Question #1
Did the events of the last decade, American interests, and terrorist attacks of 9/11 warrant a US military invasion of Iraq?
(Source: IRmep MEASURE 2004)

Question #2
What drivers do you believe are influencing Bush administration policies on Iraq?
(Source: IRmep MEASURE 2004)

a. Establishing a military foothold in the Middle East.

b. Control over petroleum reserves/infrastructure.

c. Concerns about the security of Israel.

d. Transformational desire for Middle East democracy.

e. Private business interests.

Question #2
What drivers do you believe should influence Bush administration policies on Iraq?

a. Establishing a military foothold in the Middle East.

b. Control over petroleum reserves/infrastructure.

c. Concerns about the security of Israel.

d. Transformational desire for Middle East democracy

e. Private business interests.

Question #1 Comments

Did the events of the last decade, American interests, and terrorist attacks of 9/11 warrant a US military invasion of Iraq?

• The invasion and occupation were and are illegal, largely unilateral, have been incompetently and unjustly prosecuted, and they have increased the threat of terror attacks on US/UK civilians.
• The US govt. pursues its "interests" in the Middle East in an ad hoc, opportunistic way, and making war is not in the interest of either the American people or the peoples of the Middle East.
• Question is pretty darn vague but I think I'd answer the same way if you were more specific.
• 9/11 was not related to Iraq.  "American interests" as currently conceived are not a good foundation for US foreign policy. 
• The combination of U.N. sanctions, weapons inspections and U.S. destruction of all significant military/defensive targets in the no-fly zones had certainly neutralized the regime as an active threat to any one, including the U.S.  Any invasion motivated by the desire to liberate the Iraqi people and their energies for the sake of their country should have been an action of last resort by coherent multinational force acting under a U.N. mandate.
• Iraq was invaded under false pretexts, which had nothing to do with the "war on terror" but much to do with conventional geopolitical thinking and especially the fancies of neo-conservative ideology.
• The invasion of Iraq was clearly considered and planned well before 11 Sept., and executed for ideological reasons that seem fundamentally to have little to do with Iraq or even the Middle East.
• The invasion of Iraq is not justified on any grounds, strategic, political, or moral.
• Iraq was paying a heavy price due to misguided US policies. No substance to claims to support another attack on Iraq.
• Once decided however poor strategy wrecked much good
• Thanks to the first Gulf War and to the sanctions subsequently imposed on Iraq, the country was scarcely a threat to anyone. The WMD have yet to be unearthed and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
• It warranted the Afghan war and the destruction of al-Qa'ida, but certainly not the invasion of Iraq.
• There was no relationship between Iraq and September 11th, despite the disturbingly common presumption that there was.

