Karen, I figure that the picture painted is somewhat close to reality. John Zoghby is a Palestinian/American and fairly responsible. He is also a pollster who speaks Arabic and would understand the sampling frame needed and the types of sampling errors that would be prone to occur. I used to know his brother quite well [Jamal/James] and have met and talked with John.
Bill On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:38:29 -0700 "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Harry, this is indeed interesting. But given it comes from American > Enterprise Institute, even the Zogby name attached to it becomes > suspect. If > the WSJ had partnered with the Wilson Institute, for example, it > would > present a more balanced inclination. Since Bush2 desperately needs > good > news from Iraq, skeptics must exercise the eyebrow here and hold > this at > length for awhile. > > David Brooks wrote in sympathy to this idea, however, in today's > NYT, also > citing the Zogby poll. See Caught in the Iraqi Dramatics @ > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/opinion/23BROO.html?hp > > Much remains to be done; all is not lost, except for America's > credibility > and two generations' worth of savings and hard work down the drain. > As has > been said, the other night when the President spoke to the nation > and > attached an $87 Billion price tag to the misadventures in the > desert, those > who will be paying for it had already been sent to bed by their > parents. > > Adding insult to injury, by obligating ourselves to this misbegotten > foreign > policy whirlpool, we will lose debt reduction momentum, fall further > behind > on our own infrastructure needs, including education investments in > K-12 and > college. The cost of war in not being able to address the real and > future > problems at home? Priceless. We can not do this alone, it is > foolish to > try to do so. Yet, witness today's events. > > I'm going to rant here. If Bush had instead addressed himself > seriously to > the problems in Israel and Palestine after 9/11 instead of fools > gold in > Baghdad, there might have been more progress towards lasting peace > there and > defused anti-Americanism in the Middle East. What was the harm in > trying? > But that is not what the Oil Aristocracy and Christian Zionists > embedded in > Bush2 want, a lasting solution of peace in Israel. The CZ's don't > want a > truce or peace, they want a complete conquest by Israel so that the > Second > Coming can happen, and the Likudists are glad to oblige them in > this > zealotry. The Oil Aristocracy wants full control of the Iraq > region, or as > others have said, exercising "compassionate colonization". In the > meantime, > let the military industrial complex thrive with our > technological-weaponry > links to Israel since we have been investing in their economy > forever. > > Here are a few items to consider from something I posted elsewhere a > few > weeks ago: > > The Wall Street Journal joins the NYT and other major newspapers > presenting > the details that the public has the right to know. It's about > time. > Transcribed from The Oregonian, News Focus page A6, September 10, > 2003: > > Adding up the costs of the Iraq war > > Military operations: $65.5 billion which includes: > Comparisons > $51 B for Iraq, $11 B for Afghanistan, including: Within the > federal budget > the $87 B is equivalent to: > $32.3 B for "operating tempo" or the pace of the operation in terms > of > equipment usage 4 % of the proposed budget for the 2004 FY > $18.5 B in military personnel costs 11 % of proposed > discretionary spending > $1.9 B for new and replacement equipment 20 % of nonmilitary > discretionary > spending > Iraq reconstruction: $20.3 Billion 163 % of discretionary > spending on > education > $5 B for security, including: > $2.1 B for the new Iraqi army and civilian defense > corps Other wars and > post-conflict efforts:* > $2.1 B for border enforcement, police, fire and > customs Marshall Plan: $100 > billion > $15 B for infrastructure, including: Postwar Japan: $19 > billion > $6.0 B for electric power World War 2: $4.9 trillion > $3.7 B for water and sewage Vietnam: $600 billion > $2.1 B for oil 1991 Persian Gulf War: $84 billion > $800 M for transportation and communications > US share: > $6.4 billion > $500 M for housing, public buildings, roads and > bridges Kosovo (to date): $9 > billion > Afghanistan reconstruction: $800 million > * Figures are approximate and adjusted for inflation.[PARA]Sources: > White > House, Congressional Research Service, Coalition Provision Authority > and > Defense Dept documents provided by congressional sources. > New > York Times News Service > > Paying the bills: > Some of the monthly costs of peacekeeping, rebuilding and running > Iraq, in > millions of dollars* > > Keeping 129,000 troops in Iraq $3,900 > Food aid $200 > Iraqi salaries and pensions $190 > Operations of Iraq's ministries $143 > Oil-field work $141 > Capital improvements of Iraq's ministries $101 > US-funded contractors $100 > * Figures are for 2003 only and include funds from US > appropriations, Iraqi > oil reserve and seized assets. > Sources: Pentagon, Coalition Provisional Authority, The Wall Street > Journal > > Oil Reserves: forecasts were based on conservative exports, prices > Salem Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council's finance > committee, > says the pessimistic formulations for oil revenue now expressed by > Iraqi > officials in Baghdad are based on conservative assumptions about > export > levels and prices. > The officials say revenue could amount to as little as $7B instead > of the > $12B to $14B hoped for by some in the US coalition. Meanwhile, Iraq > could > need as much as $20B for reconstruction. > Coalition officials continue to struggle to boost Iraq's oil > exports, its > only real domestic source of revenue. But despite progress this > summer, > Iraqi and American engineers are still well behind meeting > expectations > raised immediately after the war. At current export rates, Iraq may > have > trouble making forecast oil revenue of some $3.45B for the second > half of > this year. > Current production capacity stands at about 1.8 million barrels a > day, down > from about 2.5 million before the war. With domestic consumption at > about > 500,000 barrels a day, about 1.3 million barrels should be available > for > export each day. But the pipeline in Iraq's northern fields, which > pumped > about 40% of the country's oil before the war, has bottled up output > there. > Meanwhile, erratic power has showed exports from Iraq's southern > fields in > recent weeks. > Things have improved since earlier this summer, when exports were > essentially nonexistent. In August, initial data suggested exports > of as > much as 600,000 to 800,000 barrels a day. But to make the high end > of > coalition estimates for oil revenue in 2004, Iraq will have to boost > average > exports for the year to 1.5 million barrels a day and realize an > optimistic > price of $25 a barrel. Most analysts expect crude oil prices to > fall from > currently lofty levels near $30 a barrel, especially if Iraq > increases > output. > That sort of export level appears difficult to achieve, especially > after > recent attacks against the oil infrastructure. A large explosion > ripped > through a crucial pipeline that links Iraq's northern fields with > the > Mediterranean just days after the line started pumping again. Other > explosions along the pipeline, all blamed on sabotage, have clouded > repair > estimates. > The Pentagon already has spent about $705 million on oil field > repairs, part > of $1.14 billion committ4ed through March. The US point man for > Iraqi oil, > Philip Carroll, said final costs could be higher. "I'm not going to > be > surprised if there's some creep," Carroll said in a recent > interview. > Just keeping oil field going is expensive. One extensive report > prepared > before the war estimated the Iraqi Oil Ministry's annual expenses, > including > maintenance, operating costs and administrative overhead, could > total about > $3B a year. > Even with optimistic forecasts, expected oil revenue won't be able > to cover > these costs and other larger reconstruction commitments at the same > time, > analysts warn. - The Wall Street Journal > > See Costs of War @ http://www.costofwar.com/ > See Congressional Quarterly @ www.cq.com for growing lack of > support by GOP > lawmakers for the Iraq war > > WHAT IRAQIS REALLY THINK > By Karl Zinsmeister > > ARTICLES - Wall Street Journal, Publication Date: September 10, > 2003 > > > America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not > knowing > much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of > radical > Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their > attitude > toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another > Iran > under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real > problem? > > Up to now we've only been able to guess. We've relied on anecdotal > temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy > of > images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists > have a > bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school > blowing > up is a weeklong feeding frenzy. And some of us who have spent time > recently in Iraq--I was an embedded reporter during the war--have > been > puzzled by the postwar news and media imagery, which is much more > negative > than what many individuals involved in reconstructing Iraq have > been > telling us. > > Well, finally we have some evidence of where the truth may lie. > Working > with Zogby International survey researchers, The American > Enterprise > magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi > public. Given > the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems > delayed our > intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful > translations, > regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results > would > accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering > people. > We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit > honest > answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments. > > Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, > but it > reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as > captured in > four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 > million > people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk > (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a > resistance > hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi > public is > more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that > Iraq > is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all. > Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country > and > their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both > fronts, 32 > percent say things will become much better. > > The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to > 1, > will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. > Asked > which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in > Iraq," or > "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said > democracy > is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four > out of > 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting > divergences. > Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, > critically, the > majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for > Iraqis as > not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other > Iraqis, > and women are significantly more positive than men. > > Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its > new > government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; > neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist > republic > Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by > far was > the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37 percent of Iraqis > selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put > together. > Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28 percent. Again, there were > important > demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward > the > U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, > Iraqi > Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's > Islamist > government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model > for > governance. > > Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic > government, > or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33 > percent want > an Islamic government; a solid 60 percent say no. A vital detail: > Shiites > (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating > maniacs) > are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no > by 66 > percent to 27 percent. It is only among the minority Sunnis that > there is > interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the > question. > > Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be > part > of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how > often > our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous > month. > Fully 43 percent said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" > from the > list of morbid fears. > > You can also cross out "Osama II": 57 percent of Iraqis with an > opinion > have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41 percent of > those > saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on > him.) > Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists > for bin > Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda > supremo are > actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those > opinions > were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members > who > killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf. > > And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked > "Should > Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or > should > past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi > public > stated by 74 percent to 18 percent that Saddam's henchmen should be > punished. > > This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is > manageable. If > the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside > the > country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is > already > happening), then the mass of citizens living along the > Tigris-Euphrates > Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new > freedom. "We > will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from > Saddam," > said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last > month--and our > research shows that he's not unrepresentative. > > None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. > Inchoate > anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they > thought the > U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50 percent > to 36 > percent they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; > Iraqis > have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) > flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why > women > (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as > especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though > U.S. > forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I > illustrate > with firsthand examples in my book about the battles. > > Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in > our poll. > Less than 30 percent of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone > killed > in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family > member, > neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces > during the > years Saddam held power. > > Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with > America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they > would like > to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six > months? One > year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged > that the > coalition troops should stick around for at least another year. > > We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in > there, > America. > > Karl Zinsmeister is editor in chief of The American Enterprise > magazine and > holder of the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise > Institute. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
