Stars & Stripes:Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
I didn't know the Republicans were still using that old mantra "because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.” I would have expected something better by now.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=35385&section=104


WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.

But policy experts differ on exactly what those numbers mean.

Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.

The president has opposed any plans for a withdrawal date, saying troops will remain until Iraq’s security is assured. Logan sees so many troops wanting a clear time line as showing “an alarming disconnect” between the policy and its implementation.

But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.

“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll, saying they did not have details on how the survey was conducted.

John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.

Zogby said the survey was conducted face-to-face throughout Iraq, with permission from commanders. Despite the difficulty of polling in a war zone, he said, pollsters were pleased with the results.

“This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying,” he said. “Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying.”

The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.

“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.

More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, a group of 118 Republican lawmakers, said the poll does not diminish his opinion of the importance of the armed forces role in Iraq.

“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.”

Of those surveyed, 75 percent have served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years old, and 75 percent were male.
 
“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

What does BJ mean anyway? Is it really sex?
 
Wow, what a revelation. I bet if you surveyed the troops on the boats in the English channel on the 5th of June, 1944, most of them would have voted to go home too, as soon as possible. But, they followed their orders and did their job.

Do you think maybe this is one of the reasons that the military is not run as a democracy??????
 
WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.

But policy experts differ on exactly what those numbers mean.
This is a big surprise?

Pilgrim
 
said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.

I am sure many people there don't want to be there. Just as I am sure the questions on the poll were unbiased, esp considering the source of the poll. They knew there would be a credibility problem with the poll, thus the
but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.
disclaimer.

Untill I can see the questions, and the context in which they were presented, I give this poll about a 2 on a credibility level of 1 to 10.


bob
 
What else would you expect from a liberal rag like the Stars and Stripes? Wait a minute. Can't really attack the source on this one... This thread is closed! Nope, I'm not a moderator, so that won't work either...

Seriously, I'm not surprised. The situation in Iraq is becoming ludicrous. The country is devolving into civil war, and both sides of that war want to kill as many Americans as possible. Whose side do we choose? The Shiite Muslims who want to kill us or the Sunni Muslims who want to kill us?

We can debate this issue from the safety of our homes and cubicles, but the fact remains that the powder keg is exploding as we speak, and I don't see any way to extinguish that fire. You might argue that withdrawing from Iraq without finishing the job would be tragic, and I believe you would be right, but the events of the past week seem to indicate that our options are narrowing to a choice between turning tail and running now or sticking out as long as possible until we have no choice but to turn tail and run. The way I see it we have come to a point where we are just throwing good money (and lives) after bad.

If anyone sees any possible way of winning this mess now, I'm all ears.
 
Reno: Take an elementary school class in analogies. Your premise is fallacious.
 
I'm glad Realgun chimes in with his close this thread, it doesn't mirror the Bush agenda.

You can do better - try again.
 
My best friend from college, a 2nd LT in the USMC will be finishing logistics school in April and be joining his unit that is allready deployed in Iraq. While he is not happy about the prospect of going straight into a warzone from training he will go anyway because that is the duty of a soldier (marine in this case). My friend knows that what he would like and what is needed are rarely the same animal in the military. His family, friends, and I would much rather see him safe at home with us, but we know that he is doing what needs to be done.

And before you make conclusions about my friend, he fully expected to go to Iraq, he just hoped that he would have time to familierize himself with his command before he was thrown into a hostile enviroment.
 
I'm glad Realgun chimes in with his close this thread, it doesn't mirror the Bush agenda.

You can do better - try again.rick_reno

Your comment isn't high road, and you didn't address my question.
 
What? Soldiers want to go home? Say it ain't so!

A soldier has three rights: The right to a trial by court martial, the right to refuse to surrender, and the absolute, undeniable, inalienable, inherent right to bitch, moan, complain, and generally make a ruckus about how much they want to go home.

When they stop complaining, they're about to mutiny.
 
The way I see it we have come to a point where we are just throwing good money (and lives) after bad.

Respectfully, this argument was true on Day One.

El Presidente Jorge Shrub has, metaphorically, turned our military into a police force between rival gangs in Los Angeles and then has the audacity (stupidity?) to wonder why we are not succeeding. :banghead:

This whole thing [a land war in Asia] was a bad, bad idea...
 
Another article from "Army Times" - you have to subscribe to read it, the link is near the bottom of this page. Must be a different Army than when I was in, no one ever asked me my "opinion". I got told what to do - and did it.

Stars and Stripes shouldn't run an article like the one above. It won't do anything positive for morale.

http://www.armytimes.com/channel.php?GQID=ARMYPAPER#WASHINGTON

March 06, 2006

Grading the Pentagon
Survey illuminates service members’ views on Defense Department leadership

By Thomas Raleigh


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appears to be at odds with a great number of those in uniform with his recent insistence that the force remains strong, despite reports that suggest the Army is approaching the breaking point because of extended combat deployments and has become a “thin green line,” in the words of retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, a Washington military analyst.
That conclusion emerges from a “command climate” survey of the Defense Department that I proposed several months ago on this page, and which Army Times subsequently conducted online.

The concept was based on my perception that the opinions of those serving in the armed forces were missing from the recurring, and at times rancorous, debate over whether Rumsfeld should resign, for myriad reasons — among them the Abu Ghraib scandal and broader questions of detainee abuse, conduct of the war in Iraq and declining recruiting numbers.

The command climate survey — a common tool in the military — was designed to take the pulse of the Defense Department and gauge military members’ opinions on a number of topics.