• At this point of history nothing can justify an invasion of another country, colonialism, and human lose.
• I don't believe there was ever a clear connection between 9/11 and Iraq established.  Over the last decade the UN had been dealing with Iraq inspections and while it wasn't perfect, I don't think it required a unilateral invasion by the United States (and Britain).
• I believe that the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon wanted to attack Iraq whether or not the world trade center attack had occurred.
• I think an educated policy making would have prevented the birth of so-called "terrorism."
• No clear, substantial beyond the reasonable doubt evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
• Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but he was also the enemy of fundamentalists, all of whom opposed his "irreligious" rule.
• No connection between 9/11 and Iraq; diversions of attention and resources from al-Qaeda
• A catastrophically wrong idea.
• Its an established fact that there is NO connection whatsoever between Al Quaeda and Iraq
• None of the stated objectives of the invasion has proven valid: "weapons of mass destruction," inauguration of democracy, links to al-Qaeda, etc. US forces have apparently not even tried to arrest the group in Northern Iraq that provided the "evidence" of Iraq's al-Qaeda links; the Turks did arrest some of them in late April.
• Al-Qaeda was not based in Iraq. And even if there had been convincing evidence of WMD, this war would not have constituted a "preemptive strike," because that implies that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the U.S. - according to the definition of preemption - which was not the case, whatever hostility Saddam had towards the American government or people.
• We should have kept the pressure on Afghanistan, and made additional pressure on Saudi Arabia.
• Absolutely not; the United Nations charter forbids military invasion and occupation. The problems resulting from out illegal and immoral action were all fully foreseeable.
• It was a pretext that served the predetermined plans of the current administration
• The 9/11 attacks were not relevant to attacking a country whose government was at an opposite pole from the attackers. It is shameful how ordinary, uninformed people were made to think there was a connection. Saddam was a bad fellow, but his worst crimes were while he was being backed by the U.S.  Experience with Algeria, Vietnam, etc. should have taught us that it is too late for such blatant colonialism. Also, respect the provisions of the U.N. Charter on the use of force.
• The invasion was the worst foreign policy mistake made in the history of the U.S.
• Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the "events" of the last decade include suppressive sanctions that don't work.
• None of the above required, or even justified, military action against Iraq.  Events of the last decade proved inspections were working; American interests have been damaged rather than edified; and 9/11 was related to Iraq in that U.S. policy may have contributed to 9/11.
• It was a colossal mistake from the outset, both in terms of the way it was carried out and its unilateral nature.
• The invasion did not serve American interests or stem the growing terrorist threat.
• Anyone who studies the Middle East would have known that Hussein and Bin Ladin are diametrically opposed and a liaison between them would have been a last ditch effort to save themselves.  The White House should have known that.
• It should be clear to all by now that not only was the invasion unwarranted, it has been disastrously counterproductive in every respect.  
• Iraq had no part in 9/11.
• The Saddam Hussein regime SHOULD have been deposed by military power in 1991.  It had, however, nothing to do with 9/11, & therefore the Iraq issue is COMPLETELY separate from 9/11.
• Iraq had no connection to the terrorist attacks if 9/11
• Iraq is a diversion, or rather an unnecessary, self-inflicted hurdle, in the "war on terror" which shows how traditional weapons/thinking cannot solve the problem. Instead they make it worse.
• The invasion of Iraq has increased US vulnerability toward terrorist attacks and resulted in much higher degree of anti-Americanism that US deserves.
• Not to condone 9/11, but it is the result of our foolish, colonial minded foreign policy, esp. blind support of the Israel.
• These events and concerns warranted pragmatic diplomatic efforts in the U.N., not a unilateral invasion.
• A solution to the Palestinian question would be the only long-term stabilizer in the Middle East
• Which events exactly?

• Of course Bin Laden stated very clearly that the Bush administration would invade Iraq and that the invasion would directly serve the interests and appeal of al-Qa'ida.
• Since Saddam Hussein has obviously not been involved in the 9/11 attacks and is not involved with al-Qaida (he is actually opposed to them, due to his secularist government), there was no reason to invade due to that.  And where are these "WMD" that were supposedly our reason to invade?
• The two are unrelated.
• No, because there is not a shed of evidence indicating Iraq was implicated in 9/11
• I don't believe that 9/11 should be connected with Iraq.  Rather, American interests are best served by the removal, or demise of leaders like Saddam Hussein who are responsible for human rights abuses on the scale that took place in Iraq.  Attempts to fund or aid insurgents were unsuccessful -- invasion was the only way to overturn the regime. 
• It's clear the Bush administration has been lying again and again about Iraq.  We have abandoned most of our traditional allies in an ill-advised exercise in military adventurism.  The pre-2003 world that has served American interests so well will not easily be put back together.  This seems almost a classic case of national hubris.  I'm guessing that historians of the future--at least American historians--will not treat George Bush very kindly.
• It was important to reshuffle the Middle East and Iraq is a good place to start. But the timing was bad; preparations on the military and especially the diplomatic front were deficient.
• I do think there were justifiable reasons for invading Iraq, but these are not them.
• The invasion of Iraq was unrelated to the 9/11 events.  The connection was completely constructed by the neo-conservatives in power by manipulating the drama of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the fear they caused.

Question #2 Comments:

What drivers do you believe are influencing Bush administration policies on Iraq. 

