Iraqi Survey Says ...
Ed Morrissey

The Times of London conducted a major poll of Iraqis to determine their state of mind a month after the beginning of the surge, and it finds the Iraqis rather optimistic. Four hundred pollsters went door to door to speak to over 5,000 Iraqi adults, and found that almost a majority of them preferred life now under the democracy of Nouri al-Maliki rather than the oppression of Saddam Hussein:

[...]

Maliki has gained strength as the US and Iraqi forces have begun to reclaim the streets of Baghdad. No one respects a leader that allows chaos and destruction to prevail, which explains Maliki's low marks last year. Undoubtedly, those played a role in driving Maliki to the position of George Bush, who demanded a free hand to act against the Shi'ite militias as well as Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda terrorists, and Ba'athist remnants to which Maliki had limited our operations previously.  ...

***

Pelosi: Iraqi Optimism Highlights Bush Surge Failure
By Scott Ott

(2007-03-18) — A new poll shows Iraqis are “irrationally optimistic, misguided in their support of the new government and in denial about the civil war raging in their country,” according to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“These are just a few of the devastating consequences of the Bush surge in Iraq,” said Rep. Pelosi, D-CA, “and I fear that we’re seeing only the tip of iceberg.”

The survey of 5,019 Iraqis, published today, showed that despite almost daily car bombings and sectarian tensions, 49 percent prefer the government of Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki to the more stable regime of the late President Saddam Hussein. Only 26 percent said things had been better under Mr. Hussein.

“Clearly these people are out of touch with the reality on the ground in Iraq,” said Mrs. Pelosi in an interview at her San Francisco office. “If they had read the New York Times or watched CNN, they would never draw these ridiculous conclusions.” ...

***

Poll: Iraqis prefer life under Maliki to life under Saddam, 49%-26%
Allahpundit

Another 16% said they both reek. Righties will find cause for hope in those numbers, lefties will wonder why after four years we can’t get a clear majority to prefer life under American occupation to life under the Arab Stalin. Glass half-full, glass half-empty.

The whole poll is like that. You’re better off with the summary at the polling firm’s website than the Times of London article, which misleads a bit in reporting that only 27% of Iraqis say the country is in a state of civil war. That’s accurate as far as it goes, but another 22% say they’re “close” to a civil war but not there yet. TOL neglects to mention that.

If you can spare the time and concentration, it’s worth flipping through the crosstabs to compare the numbers by sect and ethnic group. Keep in mind that “Sunnis” encompasses both Arabs, most of whom are militantly opposed to the U.S. presence, and Kurds, most of whom are militantly in favor. So on page 26, where we find 51% of Sunnis and 31% of Arabs think life was better under Saddam, those numbers represent a huge majority of Sunni Arabs who say yes offset by equally huge majorities of Sunni Kurds and Arab Shiites, respectively, who say no. To get a rough sense of Sunni Arab opinion, check the region-by-region numbers for Anbar province. In this case, we find 78% preferred Saddam to the new government.

The most shocking result? ...

***

Are American Funds Supporting Jihadis?
Ed Morrissey

Joel Mowbray, the syndicated columnist whose writing occasionally appears at Power Line (and who I met at CPAC), has an article in today's OpinionJournal that reports on how an American-financed Arabic television channel has started broadcasting jihadist content. Al-Hurra, which started off as an Arabic equivalent to Voice of America, has shifted its perspective towards Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah rather than the moderation we expected:

Fighting to create a secular democracy in Iraq, parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi had come to rely on at least one TV network to help further freedom: U.S. taxpayer-financed Al-Hurra.

Now, however, he's concerned. The broadcaster he had seen as a stalwart ally has done an about-face. "Until now, we were so happy with Al-Hurra. It was taking stands against corruption, for human rights, and for peace. But not anymore." ...

Unsurprisingly, the change came with the arrival of former CNN producer Larry Register. He quickly moved to make Al-Hurra follow the lead of Al-Jazeerah, a move that made Hurra's staff happy but veered sharply from the stated mission of the channel. The US funds Hurra in order to have an outlet for American diplomacy direct to the Arabic people, without the filtering effects of state-controlled media in Arab nations. That is why the administration supports Hurra with American tax revenues.

Instead, we're paying for jihadists like Nasrallah to give speeches on Hurra. Hamas officials now have air time to discuss their policies on the territories and on Israel. On February 9th of this year, Register allowed Muslims to use Hurra to broadcast charges that Israel would destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount after Israel changed some of the access restrictions in the area surrounding it.

Read all of Mowbray's report. ...

***

Read and Learn 
Jules Crittenden

UPDATE: WaPo Iraq-think endorsed by Kos … “Self-serving, revisionist rationalizing is the only way to describe today’s Washington Post editorial marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war.” I already like it better. 

Washington Post editorial thoughtfully examines lessons learned over the last four years and ends with the conclusion:   

It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

I hope the anti-war crowd, in DC to squawk and wave signs, picked up the Post this morning.  I don’t agree with every point, including the “gradually diminishing” part, unless it is based on practical, on-the-ground considerations rather than a ridiculous, politically driven exit schedule.  But the exit-at-all-costs crowd could stand a little more sober reflection of this sort. ...

***

The New York Times At Their Most Irresponsible and Disingenuous
Posted by scott (Hat tip: Jules)

Sunni Militants Disrupt Plan To Calm Baghdad.

That is today's lead headline in the New York Times. It is accompanied by an editorial claiming the Iraq war is lost and that we need to immediately leave Iraq.

That is today's lead headline in the New York Times. It is accompanied by an editorial claiming the Iraq war is lost and that we need to immediately leave Iraq.

Leaving the editorial aside for the moment, the clear message of the headline is that the surge is not succeeding.

Murders must be up in Baghdad. Casualties must be rising. Obviously, there must be significant facts for the NYT, the newspaper of record, to make the claim that the surge in Baghdad has been disrupted. But, in short - no, there are no such facts. ...