Will the McCain Nomination Kill More Iraqis and Americans?
Primary tabs
Last September 10, as David Petraeus was giving Congress a rosy evaluation of the situation in Iraq, a poll of Iraqi public opinion was released that belied Petraeus’ reporting. The poll received little attention amid the media’s love-fest for David Petraeus. But the findings of the poll should send shivers down the spine of anyone concerned with the lives of Iraqis and American in Iraq.
The poll (conducted in August 2007) found increasing resistance to the occupation, especially when compared to Iraqi public opinion polling from five months earlier (March 2007). Among the poll's findings:
63% overall felt that the “invasion was wrong” (up 11%)
47% overall advocated immediate withdrawal (“coalition forces should leave now”) (up 12%)
79% overall “oppose the presence of coalition forces” (up 1%)
57% overall agreed that “attacks on coalition forces” are acceptable (up 6%)
And while these numbers have always been high within the Sunni community, the Shiite majority is growing increasingly impatient with the occupation.
51% of Shiites felt that the “invasion was wrong” (up 21%)
44% of Shiites advocated immediate withdrawal (“coalition forces should leave now”) (up 16%)
84% of Shiites “oppose the presence of coalition forces” (up 1%)
50% of Shiites agreed that “attacks on coalition forces” are acceptable (up 15%)
There can be little doubt that the patience of the Iraqi people, especially the Shiite majority, is wearing thin – and that the biggest reason for the reduction in US casualties in Iraq is the willingness of Shiites to stand down to give the surge time to work.
There is also little doubt that the Shiite leadership is watching the US elections to determine whether the US will withdrawal its troops under a new President. Thus the nomination of John McCain, who shows no willingness to withdraw troops, and has a stated commitment to a permanent US presence in Iraq (a position supported by less than 1% of Iraqis overall – and only 2% of Kurds), is likely to result in more attacks on US troops, and more casualties for both Americans and Iraqis. Indeed, its highly likely that McCain remains ahead in general election polling, that violence against US forces will increase even more the closer we get to the election – and that a McCain general election victory would result in an all-out war against the occupation, a Sunni-Shiite civil war that will devolve into a regional conflict, and a “failed state” in Iraq.
- Paul_Lukasiak's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
anyone who in any way questions or opposes the occupation/war
can not seriously consider voting for any republican, esp in the office of president, at this point. while some republicans may peep the occasional drawling hesistation in the rush to kill all the brown people and spend the treasury dry, most continue to vote "yes" to endless occupation/war. that's a simple matter of fact.
the trick seems to be getting republican voters to admit that, like the DFHs, they too want an end to what is effectively a pointless and expensive waste of our military. there, i think i hit all the winger subliminals.
but their programming goes deep and the SCLM is no better than at any other time in the bush imperium. i confess i don't really understand why it is supposed that republicans are rejecting mccain because he's failing to motivate the fundies. i guess i can see that, but i also have deep reserve about how well mr. 100 years of war is going to truly appeal to the moderates this time around. indeed, it surprises me that the candidates with the most socially conservative messages aren't doing better (and perhaps they are). i can see establishment middle class republicans getting down with any socially conservative hooha if it meant a return to an economy where they had a decent profit margin at their small business/franchise shop. i guess the truly socially conservative candidates were just as inauthentic as our "liberal'"ones can be, and couldn't find a way to actually triangulate to victory by applying those aspects of socially conservative thought which grant a graceful exit from war.
sunni
I would it would be the same, the surge , well still ineffective in the number of dead daily. sunni or latter
Yes.
A McCain victory will kill many more.
One of my objections to Obama is his predilection for more troops into Iraq, and his refusal to rule out an attack on Iran.
The US Military is as busted as W's wings, and refusing to acknowledge that bustedness is one of the most dangerous acts of denial imaginable.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
Yes, but it's a cost of doing business
Admitting failure is thought to be the mark of a loser. With campaigns built around the idea of projecting success, the powerless have no advocates in the Presidential race.
The dead US soldiers exist only to the extent they can be used as symbols. The true number of Iraqi dead is rarely mentioned, they are an embarrassment. For the War Party, the higher US body count is presented as proof that "Islamo-fascism" exists. As a way to appeal to the "Independent" voter, the Dems promote the idea of the noble soldier, fighting a just war, betrayed by incompetent leadership. Neither view has a damn thing to do with the reality of Iraq.
If there were electoral gains in decrying the numbers of dead, Clinton/Obama would be falling over one another to bash Bush/McCain with the brutal truth of Iraq.
1,173,743 Iraqi dead
3.8 million Iraqi refugees
3952 Coalition casualties
Since they have no domestic political constituency, the people of Iraq will stay under the boot. Our soldiers are going to suffer along with them. Scott Ritter has an excellent piece in TruthDig:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2008...
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/co...
http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/45c31e534...
http://icasualties.org/oif/
it's more than 4K
"coalition" casualties, that is. sorry, i can't back that up with links. but i'm confident that in ten years, i will.
it's more than 4K. way more. "casualties" is a broad category, as it should be. we've sacrificed many more than a few thousand, in terms of the human (american military) cost. way more.
Yes, it would've been a good idea....
to include some links to the other uncounted dead.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/19/a...
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11114
Searching for "Uncounted Iraq War Casualties" turned up plenty of others.
The point I was trying to make to the original poster was that both parties can safely ignore the big pile of bodies, and so they will.