• The neocons do have a messianic vision of 'democracy' and it is important for them, but their application of this desire is so selective - i.e. not in Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, DR Congo etc, that it cannot be considered a real causal factor.
• I think the claim that they want to make the ME democratic by invading Iraq and imposing a new regime are a thinly veiled lie to justify seizing control of the region.  I think in making this claim, many Americans believe them, but that the Bush administration seriously miscalculated the complexities of Iraq.  The notion that a country can be invaded, occupied--with thousands on deaths on both sides--would result in a democracy is clearly ridiculous.  If they did believe this then the administration is more incompetent than if this is simply a lie to justify the invasion.
• Achieving a stable, economically viable state under Iraqi leadership.
• All of this may be summed up in the neo-conservative ideology of the administration.
• I would place "ideological view of the world and America's role in shaping, guiding, and controlling global affairs in the interests of the US and its allies/friends" very high on the list of drivers
• US already have a military foothold in the Middle East. It also has ample access to, and control of oil supplies. Transformational desire for democracy is a manipulative strategy to win public support. Invading Iraq first and foremost serves the interests of Israel and US commercial interests.
• Combination of factors has promoted US policies toward Iraq, oil, Israel, opportunity to punish Arab Muslims for 9/11, personal revenge, covered by the argument for democracy once the argument for WMD failed to materialize. Hegemony of the Middle East that includes Afghanistan and its neighbors by the neocons seems a clear aim. These individuals wish to have the attention of the American people elsewhere in order to carry out a broad agenda of their policies at home.  This seems clear from what has transpired over the past three and a half years.  What seems also clear is that the selling of these policies has begun to be undone.
• Bush administration policies are influenced by others outside but re-election dominates everything & public opinion must be satisfied.
• With regard to (c), it is less a matter of Israel's security (thanks to the USA, Israel is a substantial military power) but of getting Iraq to recognize Israel on the latter's terms.
• The democracy argument is not being backed up by tangible actions, leading me to be skeptical of its importance.
• His influences completely ignore the needs, concerns and aspirations of the Iraqi people.
• The U.S. already has a well-established military foothold in Saudia Arabia, I do not believe the goal was to set up bases in Iraq for long-term purposes.  Certainly there would be more interest in control over the petroleum reserves.  Concerns about the security of Israel play a constant and critical role in the U.S. foreign policy in that region of the world.  I don't think there is a tremendous amount of concern for establishing democracy in the Middle East.  That is rhetoric.  Certainly private business interest also plays a role in foreign policy particularly when big oil/defense business is involved.
• There already are many military footholds in the Middle East - The US Navy is very active in the Gulf. 
• A desire to establish American type of democracy in Iraq has no validity. It has no scientific base.
• The degree to which individual policy makers are influenced by these drivers differs, but they all are important or critical to administration insiders (including non-governmental advisors with direct access to policy makers).  I also would point out that "democracy" is not the focal point of transformation but rather marketization, which is why there was so little concern for countervailing institutions (including state institutions) and the focus on citizens' rights and liberties is fuzzy at best.
• Without 9/11, no war.  9/11 changed the president's mind on Iraq, and on the transformational policy advocated by neo-cons
• They already HAD a military foothold. Some people in the administration may care about democracy in the Middle East, but they haven't been pushing for invasion of any place that doesn't have either petroleum reserves or strategic importance. People who strongly support the current government of Israel (Wolfowitz, Perle) have considerable, perhaps determining, and influence in the Department of Defense and have apparently made a strong case there for the long-standing Israeli drive to destroy Iraqi military power -- even though Israeli policy has failed conspicuously to establish security for the country or its citizens.
• Interestingly, we should not under-estimate the power of the Wilsonian ideal ironically espoused by the neo-conservatives and at great cost to both Americans and Iraqis.
• Now since there is enormous damage to repair our image (I can't even say 'good will'):
• to stop fighting for two weeks
• to continue to apologize, and not talk about 'paying' them for their torture
• to admit we were wrong
• to insist Israel remove the settlements (yes, it is all connected)
• The Zionist lobby and right-wing Christian romantics have driven this invasion and occupation.
• concern about security of Israel and private business interests
• The talk about democracy was utterly hypocritical, designed to placate those who otherwise would have opposed such actions. Washington depends too much on alliances with authoritarian rulers whose continuation in power is critical for the maintenance of its hegemony.
• You have clearly revealed your own ideological bias. THE reason for the invasion, of course, is not even listed here: Saddam's destabilizing influence, harboring and financing of terrorists, and threat to the whole region. Is your funding Saudi, by any chance?
• Need to mention terrorism and historic legacy of 91 gulf war
• The President is a self-righteous lunatic. That's what drives his "policy" in the Middle East.
• I see it as about re-shaping the international order of the region in a way that is distinctly pro-US and pro-US business interests.
• Almost all are important.
• It should be noted that both Israel's security and the prospects for democracy in the region have been very adversely affected by those policies which this administration mistakenly believes will serve both.
• This is an administration bent on finishing off 'unfinished business' of previous administration. Cheney was Sec. of Defense under Bush senior.  He wants to finish the job started then.
• Our president is a born again Christian and he has messed up our country. His definition of terror is arbitrary. Removal of Saddam was also influenced by person vengeance for an attempt on his father.
• Stability in petroleum markets and appeasement of AIPAC are the primary influences in my opinion.  
• Basing rights, regional hegemony, and control of petroleum resources are important now as they were important to Britain in the 1920s and 1930s in Iraq.
• The notion "all they understand is force" and that smiting a Middle Eastern country, even the wrong country, will "send a message to evildoers" is important too.
• Extending US global hegemony and capitalizing regions for US benefit are primary reasons for its invasion of countries. Communism is over for the most part, so we're back to the era of the British Empire and its "army of merchants."
• The US over the course of the last 20 years the US has increasingly defined its interests in the Middle East in terms of Israel's. With respect to Iraq, the US is there to eliminate a strategic competitor to Israeli regional dominance.
• Not clear what is meant by a "military foothold."  We already have a military presence in the region.   If you mean the ability to transport large numbers of troops to hot spots quickly, then yes, we need to maintain that ability.
• I believe this administration naively and arrogantly thinks it can remake the Middle East in some kind of American-Israeli image.  A week and a half ago during a conference in Tehran in a private discussion I heard a senior Iranian political-intellectual insider (a member of the Ire’s state security council--or whatever they call it) say that American policy in Iraq/the ME is "insincere."  In terms of stated objectives in Iraq (the lies we all know about--Wads, links to Al Qaeda, etc., etc.), I agree.
• I am still confused about why the U.S. went to war in Iraq.
• The reserves are important, but all evidence points to complete willingness on the part of Hussein and gulf leaders to provide oil.

