Time Immortal

In yesterday’s posting about odd statistics from Iraq (which ultimately painted a negative picture of the situation in that country), I noted the following in response to the apparent statistic that 34% of Iraqis supported a return to “rule by strongman”:

More than a third of Iraqis, according to the same survey, seem to think that a return to government-by-strongman is a good thing for the nation, which is staggering. Sure, Saddam’s nation was essentially secure…if you didn’t mind his yearly body count numbering in the numerous thousands. The insurgency is brutal in its methodology and seems to strike a range of targets…but as yet they’ve got a long way to go before their death toll matches that of the last strongman ruler of Iraq.

That same poll suggested that just over 50% of Iraqis supported terrorist attacks against coalition troops, while a much larger majority of Iraqis also wanted those same coalition troops to stay in the country until security was restored. I was staggered by the hypocrisy of the statement, overall, but more so by the above statistic concerning rule by strongman and the desire for its return.

Did a third of Iraqis really believe they had a better lot under a murderous thug like Saddam?

Perhaps. A different poll, published in a different newspaper (still British, though) suggests otherwise:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Some surprising figures in there, and to be fair nothing said above actually refutes the findings of the poll cited yesterday. What is interesting — and this is why one ought to be wary of polls, I suppose — is the “spin” attached to the story. The Telegraph piece yesterday was using the poll data to paint a negative picture of the coalition effort in Iraq, while the Times is using its own poll data in a more objective manner. It would be incorrect to say that the Times piece is “for” what the coalition is up to, but it seems a bit more willing to discuss both the pros and cons of coalition action in Iraq, and ultimately paints the picture that needs to be painted: yes, there are problems in Iraq, but things there are better now than they were under Saddam.

Which should make sense, given what Saddam was and how he conducted his regime.

Still…in what is essentially a back-to-back posting, we see contrasted two very different polls asking rather different questions that paint two rather different pictures of the situation in Iraq. It goes to show, I suppose, the key reason why one should not simply trust polls outright: the question(s) being asked can and will shift the results in favour of whichever ideological position is held by the person doing the asking.

(Hat tip: Mark Shea)