Troops are Down on the War Posted by Lorelei Kelly

Very few newspapers carried the Military Times poll taken recently about how the deployed troops feel the Iraq war is going. More troops disapprove of the handling of the war than approve of it.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83% of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50%.

Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way Bush is handling the war, and 42% said they disapprove. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65% in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population — 45% agreed in a recent USA TODAY-Gallup poll.

Read the article here.

Comments

[SoldierInIraq]

Lorelei,

While I usually and verily respect your analysis of the news, this one left me a little concerned.

If you read the actual poll numbers, the majority of Gannett's respondents tend to believe Bush is doing a good job overall, albeit not in Iraq.

The majority also seem to encourage more troops for longer stays.

I think you were being a tad selective in what you gleaned from the survey, and that's unfair to your readers.

[SoldierInIraq]

I should note that I personally don't share many of the opinions of the respondents, many of whom (in this poll) had not deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, disproportionately seem to come from the ranks of the USCG, Navy and USAF, and tend to be either career officers or Staff Non-Commissioned Officers, a problem that always has bedeviled the self-selecting quality of the Military Times' annual polls.

I know you understand the military better than that.

[tksharp]

SoldierInIraq,

You wrote:

The majority also seem to encourage more troops for longer stays.

If you read the poll question here, it says "How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?" 70% said more than 3 years. To the related question, "How long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?" 80% said at least 3 years.

Given this evidence, I must quibble with your word choice of "encourage more troops for longer stays." These questions clearly asked respondents for an estimation, not a preference.

[J Thomas]

The poll was 55% Army/Marines. Opinions of officers/NCOs are valuable, perhaps more valuable than those of enlisted men doing maintenance and supplies.

13% said the mission was very likely to succeed, while 37% said it was somewhat likely to succeed, giving 50% for "success".

54% estimated that to reach US goals we will have to stay in iraq for 5 years or more, 23% estimated more than 10 years.

Given the question "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" 52% approved. This is not the same as saying he's doing a good job.

The question about number of troops was fouled. "We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?"

13% said we should pull out of kuwait, another 7% said we should have no more than 50,000 troops in kuwait.Or maybe they meant pull everything out of kuwait and put 50,000 troops in iraq. The question didn't ask about the little details.

38% said we should have more troops in iraq/kuwait than we do. 16% said we should have more than 200,000 troops there. This is for a mission that 13% say is more than "somewhat likely" to attain our goals after 5+ years.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php

[SoldierInIraq]

"Opinions of officers/NCOs are valuable, perhaps more valuable than those of enlisted men doing maintenance and supplies."

Again, I have an issue with those who don't really understand even the rudiments of the military.

NCOs are enlisted. Many of them might or might not be "doing maintenance or supplies." We don't know from this poll. A fairly large number of respondents hadn't even been to Iraq or Afghanistan, which doesn't exactly mean they have first-hand knowledge of the countries or their wars.

I'm not exactly sure what else J Thomas is prattling on about because he doesn't seem to get what the questions mean or how they would be read by military people.

But this is what the question said:

"Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?"

Fifty percent of the respondents indicated the US was at least somewhat likely to succeed. Another 41 percent said that it was either an unlikely prospect, or "not at all likely" to succeed.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Sorry if you're tripping over the semantics of what constitutes a "good" job, at least in the estimates of the respondents, but I think the 51 percent who said "approve" would think that meant "good."

This, again, contradicts the widespread perception in the general public that he's doing a pretty miserable job, either in Iraq or anywhere else.

The survey, again, reflects a naturally conservative group of career officers and SNCOs. What's odd about this survey was the large numbers of people giving opinions about a place they've never been.

Since they are a self-selecting bunch, one wonders why they would choose to say they had any expertise on the matter.

But, then again, I read all sorts of experts making comments about all sorts of things of which they have little working knowledge. I just expected better of Lorelei Kelly in this particular matter because I value her work.

Whether JThomas or the other guy making noise in here ever understand the military is moot. They aren't likely to become policymakers or cast an opinion that matters to same.

Lorelei is.

[J Thomas]

SoldierInIraq, you seem to be fond of the illusion that you have some sort of credibility from who you claim you are.