The online survey produced 286 usable responses; a modest number, but one that ran the gamut of the military community — active and reserve, enlisted troops and officers, military retirees, and even a few Defense Department civilians and defense contractors.

Though the questions allowed for a full range of possible answers, and in that sense were fair, this was most assuredly not a scientific survey based on random sampling. Thus, anyone referring to, or drawing conclusions from, this survey, should keep in mind that the results are anecdotal.

Still, the results are interesting. For example, 54 percent of respondents cited force exhaustion as a “concern”; another 22 percent called it a “big concern.” On the global war on terrorism, 37 percent say we’re on the wrong track; another 23 percent have doubts that we’re on the right track.

Other highlights:

Competence of senior civilian leaders. The survey included several questions designed to get a feel for the quality and inclusiveness of decision-making in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Only a few respondents work in the Pentagon, and no flag officer responded, so it’s safe to say these responses reflect respondents’ impressions.

That said, 49 percent rated the overall competence of Pentagon senior civilian leaders as “poor” or “awful”; less than 27 percent rated it “excellent” or “good.”

State of the force. An overwhelming 77 percent of respondents cited “force exhaustion” as either a concern or a “big” concern.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Those who suggest Rumsfeld enjoys the unqualified support of the troops will find nothing in this survey to back that up; about 60 percent of all respondents said he should go.

Readers who examine the results will come to their own conclusions. I suggest, however, that the survey is instructive, in one important way, to a broader audience — to civilians and to those no longer serving on active duty.

There is no shortage of politicians and opinion makers who suggest one cannot voice concerns about the war and other defense matters and still claim to support the troops. I’ve heard at least one commentator claim that doing so is “intellectually dishonest,” a proposition I consider rubbish.

The survey indicates soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines at all levels are participating in a vigorous and substantive discussion on the health of the force, transformation, “the long war,” our goals and strategy in Iraq and — surely now — what to do about Iran.

Those not serving should not be timid in joining the discussion; these are important topics for all Americans. Those who do however, should voice opinions as informed, measured and responsible as those voiced — however quietly — by our brave and dedicated service members.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Thomas Raleigh served in infantry troop assignments, as an Army attaché in Moscow and as a military adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna. His e-mail is thomasraleigh@ nycap.rr.com.
 
Realgun...

You do nothing but try to shut down threads that put Bush and/or Repubs in a bad light. Ever think about not reading the SOBs?
Biker
 
Stars and Stripes shouldn't run an article like the one above. It won't do anything positive for morale.

"Please tell me you're kidding." :barf:

Thinking like this implies that Orwell was a little late pulling up to the curb, but 1984 has arrived: no anti-policy press, please. Especially not from "our" propoganda publications! The masses might awaken... :fire:
 
Is there some reason why this should be of concern to gun owners in particular?
__________________
RealGun
---------------

Uh-oh! Something happened that can't be disbelieved, that shows that the admistration isn't perfection in policy again! Don't wanna hear it la la la la Bush is Perfect Rummy is Perfect close the thread la la la..

Like clockwork. Come on, man...EVERY time...
 
How is this anti-Bush? I think some of you are already "anti-Bush" and anti-war and are just reading into it what you want.
 
soldiers always want to go home, it is nothing new. Bout the only people that have wanted to go to war were in cultures where warrior status gave you some serious perks and stature and there was plunder to be had. Outside of that (and even then the cannon fodder didn't) soldiers have never wanted to go to war. Sure I'd rather see them home, I'd rather them not have to be someplace they would rather not be, but if you aren't prepared to do it anyway don't join the friggin military.
 
That said, 49 percent rated the overall competence of Pentagon senior civilian leaders as “poor” or “awful”; less than 27 percent rated it “excellent” or “good.”

I'm surprised Rumsfeld and company didn't have worse ratings. I bet Robert McNamara is giddy right now because finally there is a secretary of defense that is an even bigger incompetent than he is. McNamara will no longer be remembered as the biggest A-hole in history to hold that cabinet position. Rumsfeld clearly holds the title as the most incompetent A-hole ever to conduct a war.
 
Rumsfeld clearly holds the title as the most incompetent A-hole ever to conduct a war.

Rumsfeld is a manager, not a policy maker. He is very smart, very focused, and very hard-working. The problem is, these qualities by themselves are not enough for a good SoD. One must also be able to see the big picture and stand up to one's political bosses if it is in the country's best interests. In that, he indeed is a failure. However, also consider that if he had dissented, he would have ended up sacked like Powell and O'Neal. GWB and DC have zero tolerance for constructive disagreements - they call it "disloyalty".

As usual, the fish stinks out from the head first...
 
Lemme see here. Zogby Poll. Run by John Zogby who just happens to be the brother of James Zogby. James is President of the Arab American Institute.

Beware drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Lobotomy Boy, those of us who were drawing an informed breath during the Vietnam War will disagree with you assessment of Rummy vs McNamara. McNamara was completely in over his head and A LOT of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines died as a direct consequence of his galactic scale stupidity and arrogance. It ain't happened with Rumsfeldt, yet.
 
Good points, Cannoneer. I think where Rumsfeld made a tragically incompetent error was in not listening to top military advisors and sending in enough troops to do the job right at the front end of the invasion. If we have lost this war--and if civil war erupts, we have indeed lost--I believe that Rumsfeld's early decisions will be the primary reason we lost.

I thought that invading Iraq was a pretty bad idea from the get go, but in hindsight I think it could have been a wild success had we went in with enough troops and a workable plan for a post-war Iraq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top