This is what emerges from dozens of interviews that pollsters from the International Crisis Group conducted in Baghdad, Mosul and Najaf. ICG says that virtually all of those questioned spoke candidly about their attitudes toward Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi opposition and possibilities for a US-led war they believe to be likely.

This fact alone, the report suggests, may mean that Saddam's capacity for instilling fear in his people is diminished and that "some kind of political change now is unavoidable." The document deserves study by Kofi Annan and members of the UN Security Council, given the status of ICG, whose chairman is Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland (and before that a high UN official), and whose president is Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of Australia (who once harbored aspirations to become UN Secretary General, and, for all we know, may have them still).

These are what the Brussels-based group calls the "most notable conclusions" from the study, which was done in September and October while the Security Council was still arguing over conditions that might make war on Iraq legal and easier to start.

Gareth Evans comments, "Necessarily limited as our survey was, it was striking and unexpected to find how much willingness there is to embrace a US-led war as a scenario for change. But that does not in itself mean that war is either advisable or inevitable. Not only does the 'further material breach' [of Security Council orders] criterion have to be established, but the Security Council has to weigh the benefits of military intervention against its costs in terms of loss of life, material and economic damage, regional spillover effects, and possibly distracting from and complicating the war on terrorism."

Evans added that Iraqi support that exists may not be unconditional and that if a war were bloody and protracted or not followed by a major international reconstruction effort, this support might not be very long sustained.

Also, the question for many Iraqis is "not whether a war will take place, but whether a state of war will be ended." This is a reference to the fact that Iraqis have lived through war -- the conflict with Iran, Desert Storm, UN sanctions and US and British air attacks -- virtually continuously since 1980.

Robert Malley, ICG's Middle East program director, says, "What emerges starkly in this briefing paper is a picture of a population worn down by what it has been forced to endure and eager for change. For them, the status quo -- harsh economic sanctions and domestic repression -- is not sustainable. This is a message that ought to be heeded, regardless of whether the UN inspections succeed and regardless of whether a US-led war is the final outcome."

What the interviewers also found in Iraq was "a largely depoliticized and apathetic population" and that the notion of leaving the country's destiny in the hands of an "omnipotent foreign party" had more appeal than might be expected, while a desire for long-term US involvement was higher than anticipated. If true, President Bush's wariness about nation-building by the US may not be resonating in the Iraqi street, despite Saddam's propaganda efforts to portray a nation united against a potential foreign invader.

However, ICG emphasizes, that Iraqi interviewees' attitudes were based on the premise that military action would be quick and clean and be followed by a global reconstruction operation. No mention of the cleanup cost, which surely would be in the billions.