Prove that you're who you say you are and that you have no connection to the US military's disinformation campaign being waged against the US public, or accept that you're just another anonymous commenter.

[bg]

JT, there you go again thinking that we are all just secret government workers in the basement of the NSA spreading lies and disinformation through blogs in hopes of confusing the American public.

What SoldierInIraq says is consistent with what someone would say who is in the military if you want me as a reference. Of course, maybe I am sitting next to him in that basement and we are high five'ing right now.

While I agree with the spirit of this poll, that service member's confidence in the mission is dropping (I will admit mine has as well), I think it is really a moot point. I personally disagree completely with the expected plan to increase troops in Iraq, however, as a Soldier, once that order is given, I will execute it to the best of my abilities. Not out of fear for my job or my career, but because that is simply how it works. Would you want or expect anything different from a service member?

Regardless of how service members feel (assuming the accuracy of this poll which does have some serious flaws as SoldierInIraq points out), this does not mean that you are going to see the military rising up against the government or even joining any peace movements any time soon. (check out the Army's retention numbers, Soldiers vote with their feet)

Instead, I believe the reason that these types of polls are discussed so frequently in anti-war arenas is because those without experience in the war want to ride the coat tails of those who did for their "credibility" as a result of their experiences. (I saw that in a movie called Forrest Gump). Of course, if the polls were the opposite, the service members would likely be called mindless robots.

[SoldierInIraq]

"Prove that you're who you say you are and that you have no connection to the US military's disinformation campaign being waged against the US public, or accept that you're just another anonymous commenter."

Again, if you don't know how offensive that is, walk up to a soldier and suggested as much to him.

The irony is that progressives should be building alliances with people like BG and me instead of accusing them of being part of a "disinformation campaign."

If you've noticed, we are giving you REAL information about the military. You can either listen to it, or drink the Kool-ade marked "Soldiers Joining Peace Movement."

Believe it or not, there are quite a few progressives in the military. It's not nearly so uniform in thinking as it is uniform in standards.

Hell, Wes Clark just ran for president.

[SoldierInIraq]

"Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65% in 2003."

Again, my caveat about this particular poll speaking for the "military" is a bit odd, and it's a problem the article itself referenced.

That aside, I hope Lorelei explores in future posts why she believes this to be so. I'm not so sure the respondents have necessarily soured on the mission (well, those who have actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan) so much as expressed exasperation with how long it will take and how hard it will be.

There also are issues about the lengths and frequency of deployments and, from a commander's perspective, the loss of equipment and training that would be considered vital for fighting a future, highly kinetic war against a peer foe.

I'm not sure she will break any new ground, but I, for one, would value hearing her perspective on these notions, which I'm sure she's heard on the job.

[J Thomas]

BG, the question isn't whether you're all disinformation specialists. The question is whether half of you are. And that won't be answered until the budgets get declassified, if then.

I agree that the volunteer army will follow orders even when they know the orders are wrong. The tradition is that the top field commanders should resign rather than follow orders that lead to disaster, but the orders they give in the field will be obeyed. Sure, that's proper for a volunteer army. The dropping morale will mostly show up as soldiers get their time at home and tell people privately what they've seen. What I hear -- privately -- is pretty grim.

[J Thomas]

Again, if you don't know how offensive that is, walk up to a soldier and suggested as much to him.

SoldierInIraq, the trouble is that at the moment you are a mostly-anonymous commenter on a blog. When I walk up to a real soldier I know he's a real soldier. Unless, say, he's some loudmouth I meet in a bar who might or might not be who he says he is. In that case I listen in case he says something interesting but I don't accept him as an authority.

You keep getting offended but you do nothing to establish that you even know what you're talking about, much less that you're more of an authority than the random guy in a bar who says he's an expert.

[J Thomas]

The irony is that progressives should be building alliances with people like BG and me instead of accusing them of being part of a "disinformation campaign."

I do that with real people. Here? Alliance with you? What do you propose we do about our mutual concerns? I'd be fascinated by any proposals from you.