Question #3 Comments:

What drivers do you believe should influence Bush administration policies on Iraq? 

• Stability and peace require large doses of self-determination and democratic change in the Middle East at this point. Military footholds and control don't gel with this. Israel can look after itself at the present time. Its obsessive security concerns destabilize the region, they do not bring peace.
• The Bush administration or its successor should remove the US military from Iraq, Kuwait, and the other Gulf countries as quickly as possible. Creating true friendship with the peoples of the Middle East, including Iraq, should start with fulfillment of the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict as laid out in UN resolutions. This means security for Israel within its pre-June 1967 borders, a real independent state for the Palestinians in all of the West Bank and Gaza (with a secure connector between the two), internationalization of Jerusalem so that it can serve as the shared capital of two states, and a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee tragedy. The latter can be in the form of a negotiated combination of "return" to inside Israel, "return" to the new Palestine, and compensation by means of donating the existing Jewish settlements to the refugees and material help to resettle those refugees who choose to become citizens in their current host countries.
• Democracy should not be imposed by killing people off and setting up a US military government. This is hardly democracy.
• Building a just Israeli-Palestinian peace, as this is the most destabilizing problem in the Mid East, the cause of terrorism and US insecurity.  I'd like to see the US focus on building good diplomatic relationships, based on the interests of people in the region, rather than opportunistic US interests.  The only real security comes from good relationships.
• This question does not address my ideas about what the Bush administration should or should not be doing in Iraq.  I think they should not have invaded.  I think also that this invasion has made all of the options above more difficult to carry out than if they had contained Saddam.  The main problem was that Saddam refused to play according to the rules, as they set them out---for instance the US has no problem with establishing military bases in countries which have dictators or violate human rights.  They also could have created a policy which enabled business deals...the only wrench in these possibilities was Saddam's attitude towards the West. 
• The US already has a major military foothold in the ME.  There are bases in Turkey...just neighboring Iraq. 
• HUMAN RIGHTS should be at the top of any list of why and should.
• Genuine commitment to justice, peace, democratic values, and global harmony should guide the administration's policy towards not just Iraq but the whole Middle East. The US alliance with Sharon's government in Israel is detrimental to US interests around the world.
• For an atmosphere where US business will be welcomed in the Middle East a policy of mutual respect & mutual benefit has to be established. Pushing for Sharon's policies as Bush has, control of oil through force, & and attempting to impose some brand of democracy in one country and support dictatorship in others are not the factors that can lead to that kind of atmosphere. I am certain a high school student would come to the same conclusion.
• Because the occupation of Iraq is bound to fail, so is the US ambition to control the nation's petroleum.
• This is hard to answer since it isn't clear what the baseline is.  Basically the status quo prior to the war was just fine as far as US interests were concerned, and the proper thing to have done was nothing.
• Since I don't think we should be in Iraq to begin with, justifying it with any rationale is difficult.
• The Bush administration needs to figure out how to leave with an Iraqi government with true sovereignty in place quickly, overseen in part by an international not an American supervisory institution that includes many Arab and Muslim members.
• I think it should be influenced towards establishing stability in the region (which looks almost out of sight at this point).  It should help rebuild the petroleum infrastructure --not control it.  It should take into consideration security concerns for the greater region--not just Israel.  It should be guided by building capacity in the region and building democratic processes. 
• There are many ways to deal with oil production and oil reserves.  US corporations play a major role in the control of Gulf oil reserves with or without the invasion of Iraq.  As for a military foothold, towards what end?
• Israel - via Sharon and, unfortunately, Barak, has dug its own grave in the Middle East, and it will have to lie in it all by itself.  The U.S. gets nothing at all from this effort for Israel’s security
• None of the above. relations with Iraq should not be different then the other countries in the world community.
