Iraqis: What Civil War?

There's been a wave of poll results out of Iraq in the last few days, including findings that may have surprised some Western readers. Let me try to offer some context for these findings, especially the continuing issue of whether Iraqis think their country is engaged in a civil war.

Over the weekend, the Times of London reported that in a poll of more than 5,000 Iraqis, "Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month."

Given that much of the Iraq debate in the U.S. is founded on the notion that there is indeed a civil war in the country, and that the U.S. is stuck in the middle of it (the U.S. is "babysitting" Iraq's civil war, in Barack Obama's miserably condescending phrase), this may seem to many to be a startling finding.

Obviously, there has been a great deal of killing, suffering, and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, especially in Baghdad and its environs. Yet the whole question of whether Iraqis are engaged in a "civil war" ultimately turns on a Western press conceit. Because the elite Western press began predicting such a conflict almost from the beginning, the ensuing debate in the U.S. has taken place within such politically loaded terms. Iraqis, on the other hand, know who is shooting at whom.

Sunni car bombers and Shiite militias have long been targeting innocent civilians, not each other. Battles between armed groups are usually intra-sectarian, with rival Shiite thugs fighting each other in the south, or rival Sunni gangs battling in Anbar or elsewhere. Shootouts between different sectarian groups have been reported, but these appear to be rare, and to arise from some accidental encounter, not from any strategy to confront and defeat an enemy.

Some prominent Iraqis, most notably Ayad Allawi, have indeed called this violence "civil war." But Allawi has his own political reasons for using the term; it's part of his ongoing condemnation of the ineffectual Maliki regime. By contrast, Adel Abdul Mehdi, the Shiite vice president of Iraq, characterized the violence in a recent interview in The Washington Post, as "a war against civilians," and specifically rejected the idea of an Iraqi civil war. Based on the poll results, most Iraqis perceive the violence in similar terms.

Among other results in the same poll, "when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most [Iraqis] replied that things were better for them today." Also, "By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias." The poll was done by "Opinion Research Business," about whom I know nothing. In the minimalist tradition of British newspapers, the Times provided few specifics about the poll, reproducing no actual questions.

A much darker set of poll results emerged this week from a BBC/ABC News poll. "Less than 40% of those polled said things were good in their lives, compared to 71% two years ago," the Beeb reported. Nevertheless, "a majority of those questioned said that, despite daily violence, they did not believe Iraq was in a state of civil war." The number of Iraqis who regarded the country as being involved in civil war was greater in this poll – 42 percent – but a clear majority thought otherwise.

Furthermore, almost no Iraqi was willing to express approval of the separation of Shiite and Sunni communities that took place as a result of the anti-civilian violence. Ninety-four percent of them condemned it. A clear majority "said they wanted Iraq to remain a unified country," and "Almost all said they did not want Iraqi to be broken up along sectarian lines." Similar polls have been done in the past, and the majorities supporting Iraqi unity have grown narrower over time, a toll of the brutality of the sectarian gangsters.

The BBC/ABC poll, which involved 2000 Iraqis, is reported in detail, and features many apparent contradictions. For example, 40 percent of Iraqis put the blame for the country's violence on either the United States or on President Bush personally, and half of the country says that attacks on coalition forces are justified. Yet two-thirds of Iraqis say they want these forces to remain in Iraq until security improves.

How does one reconcile such findings? Some findings reflect sincerely held opinions, others may not; some of these answers may be more a case of Iraqis telling a pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear. What pollsters call "preference falsification" is widespread in the Middle East for a variety of social and political reasons. My view is that when an Iraqi says he wants U.S. forces to stay, it's because his family's wellbeing is at stake, and that he sincerely means it. When the same Iraqi in the same interview blames the same troops for the violence he wants those troops to save him from, he's probably voicing an acceptably "safe" opinion (or one he thinks is acceptable) that he may not actually hold.

Anyway, the bottom line is that, while critics of the war often characterize Iraq as engaged in civil war, and Iraqis as wanting the U.S. troops out immediately, the polls suggest something different. According to the poll results, Iraqis regard themselves as victims of sectarian thugs, and want the troops to stay long enough to stop this war against civilians.