"51% Oppose presence of Coalition Forces but only:"

this is a bit misleading because your following figures declare that

85% says that we should remain there now.
90% says we need to remain longer than 6 months
92% says we need too stay longer than a few months.

but what i see also is the fact that they trust us to help them now and that we are no longer perceived as an occupation force by the Iraqi people. and if true then we should not tolerate those who would proclaim that we are an occupation force.

The poll asks:

How long should coalition forces remain?

Until Iraq gov’t is in place 36%
Until security is restored 18%
Leave now 15%
Six months or more 10%
Few months 8%

Point being while they may not like a foreign military in country, they prefer it to the alternative: all hell breaking loose.

ok,,i see where my enthusiasm over rode my logic. i guess what i was getting at was that these polls do not support the position of the left. and wasn't this exact poll taken earlier too? if so, how do they compare?

"occupation force" is framing done by the extreme anti-military faction of our country and the world -- and often prominent dems use this term so they can retain their patronship ( mainly for the polls and votes). Usually this group is the one that will constantly reiterate that the war in Iraq is “hell on earth.” However, once you get to know them and they open up – the truth comes out. The war takes money away from potential domestic welfare programs. In this light, one can speculate or even deduce that they hate the helping Iraqi project because of the amount of funding, not because they are anti-war. When Saddam H. was shooting at the no-fly zone UN sponsored air reconnaissance in later 1998, Clinton made a war called Operation desert Fox against Saddam. No-one protested because it did not cost that much. Vietnam and WWII cost a lot of money, and current anti-war talk is all about the economy and how much this project of help ( they call is occupation force and troops that are there for torture and racism purposes) could eventual cost.

When are those damn sabers going to be torn down?

Well, the Iraqi leaders on the ground in Baghdad do not want us to go. 'Frank' in the text quoted below is the Battalion Commander of 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment operating in Doora, eastern Baghdad. My unit settled that area in 2003 - one of the toughest, most demographically complex in the country.

Sipping tea, Frank and one of his company commanders, Captain Brian Ducote, listened to the litany of local concerns and complaints about unfulfilled promises of funding from the Iraqi government. They also heard about the delicate - and potentially volatile - process of moving families displaced by war and sectarian hatred back into homes that had, in some cases, been taken over by members of rival sects.

Frank, 40, who hails from upstate New York, nodded his head as he jotted notes on the pad he always carries. He has been part of scores of sessions like this, as much a part of his job as directing armed power at the remaining nests of insurgent incorrigibles. Toward the end of the long meeting, a reporter traveling with the unit asked the local leaders whether the gains on the ground will outlive the surge.

The word came back without hesitation or uncertainty:

"No," said the Shi'ite tribal chief, Sheikh Talib al-Rabei, who serves as chairman of the local 10-member reconciliation committee.

"No," said his Sunni counterpart, Fuad Ali Hussein, a former colonel in the military under Saddam Hussein who is now an imam at a mosque.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/16/can_it_hold/?page=2

CalPatriot, good points - far from being an occupation force, we are a security force serving at the invitation of the Government of Iraq.

calppatriot,

i agree. but the next time one of them uses this argument ask them this question; what makes them think that this moneys would have been available to them to spend on these programs? remember this money would have been needed to be appropriated over and above the money already budgeted for welfare programs.

The Griper:
"what makes them think that this moneys would have been available to them to spend on these programs?"

Actually that is racist view and not the view of the original socialist democrat – F.D.R. who on Jan, 6th 1941 ( to the 77th US Congress) declared everyone in the world has the same rights to freedoms ( including economic) as American. So why would the current democrats believe that funding domestic welfare for us democrats comes before providing money for basic foodstuff, housing and basic electricity for people in need in other countries? That is a nationalistic view, and the same charge against the republicans. The dems say: “oh the republicans as nationalists and care not about the starving people of the world – there only for the rich. “ Now bush is actually helping poor people in other countries and the standard of living is decreasing ( ever so slightly) in the US and the Democrats are all up in arms about it. What Bush is actually doing is reacting to Fahrenheit 9/11 by spending US money not on wealthy dems – who all live better standards of living then everyone else in the world, but on people who have no homes, electricity and water programs. In this way, he is pissing them off big time – that is why they say he is the worst US president – until the next Republican pres comes along and they call them that.

When the dems decry that the economy sucks because money is spent on the war, what they do not know or say is that much of that money is for bettering the Iraqi lives – and that explains why there is support for the American effort and Al-Qaeda has been pushed out in a large part-- because it comes down to living in dignity. The Dems cry working too hard - they know the USA has a lot of money and that if one taxes the rich the US gov can spend it on the lower middle class and poor so they can live even better than now and have been living better than most people in the world. In affect – greedy.

She's a bit confused about what the "Red Zone" is: it's the rest of Baghdad, outside the IZ. Most of it is as placid as where she's standing, now.

J;
the sheiks are wrong. (Remember, there are others who disagree, and therefore not all sheiks are always right, right?) The Surge encompasses the huge buildup of ISF forces, and the "cleansing" of sectarian moles and subversives. This is a multi-year project. As far as the specific timing of the drawdown to the summer months, I'll guarantee you there will be no backsliding. Petraeus has things much better in hand than you can possibly imagine or admit.

CalPatriot;
As %GNP, the total current expenditures are LOWER than many peacetime years in the 90s, etc. They should be much higher, to keep the military from eating its equipment seed corn, so to speak; there's a lot of replacement being deferred which should receive urgent funding.

And commanders in Iraq should be supported fully in their local expenditures; as one said, "Money is munitions". It saves multiples more in avoided combat losses than it costs.

I'm as pleased by these numbers as anyone, but the link to the ABC Poll dates this as a 2004 report...

Do you have any numbers on how Iraqi's feel now? I imagine they still want us around, due to the fact that our leaving would more than likely result in a bloodbath, but do you have something a bit more up-to-date?

Why is a poll from 2004 news?

I'm unsure about that date, but the original date is current, 2008. It cites "a year ago" being 2007.

I'll do a recheck on the poll.

Here is the 2008 poll.

The numbers still look pretty good...

...not as good as the 2004 poll, but you have to look at what the Shiites and Kurds are saying, especially about the future of Iraq, to get a sense of the direction we're headed.

Johnny, that's funny that you say we are a "security force serving at the invitation of the Government of Iraq." Yeah, I'm sure the Government of Iraq would be quick to send us packing when they're getting so much money from us!

I recall in my college journalism classes always being told to "follow the money" and that will take you to the heart of most stories...

I also find it interesting how the right suddenly wants to cite polls from the Iraqis as evidence we need to remain in Iraq. What if polls in Africa show that they want our assistance...should we send troops in tomorrow? Is America now at the mercy of opinion polls from Iraqis? We're suppose to stay there until the Iraqis say it's OK for us to go? Last I checked it was the UNITED STATES Military fighting in Iraq. I am a US citizen and somehow I think MY opinion should hold a bit more weight than an Iraqi...

"Monday, March 15, 2004"

How dare you pawn this off as if it was happening on the "5th anniversary?"

The orginal link has been updated.

In my defense, the ABC website says:

This poll was conducted for ABCNEWS, ARD, the BBC and NHK by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England. Interviews were conducted in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 2,737 Iraqis age 15 and up from Feb. 9-28. The results have a two-point error margin.

Previous ABCNEWS polls can be found in our Poll Vault.

Click here for a PDF version, including a full questionnaire.

Click here for a PDF file on the survey methodology.

The PDF version takes you to the 2004 poll, for some reason.