[bg]

"The dropping morale will mostly show up as soldiers get their time at home and tell people privately what they've seen. What I hear -- privately -- is pretty grim"

JT, I don't see this as being much different from any other war. War sucks, all war sucks. And I am sure you've heard some bad stuff, but most who really saw the worst won't even talk it with those who have not experienced it themselves (a possible counter-argument for high retention numbers versus support for the war).

As I stated before, the Army has had impressive retention numbers, especially from those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (sorry, can't find the stats). I would make the argument that successful retention of veterans is not an indicator of lacking morale. When we see serious drop offs in veteran retention, that is when I will truly feel that there is a shift in service member's support for the ongoing war.

[J Thomas]

BG, I heard that some of the troops are seriously concerned that if they don't re-enlist they're likely to get called up anyway and put in as replacements in some other unit. That would make a choice -- re-enlist and get a bonus, or don't re-enlist and get no bonus and a randomised assignment.

Do you have evidence that this isn't happening?

If that's the choice, high re-enlistment rates wouldn't say much about morale one way or the other.

[J Thomas]

War sucks, all war sucks. And I am sure you've heard some bad stuff, but most who really saw the worst won't even talk

So what I've heard has probably been just the edges of how bad it is.

And we're supposed to keep doing this for maybe another 10 years? And the rationale for why all this suckiness is necessary is ... what?

[Lorelei Kelly]

Thanks for the comments, esp. SoldierinIraq and JThomas. I admit I did not do enough due diligence for this post. I had the hard copy of USA Today and no chance to link to the MilitaryTimes poll until this evening (am travelling to see family in the middle of nowhere and grab internet for bits and pieces) I am actually most disturbed by item 12 in the poll about linking the Iraq war with the War on Terror and throwing Afghanistan in there for good measure. I feel that if we continue to not differentiate, not appreciate subtlety, truth and evidence, lo we are lost. thanks for putting the link in your respose. much appreciated.

[bg]

JT, the only evidence have is my own experience as a company commander in Iraq. Part of my job was meeting retention goals. I talked to every soldier in my company about reenlistment. Our goal was only about 33%, which we met. None of those who reenlisted, to my knowledge, felt any fear of being called back. However, your argument is valid in regards to reenlisting into the reserves or national guard. There used to be a time when soldiers seriously considered joining the reserves or guard after active duty, but no longer (for the reason you mentioned, the soldier knows that would simply mean getting called back on active duty, therefore, that soldier might as well stay active). As a result, reserves and guard numbers are really going to suffer.

There is also a separate issue for officers (and this may be what you've heard). When officers get out, their commissions remain open and that officer can be called up at any time. There is a disturbing amount of officers leaving the service, last I heard the West Point class of 2000 was already at 35% attrition. But most that I know who get out do so not in protest to the war or any policies, they are simply tired of long deployments, one after another, and want to have a more normal life.

As far as the question:

"So what I've heard has probably been just the edges of how bad it is."

It is possible you are only hearing half of the story, censored for your benefit or the benefit of the veteran telling the story who does not want to relive the event. However, be aware of another likely scenario. Some veterans who like to talk about their experiences and war stories like the attention that is brings them, so they may even embellish to make them sound more interesting. Sometimes people will tell a story as if they were there, even if they weren't. They know that other veterans might throw up the BS flag, however, someone who has never been, especially a civilian, would never know the difference. So be aware of the motivations of the veteran who tells you the war stories.

[SoldierInIraq]

"They know that other veterans might throw up the BS flag, however, someone who has never been, especially a civilian, would never know the difference. So be aware of the motivations of the veteran who tells you the war stories."

Bingo.

[SoldierOutOfIraq]

I was informed yesterday by the nefarious Pentagon that my ETS was accepted and I am eternally, honorably, discharged from duty from the U.S. Army, as of 28Nov06.

Therefore, I'm changing my name to reflect the new reality of my military status. I, moreover, could not respond to the Military Times poll if they sent me a letter!

Now as a civilian, I'm no longer part of the blogging black ops in the basement of the Pentagon with BG.

I'm just a simple civilian.

Hooah.

[bg]

Thanks for your service bud and good luck to you.

[SoldierOutOfIraq]

You too, brother. Watch your six.

[Bumpy1]

Hear from people who have been to Iraq and are currently there. And yes, they are real soldiers. www.soldiervoices.net. Thank you for your service SoldierOutOfIraq. You can post there too. We need to hear all opinions from people who have actually been there.

[J Thomas]

It occurred to me that you guys might have an interesting take on the following question.

Retired colonel Patrick Lang has expressed repeated concern about US supply lines in iraq. We've had some trouble moving supplies in sunni-majority areas, but not much trouble in the south. He warns that if we start to get significant shia opposition we could face supply troubles for practically the entire distance from kuwait on, and logistics problems could then threaten our combat effectiveness.

Are those reasonable concerns, or has he left out something important?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html

[bg]

JT,

I respect COL Lang's background and experience and from what he discussed in the article, he seems well informed. But I think he is wrong on this particular issue if he thinks that there will be significant long term disruption of the US supply lines in southern Iraq as a result of mixing it up with the Shia militia. To me what is unclear in his article is what he thinks would trigger such a situation. Could this happen by simply openly targeting Sadr's militia (which we are already doing), or is he talking a larger fight directed towards Iran?

Sure, this enemy course of action he discusses is possible, and these are reasonable concerns in regards to the short term effects of more direct action against Sadr and his militia. However, in my opinion, if we are only talking about an escalation in direct action against Sadr's militias, the disruption of ground supplies would only be short term and will only cause minor inconveniences.

[J Thomas]

BG, thank you for sharing your opinion.

Why do you think such disruptions would be only short-term? What would we do to keep them from continuing? Would we depopulate the areas close to our supply lines?

[bg]

JT, sorry I can't go into much details, but I will say it has to do with Shia insurgent's logistics and levels of supply (low quantity in the types of really effective weapons), that is part of the reason I don't think they can sustain a long fight. I will say, that for some reason, insurgents (especially in the south) have been very reluctant, or all together ineffective, in attacking long logistical convoys. Again, I don't know why, it has often puzzled me.

Part of my reasoning is also tied to what I know about the Madhi Militia (Sadr's boys) who are the only ones who are really belligerent enough to openly attack coalition forces in the south. Twice before (Spring and early Fall of 2004), Mahdi Militia rose up in the south, and neither time they were able to sustain it for more than a week or so. True, their capabilities and numbers have grown since then.

What I think you would see in the event of another southern uprising (which is what I think is the concern in regards to our supply lines), is the voices of the moderates (Sistani) coming back to life to settle things down, and we would likely see Bush's buddy Hakim (who really doesn't like Sadr) would mobilize his militia (Badr) to put down the Madhi.

But again, I am not disagreeing with COL Lang that his enemy course of action should be taken very seriously (what we would call the Enemy Most Dangerous Course of Action), I just don't think it is the most likely scenario.

[SoldierOutOfIraq]

Col Lang was allowed to retire early because he blogged happy news from Iraq.

[kmhiber axbihovk]

sjxcuazid ulphkcye ajixdpb lquodatw bopqaws dikux jaqrtwkm

[jhzsfl ywgjodm]

coubpksmy cqzvkabm mgxleahdr vxfbaqcw xfhpmcwn kisuycn okwrz http://www.qdzctogim.uqyotj.com

[fdqj bpdniztg]

irfb xeftidz aoth nocafsk qhxkrpntm jrqfnxs ajhylfsq [URL=http://www.lixmcy.pfmrnovds.com]qeagc ckjub[/URL]

[movado watch]

Thanks for your sharing,and you will enjoy the sunshine service. Let's abandon all the worry, omega watch and enjoy the happy shopping travel.All the are most in fashion boutique this year. show your chaming temperament. In addtin, the and the other make you mold your unique glamour this winter. The swiss have the high quality but low price. nd have all the style and cheapest price Chanel Watch Enjoying the fun of net purchase! We will supply you the perfect service and after sale support system. Our honest will bring you absolute satisfaction. Aslo and are so good for you.

[bbelstaff bag 554]

Good article, thanks for pointing this out. esteroides Fortunately this topic is also presented in your blog, assuring a good coverage.