• It is interesting that you have no "driver" focused on the Middle East itself.  I think that the most important driver for US policy should be regional stability and the second the encouragement of civil rights and liberties, greater political participation, and political and economic transparency within a framework of law and regulation.  The stability and accessibility of this region, with its pivotal role in the global economy, is of primary importance not only to US security and prosperity but also to global security and prosperity. 
• Should not have gone in at all.  Already have military bases.  Oil is important, but Saddam was not a threat to it
• Now it's too late, the damage is done. No military foothold is possible there in the long run.
• US should abandon its militarism or face increased resistance everywhere in the world; Bush is incapable of formulating any policy whatsoever
• The US should never have gotten involved in Iraq. In the current situation, the only way to get out is to let Iraqis choose their own government -- which may choose to negate all the other US interests listed.
• However, whatever the factors driving the policies, war should not be among the options - too late now, of course.
• Trade and cultural exchange are our only legitimate interests in the Middle East.
• None of the above
• The "Transformational desire for Middle East democracy" would be good in principle, but promoting it through such invasion would not be the way to do it--even if that were the goal.
• The most important issue is establishing order in Iraq so that the military can leave.  They should not have gone in but now that they are there they should finish the job:  Establish a viable government -- it will inevitably be anti-American -- and leave.
• Again, the key reason, and the reasons on account of which the US Congress authorized the war, are glaringly absent from your "survey."
• Choices are regional, not Iraq specific
• I think that U.S. policy in Iraq now should be driven by a policy of cutting losses, not only in Iraq but also with the rest of the international community.  The gaps are wide and the U.S. is self-destructing.
• We should take our rhetoric more seriously, and support the kind of reform US policy has been talking about for fifteen years, though has consistently refused to implement (i.e. stop bankrolling dictators, overlooking massive human rights abuses by allies, and turning a blind eye on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian people).  Promoting a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestininan conflict should be the foremost issue on the US agenda. 
• The Bush administration should be working to get US troops out of Iraq.
• The US needs, at long last, to realize that Israel's long-term security in the region can only be assured through a just and durable peace with its neighbors. Current policies which purport to serve Israeli interests merely extend and deepen the conflict and makes peace ever more unachievable. The myth about the lack of 'a partner' etc. must be abandoned before it actually becomes reality (an eventuality which Sharon's govt. is only too keen to see). 
• Support for Israeli security need not to harm US position with the Muslim world.  Bush administration has done the exact opposite.
• Pre-emptive strike was wrong. Should get out as soon as possible and bring the UN. The whole thing has brought disgrace to America and suffering to Iraqis ... thousands of civilians are killed and enormous damage to the country.  It has hurt our economy too.
• America's security and global image need to be placed above concern over the Jewish vote and/or concerns about Israel are having its way in the peace process. Current policy borders on lunacy.
• No reason at this point should warrant an invasion of Iraq, but it's a little late for that.
• The most sensible US policy, if possibly the most difficult, is that of honest broker between the states of the region. That may no longer be an option given the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath that we are witnessing. The best thing for the US to do is to cut its losses now.
• None, he should not be there.
• These "drivers" do not justify warfare on our part. There are other ways of pursuing our national interests. "Control over petroleum ..." is a bad question. We don't need "control" to pursue our important interest. We need an international marketplace.
• I strongly believe that the Bush administration should not be so heavily involved in Iraq at all.
1. Concern for the rights and human needs of the Iraqi population must be the goal of US policies in Iraq if they are to conform to the Geneva conventions.  Those are the responsibilities of an occupying army.
2. I believe this administration naively and arrogantly thinks it can remake the Middle East in some kind of American-Israeli image.  A week and a half ago during a conference in Tehran in a private discussion I heard a senior Iranian political-intellectual insider (a member of the IRI's state security council--or whatever they call it) say that American policy in Iraq/the ME is "insincere."  In terms of stated objectives in Iraq (the lies we all know about--WMDs, links to Al Qaeda, etc., etc.), I agree.
3. I believe that the U.S. should get out of the region and allow people to build robust, healthy, accountable societies.  That includes ending support for neo-liberal policies that increase poverty, such as privatization, as well as support for the huge military base called Israel.  When hell freezes over, I guess.

Question #4 Comments:

If you could give the current or a new incoming administration three recommendations for Iraq policy, what would they be?

1.       Transfer political and military power to a transitional UN body.

2.       Phase out troops

3.       Implement a Marshall Plan

---

1.       Get UN involved

2.       Avoid clash with Shiites

3.       Leave it to John Kerry

---

1.       Get the US military out of Iraq and the Gulf immediately.

2.       Provide generous economic aid, without strings attached, for rebuilding the country.

3.       Stop selling armaments and stop giving military aid to countries in the region, including Israel.

---

1.       Let the Iraqis figure out what THEY want rather than telling them what they should think. 

2.       Involve the UN more.

3.       Reconstitute the Iraqi military into a basic police-style security force to help with day to day violence and stability issues.  Do more rebuilding.

---

1.       Internal stability with justice

2.       External stability in region

3.       Improved US understanding of cultural difference -- dump the clash of cultures approach

---

1.       Can't do so, without knowing what will happen in late June.

2.       Withdraw and let the UN deal with Iraq.

---

1.       End the coalition's occupation of Iraq, phasing it out over the next six months

2.       Let the Iraqi people really choose their own leadership (not the corrupt Chalabi or others handpicked by the US)

3.       Establish an equal relationship with Iraq

---

1.       Internationalize the occupation

2.       Hand over sovereignty

3.       Get out as soon as possible--a UN peace keeping force will do more good than a US military occupation.

---

Anything the US does to influence or create a new government will be instantly discredited.

1.       Human Rights

2.       Involvement, as approved by Iraqis, of the International Community, including Arab States, esp. at a community to community level; e.g. establish "sister" towns & villages.

3.       Iraqis should be involved far more with the rebuilding of their own infrastructure, as there are numerous well-trained engineers already there, etc. 

---

As soon as possible, place authority and administration in the hands of some combination of indigenous Iraqi leaders and UN technicians, secured by a mixed international and national army.

Remember the commitment to reconstruction. Sustain the funding for this activity long enough to solidify the material and social achieveme