking more conflict than [they are] preventing." "

    Given the national press coverage I am surprised that it is only 60%.

    The people I talk with, who have come back from Iraq say they can't believe the press coverage we are seeing here. I am left wondering why the soilders see a different situation than we are on TV.

    AS far as retired generals and advisors to the media . I discount their point heavily, for if they were in the real know, they would be in the pentagon and not on MSNBC.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/06/2006 @ 12:00pm

12. For those benighted souls who thought the Democratic Party was going to actually have a policy different than the Republican policy:

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/06/2006 @ 11:42am

    THIS ...from the same guy who almost exactly one month ago today was cheering that Republicans had LOST!, but now says it "doesn't matter"!

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 12:09pm

13. Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 11:17am

    CPT, curious....if somebody says we are "losing in Iraq"...

    would you think they were "on the Left"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 12:10pm

14. AS far as retired generals and advisors to the media . I discount their point heavily, for if they were in the real know, they would be in the pentagon and not on MSNBC.

    Oh, please. They aren't in the Pentagon because they are retired. That hardly makes their expertise something to be discounted. Further, they are arguably a more independent voice then anyone in the Pentagon can be.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/06/2006 @ 12:17pm

15. Kate Hunter - main entry - (1) to correct incorrectly, slang - to know shit, (2) to incorrectly correct, slang - to not know shit

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/06/2006 @ 12:27pm

16. "The people I talk with, who have come back from Iraq say they can't believe the press coverage we are seeing here"

    "AS far as retired generals and advisors to the media . I discount their point heavily, for if they were in the real know, they would be in the pentagon and not on MSNBC"-MAASCH

    Which is it John? Listen to the people that have been there, or ignore the people that have been there? And blame the media, usual lack of taking responsibility for ones actions. Supporting a failed war.

    We are not winning, but nor are we losing. Hogwash. We are losing, because of incompetent civilian leadership. Bob gates and the ISG are going to do nothing to quell an ivil-cay ar-way.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 12:31pm

17. Democracies will not support a drawn out armed conflict. Another history lesson lost on Chimpy and posse.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 12:34pm

18. MASK

    Are you referring to Gates????

    The incoming SECDEF has not been to Iraq...nor has he ever talked to GEN Abzaid or Casey. Or any other subordinate commmander at length on the subject.

    So i am not surprised he holds that view.....it is not an informed one.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 12:43pm

19. BRUNOWE

    Truth hurts? If you have a better explanation...then lets hear it.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 12:44pm

20. CRABWALK

    Hogwash??!?

    The 4 star CENTCOM commander, who is after all responsible for the war in his area of operations...vehemently disagrees with you. He does deal with it EVERYDAY...18 hour days, he lives, breathes and sleeps the war....24/7 365 a year.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 12:47pm

21. So i am not surprised he holds that view.....it is not an informed one.

    Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 12:43am

    Our new SECDEF is uninformed and clueless. Cute.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 12:50pm

22. So i am not surprised he holds that view.....it is not an informed one.

    Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 12:43am |

    CPT....do you realize how INSANE this is?

    So Robert Gates is NOT qualified to be Secretary of Defense.....uh...and he's the guy GEORGE W. BUSH chose to be his Secretary of Defense?!??!?!?!

    But you support Bush's policy in Iraq?

    Okay, so why is Bush right about Iraq...but wrong about Gates?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 12:51pm

23. BRUNOWE

    Posted by BRUNOWE 12/06/2006 @ 12:17am | ignore this person

    But GEN Franks is not one of those independent voices because he is pro-Bush...right?

    Yet you discount all those guys like him and Gen Myers and others.

    Those "retired" generals, all came out, after they had learned that they were NOT getting promoted. Eaton, Batiste?

    But i guess they are purely objective...right.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 12:52pm

24. The incoming SECDEF has not been to Iraq...nor has he ever talked to GEN Abzaid or Casey. Or any other subordinate commmander at length on the subject.

    So i am not surprised he holds that view.....it is not an informed one.

    Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 12:43am

    Geography equals wisdom? That's a jewel. Explains why everything is just ducky in the Middle East.

    CPT, the military brass know they will be expunged if they seriously diverge from the Bush admin's bonehead policies.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/06/2006 @ 12:53pm

25. If i am following Caps logic here, The Generals have been in iraq from the get go. chimpy has been listening to them. The results are poor. What we need is for the POTUS to LISTEN to The Generals. Not the ones that have returned, but the ones that remain. Why is it that when they retire they say Chimp has not been paying attention?

    Some one(s) screwed up. It was either the civilians or the brass. Not the media, not the anti-war crowd.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 12:56pm

26. RED, wisdom? Belly laugh. Wisdom is not a word to be associated with the Bush Doctrine.

    Wisdom.

    hhehehe.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 12:58pm

27. MASK

    Do you realize that he has YET to be briefed , in detail, by GEN Abizad or GEN Casey?

    Yes he was picked by Bush...great...but pouncing on every utterance or flashed headline does not mean he is correct.

    I am not saying he is wrong on Gates...i am saying Gates opinion is wrong and not wholly informed.

    The level of details that GEN Abizaid and Casey have command of on Iraq, pales in comparison to Gates...now he will undoubtedly be brought up to speed.

    So he may be politicking with Senators...look how the media ate up that comment.

    look at the nation website...FLASH!!!!! GATES SAYS WE ARE NOT WINNING. Stop

    He said alot more than that, ultimately GENERALS Abizad and Casey are the authoritative sources here.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 1:01pm

28. FROMREDBIRD

    You defending American military officers, especially highly placed and well compensated generals in retirement is truly remarkable.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 1:03pm

29. CRABWALK

    Study history and military history...you will discover all the very complex variables that compromise warfare. and how things are ALWAYS screwed up.

    Show me a war were everything went to according to plan....you cannot find ONE.

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 1:05pm

30. FROMREDBIRD

    What is it that would satisfy you and like-minded individuals as yourself?

    An withdrawal forwith? without regrad to the effects?

    Posted by CPT at 12/06/2006 @ 1:10pm

31. Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 1:01pm

    Let met get that straight....

    Robert Gates is going to be confirmed, take a limo ride down to the Pentagon, get briefed, and come out the next day and say "Nope, sorry folks, I was wrong...we are WINNING in Iraq".

    That your theory???

    Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 1:56pm

32. ...an immediate withdrawal and the resulting spike in violence would be ok to them...it would justify their criticisms and allow those who genuinely hate the US to come into power. ?

    Truth hurts? If you have a better explanation...then lets hear it.

    Yes, it's a shame that you haven't offered any. The majority of Americans and Iraqis are opposed to the continued American presence in Iraq because it hasn't been a constructive force. Since the overwhelming majority of anti-US insurgency are Iraqis, it does nothing to further the fight against international Islamist militant groups. It hasn't prevented Iraq from sliding into a civil war and the resulting increase in violence (there's your spike in violence!)

    Since you can't establish that any increase in inter-Iraqi violence would offset the elimination of Iraqi-US violence, you can't substantiate that there would be a spike in violence overall and certainly can't substantiate that such an increase would be okay with those opposed to continuing the US occupation of Iraq.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/06/2006 @ 2:43pm

33. Show me a war were everything went to according to plan....you cannot find ONE.

    Show me that what is going on in Iraq--a dysfunctional government that has no real authority outside the Green Zone and a hydra-headed civil war that could result in a de facto partition of the country are anywhere close to the plan. This isn't just a cse of a battle plan not surviving contact with the enemy.

    Posted by brunowe at 12/06/2006 @ 2:46pm

34. I have to chime in here to call CPT on the obvious problem with his little defense of the military status quo. He cites Abizaid and Casey as authoritative sources and accuses all of the retired generals of bias (as he does anyone else who criticizes the U.S. military effort.) But what of the biases of Abizaid and Casey? They are the men (along with Tommy Franks) directly responsible for the conduct of the war and occupation. Are they likely to criticize its conduct? Are they going to come out and say "our policies and strategies have been a dismal failure"? It stretches the bounds of credulity to think that they would. Like Westmoreland in Vietnam they will stick to their conduct to the end regardless of evidence because to do otherwise means to admit their own failure. As you say CPT, Abizaid is the man who lives the war 24/7 365, which means if it is a failure then so is he. No general in charge is going to admit to that. I put my trust in the analysis of those who have achieved independence and now have no direct stake in the outcome. I also put my trust in the analysts who have been on the outside from the beginning, since their only interest is in effective and realistic analysis. I put my trust in my own expert analysis, since good data is not exactly hard to come by and everything I see says that Abizaid and Casey are at best deluding themselves. Wake up and smell the failure CPT. It's a rank scent, but it will do you good in the long run because it will wake you up to what must be done.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/06/2006 @ 3:23pm

35. FROMREDBIRD

    You defending American military officers, especially highly placed and well compensated generals in retirement is truly remarkable.

    Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 1:03pm

    The more interesting question, CPT, is what are you . . . lowly placed, undercompensated, and fighting your ass off on the internet?

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/07/2006 @ 02:33am

36. Get a clue finally, CPT. You and your boneheaded, mulebrained Republican leaders have f***** up America.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/07/2006 @ 02:35am

37. We need to get out of Iraq now. The lives that have already been lost there are not honored by further sacrifice. Our soldiers are in an unwinnable situation and deserve to be more than pawns in Bush's quest to re-spin his failed foreign policies (and presidency).The safety of our soldiers outweighs any value in providing a graceful exit for GW and company.

    Posted by debbi at 12/07/2006 @ 07:08am

38. Posted by debbi at 12/07/2006 @ 07:09am

39. Show me a war were everything went to according to plan....you cannot find ONE.

    I'll show you a war where NOTHING has gone according to plan. CP you are nothing but a shill for the disaster that is Iraq. too bad you're not on the front.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 11:10am

40. What is it that would satisfy you and like-minded individuals as yourself?

    An invasion forthwith? without regard to the effects?

    Posted by CPT 12/06/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

    if this had been asked in 2002?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 1:36pm

41. Show me a war were everything went to according to plan....you cannot find ONE.

    I can. WW2. one plan was to defeat Japan. mission accomplished. another plan was to defeat Germany, mission accomplished. a fake military man such as you fails to distinguish between strategy and tactics.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 2:24pm

42. It's funny how people defend defeat in every particular as no plan coming off perfectly. And, unless the plan included a major objective priority to get a shitload of Iraqis and US troops killed and injured, this plan has met no major objectives.

    Posted by brantl at 12/08/2006 @ 07:31am