Re: U.S.-Led Coalition Shuts Down Iraq Paper (Milan Rai on UNoccupation of Iraq)

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

DMS wrote:
>
>
> So a question, and I won't bother you about this again:  When US fatalities increase to 10 or
> 20 a day from the current 1 or 2, when every shopping mall is filled with SUVs saying bring them
> home, when every Senator questions "our course" in Iraq because of the increasing disorder,
> will our poll-minders still be arguing for the US to stay, for humanitarian reasons to be sure, no
> matter the cost to our well-intentioned military, to prevent the greater evil?

I don't think casualties need to increase that much, but in any case
(and assuming the accuracy of the polls, because I don't want to argue
empirics here), the key number is the percentage of those actively
opposed to any u.s. presence. If that figure drops to 5% or less, then
the Occupation is in some sense "succeeding." As long as it stays at 10%
or above, the Occupation can create nothing but chaos, both while it
lasts and after it ends.

The occupying forces assume that they can kill enough of the patriotic
Iraqi to achieve order. That has to be the opinion of those who claim
that the u.s. (or u.n.) should remain, because nothing else certainly
can reestablish order.

The trouble with polls is that even when accurate they don't tell us
anything about what is going to happen next year, which is the _minimum_
time frame of resistance to the empire or any fragment of it.

Also, if Iraqi polls should influence our views, then I suppose our vote
next November should be for whichever candidate is ahead in the final
October poll?

Carrol