> I think yours may have been a tenable position months
> ago, when it looked as if the available public opinion
> surveys lent it creedence.
The opinion polls supported the position about 18 months ago. Since then, the insurgents have done a good enough job of blowing people and property up to turn public sentiment overwhelmingly against the occupying powers. An insurgency needn't be just to succeed.
Dwayne wrote
> You present us with a closed loop Luke - if only the Americans had
> provided security the Iraqis would peacefully accept their presence but
> they cannot provide security because some Iraqis resist. Therefore, the
> Iraqis are unhappy with the American presence.
This is indeed my position. I'm not sure it's right, but it seems plausible.
> You say the point of resistance is preventing the Americans from
> providing security but perhaps there's another explanation; perhaps some
> Iraqis violently resist because they understand that the endpoint of
> American occupation is a nation that cannot call its own shots - that
> they'd be trading, in other words, the direct problem of Hussein for the
> remote problem of puppet masters in Washington.
If Iraqi democrats wished to revolt against a ghastly Washington puppet regime, I'd probably cheer them on. But I'd want them to wait for elections to occur before declaring them a farce. You're right that the insurgents don't like the projected endpoint of American occupation--but I don't think that's because they think the endpoint is undemocratic. The various insurgencies are fighting for their very own brands of totalitarianism.
-- Luke