Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,
Insomnia
insomnia

Poll indicates increased Iraqi support for attacks against Coalition.

The Sunday Telegraph released details from a secret poll taken by British Ministry of Defense , which apparently indicates that 45% of Iraqis support attacks on Coalition troops, and 82% of those polled were strongly opposed to the presence of the troops. That's up from a similar poll the BBC commissioned in June 2004, in which 31% of Iraqis supported attacks on coalition forces.

This represents a 45% increase in the number of Iraqis who favor attacks against coalition troops since the poll of June 2004, and a significant spread of support for armed opposition outside of Sunni regions, into the Shi'ite-controlled south. Fortunately, the great majority of these Iraqis are clearly not taking up arms against coalition troops. Rather, it seems to indicate that there is an increased risk that if democratic self-rule doesn't allow the Iraqi people to bring about a withdrawl of Coalition forces from Iraq, that organized attacks against them might become more widespread.

The Telegraph also released details on a gruesome September 20th attack on KBR contractors in Ad Duluiyah, the details of which sound very similar to what happenned to contractors in Fallujah.

They cited a quote from a U.S. Lt. Col., who said:
"Before only two out of 10 (IED attacks) used to be effective. Now four or five have a catastrophic effect, blowing away a vehicle or causing casualties."

It would be interesting to know what factors are playing into the increased lethality of these attacks. Hopefully, they're ones which are primarily isolated to this particular region, and do not reflect a growing level of competence and organization amongst the insurgency.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments