Military Views on Iraq
An interesting poll by the Army Times, to be published tomorrow but up now on their website, showing "high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort" and "disconnect between troops civilian leadership" (their headline, not mine).
The polling is of "the career-oriented heart of the military." Some key findings:
(1) Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq, while still higher than national averages, have fallen significantly in the last year:
Approval of the President's Iraq policy: 54%, compared to 63% a year ago.
Support for the President's overall performance: 60%, compared to 71% in 2004.
(2) Optimism about achieving the mission in Iraq remains high but not as high: 71% agree that "the U.S. is likely to succeed", compared to 83% a year ago.
(3) This poll was the first to ask "how soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?" Only 27% said within 1-2 years; 40% not for 3-5 years, and 24% 5-10 years or longer.
(4) Only 40% feel that the DOD civilian leadership "have my best interests at heart." The response for President Bush still was 58%, although this was down from 69% last year. The response for the senior military leadership was 64%.
(5) Congress is held in very low regard: only 31% gave a favorable response on the best interests at heart question. In some respects this number may be less surprising than last year's 63% positive. The data doesn't show the drivers of this, whether Democratic and other opposition to the Iraq war or Republican scandals and/or other factors.
Comments (19)
Thanks! Just to avoid misunderstandings, let me note that should be "disconnect between troops, civilian leadership," with the comma meaning in effect "and." I wouldn't want people to think it's bad grammar for a disconnect between those within the ranks of the troops' civilian leaders.
January 2, 2006 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
fascinating, especially number 3. which pretty much says it all.
January 2, 2006 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article describes those polled as "the career-oriented heart of the military" and says that the sample is "older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the military population."
This is not what most of us mean by "troops." A more representative sample -- which is hard to get, I'm not claiming deliberate bias -- might show much less support for Bush and the current direction in Iraq.
January 2, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please give your definition of "troops". In an all-volunteer army, I'm not sure that there will be that much difference with first-time enlistees.
January 2, 2006 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as senior troops versus first termers, first termers are begging to fill quotos for duty in Iraq...at least in the Marine Corps...at the very least in my unit; if fact I had to hold a board the last time Marines were requested...too few billets...too many young Marines wanting to serve?? Just the facts...those of us who have had the courage to serve in Iraq have seen the truth. Good things are really happening...and among the best of things?? Young Americans are displaying courage and honor commensurate with the "Greatest Generation." You would not beleive it...unless you could see it...brave young men and women doing very great things in Iraq.
As far as Iraqis taking the helm? Well, that is a challenge. Not because there isn't thousands who want too; it's because of the generations of cultural tendencies to handle things in ways our culture does not accept, coupled with intense hatered, revenge, and retribution...similar to that which plagued Ireland for many years. To many Iraqis (Kurds and Shiites), Saddam is 1000 times worse than Hitler...(ironic how there are references being thrown around about George Bush and Hitler)...I'm no George Bush fan...but that is crazy thinking.
As far as leadership, things are not perfect...things could probably be better...but I'm humble enough to know that I don't know everything...perhaps our leadership knows something I don't...perhaps I know some things you all don't??? Perhaps it is important to keep some things to ourselves...for the greater good.
Things won't go perfectly, and there will be mistakes and losses. Unfortunate. I know more than most that sacrifice is necessary to make things better and safer for us...and others.
Many of you have feelings that don't match the truth. That is OK with me and my Marines. We will be here for you regardless.
Semper Fidelis
January 2, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't fall for the old con job - perhaps the leadership knows something I don't. They tried to pull that one over on us in Vietnam. It turns out what LBJ knew that he wasn't telling everybody back then was that the war was unwinnable. This is a democracy. The government can keep certain info secret (e..g. when and where D-Day will be launched), but if they keep the entire reason you're in a war secret - that's a dictatorship. The citizens can't make a sound judgment. We all think you military people are the best. But don't let yourself be conned by W. He doesn't have a clue.
January 2, 2006 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the majority of us don't want you "over there." Of greatness and valor within the military? Who can doubt that. But before anyone sent you there, good military leaders had to step down and out of the way. Simply because they knew, as we can see, that this commitment was in the wrong place and poorly planned despite strategic success in the first phases of combat. I know your commitment to your Commander-In-Chief, your oath to the Constitution are true blue American. Just understand that your commanders are subordinate to the Will of The People. If you find you're out of Iraq before you think you finished your mission it will be because of The Will of the People through Consitutional means. You're still one of us, you can count on that. Just remember that some of the very same people who want you out of Iraq want also want a better life for you as a soldier and a Veteran. We'll be here for *you,* regardless of what you know at this time to be the truth.
January 2, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't necessarily take the Marine's view (posted above) as definitive. Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor of Army Times was interviewed here yesterday. He offered an interesting view of his readership and the respondents participating the survey.
January 2, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what is the mission now? What are the facts?
All the expert commentators say that the military's mission is to kill people, blow things up and rain down destruction. Wasn't that accomplished two years ago? Today's Washington Post says that Bush is not asking for any more money for reconstruction. The article says "that roughly half of the $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.... When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people."
That sounds like Bush broke it, but he won't own it. So what is the truth? (And by the way, no one is angry with the military. If one wants to see anger, they should go back and look at newsreels of the Vietnam war protests.)
January 2, 2006 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 3, 2006 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You would not beleive it...unless you could see it...brave young men and women doing very great things in Iraq."
Sir, For my edification, can you expand on this, especially in the context of over two thousand American dead, sixteen thousand plus wounded and/or maimed, and more billions of dollars spent than most American can comprehend. Thankyou. Bob
January 3, 2006 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is precisely the point. This is the most pro-authority polling group anyone is likely to find. And they are being slowly lost.
January 3, 2006 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I find unfortunate is that, for me, the Marine's credibility is tarnished by the very fact that I can't know whether he's sincere or someone on the WH payoll. The trouble with paying people to plant good news is that it makes all good news suspect.
January 3, 2006 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A question I have had for a while is what does a patrol in Iraq do that advances our cause. It seems to me that if they are not kicking in doors to make searches or interrogating Iraqis for infomation, which they are extremely unlikely to get without threateninng them, they must merely be moving around and exposing themselve to fire and then reacting when it comes. I'm certain that many of these troops act bravely and even heroically, but I cannot imagine how they react effectively in advancing our position. Does anyone doubt that Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or for that matter the armies of Ghengis Khan produced heroes? I suspect that at least some of our current military, when faced with the death of their friends and operating whithin the popualtion that killed them, react whith indiscriminate rage coupled with trmendous firepower. Most of us believe that killing in a "just war" is justified. Some, if not many, of todays soldiers will someday come to agree that this war is not justified and some will relize that some of the killing was murder. Part of my magical mystery tour was through Pinkville a couple months after Calley was there. I honestly don't know how I would have acted if I had been there with Calley. I was never a hero though, so I doubt I would have tried to stop what happened. I got over my hate and, ironically enough, now have a Vietnamese daughter-in-law and two wonderrful grandchildren. Some things you know intellectually and some things you learn the real truth of throough experience. War is hell whether necessary or not and agressive war is a crime and a sin. Just another rambling view of war. For a neocon justification for war, or for that matter a justification for anything, google Leo Strauss.
January 3, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there are many who do not. For those who do, I am deeply sympathetic because they are dying, getting wounded (physically and mentally) for absolutely nothing.
They are fighting for an Islamic state and they are losing.
They are the most to be pitied and fought for
January 3, 2006 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had the opportunity to talk many Iraqis. The rare ability to speak and interact with "insurgents." I can say, having been where I've been and seen what I've seen, that I believe in our mission. We are making things immediately better for Iraqis...yes, it's true the short sighted view is that we are dying and making sacrifices for Iraqis, vice Americans. Perhaps there's a bigger picture beyond the immediate results (which are admittedly mixed). What is the big picture: The World and America is safer with a free and Democratic Iraq. Terrorists see a response of strength vice weakness; they have pure contempt for weakness; they respect strength. They know that they cannot survive when their tactics are met from a position of strength.
I know good things will come when we are successful...I also know we will not be successful if we lose strategically. When it comes to fighting, dying, tactics, equipment, and heart where the rubber meets the road: we cannot we stopped. But those victories are moot without political and stragegic victory; I'm dissapointed that we have not done better strategically.
Please understand, I want us out of Iraq...by all means, of course I do. But I also want the sacrifice to mean something. I want success. I know success is possible. I know it will bring better life to Iraqis and I know it will make the world safer.
Semper Fidelis
January 3, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just me trying to understand those who feel so differently than I do...and express my views.
I respect your views and I'm interested in reading them...sensed some contempt toward my comments. No offense is intended. I have battles to fight on the job; I'm doing this to relax and exchange ideas.
Semper Fidelis
January 3, 2006 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid the "big picture" is the opposite of what you feel it is. We are less safe and more hated. Bush's illegitimate invasion of Iraq has been a recruiting campaign for worldwide terrorism versus the US. This is the Bush administration's fault - not the military's.
January 4, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That being said, I'm still free to dissagree personnaly, and I often do. In fact, I'm bound by our core values to voice my dissent when we are headed the wrong way...but in the end (provided the orders are legal) I give 110% to my boss regardless of the final call.
I would say you are most definitely right that our action in Iraq has been a rally cry for some who hate us; however, please consider this: there are many Muslims and Kurds under Saddams regime who saw the U.S. as self-righteous, rich, arragant, hypocrits; we talk smack about human rights, our influence, our affluence, our generosity, our power...yet we sit back and allow brutal oppression and poverty, such as was going on in Iraq. This non-action also breeds hate against the U.S.; it is happening in South America now. Our lack of attention and assistance to our own backyard is breeding ill feelings toward us. Muslims who may have been raised to hate and fear us their entire lives, will most likely continue to hate us regardless. But I know for a fact (because I have spoken to them) that many in the mid-east are encouraged by our attention, protection, and aid.
Perhaps you are more right than I am...but for our sakes, I hope I'm right.
January 6, 2006 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink