Survey of 6,000 active duty soldiers reveals anger about war

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
A poll of 6,000 active duty soldiers by several agencies the other day, despite a blackout of media coverage revealed that our soldiers are exactly in line with the american people about the war. The majority of the 6,000 are against the war, most dont think bush sending more troops makes any sense at all, and most want the troops to come home.

This is a bad sign. When the people who are fighting the war, start questioning it, and protesting it, then we have fraggings and such incidents. Although I dont think such things are good, they are inevitable when things like this happen, things like sending troops to die in iraq with out proper equipment and ttraining, and then sending troops to die in iraq and having those same soldiers say the war is complete crap and not worth fighting.

Lets end this goddamn war.

I would love to hear from those on this board who think the war is still winnable and that the war is still good.

How do you respond to this post and my other posts?

If the majority of americans are against the war

The majority of Iraqis are against the war

And the majority of soldiers are against the war,

then why are you still supporting this illegal and immoral war?


Published:
Dec. 29, 2006
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq

By Robert Hodierne
Senior managing editor

The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

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

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

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

Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Mil itary Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not sur prised by the changing attitude within the military.

“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.

He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the in telligence that led to the war was wrong.”

Whatever war plan the presi dent comes up with later this month, it likely will have the re placement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surpris ing 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the re spondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.

The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty mili tary subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representa tive of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more ca reer-oriented than the overall mil itary population.

Among the respondents, 66 per cent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.

The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the pro fessional career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

While approval of Bush’s han dling of the war has plunged, ap proval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent. While that is down from his high of 71 percent in 2004, it is still far above the approval rat ings of the general population, where that number has fallen into the 30s.

While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identi fied themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the mili tary respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a fig ure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

Similarly, when asked to de scribe their political views on a scale from very conservative to very liberal, there was a slight shift from the conservative end of the spectrum to the middle or moderate range. Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of re spondents describing themselves that way.

Seeing media bias

Segal was not surprised that the military support for the war and the president’s handling of it had slumped. He said he believes that military opinion often mir rors that of the civilian popula tion, even though it might lag in time. He added, “[The military] will always be more pro-military and pro-war than the civilians. That’s why they are in this line of work.”

The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over whelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the mili tary (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of mili tary respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

The poll also asked if the senior military leadership, President Bush, civilian military leadership and Congress have their best in terests at heart.

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military lead ership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best inter ests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.

Despite concerns early in the war about equipment shortages, 58 percent said they believe they are supplied with the best possi ble weapons and equipment.

While President Bush always portrays the war in Iraq as part of the larger war on terrorism, many in the military are not convinced. The respondents were split evenly — 47 percent both ways — on whether the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. The rest had no opinion.

On many questions in the poll, some respondents said they didn’t have an opinion or declined to an swer. That number was typically in the 10 percent range.

But on questions about the president and on war strategy, that number reached 20 percent and higher. Segal said he was surprised the percentage refus ing to offer an opinion wasn’t larger.

“There is a strong strain in mili tary culture not to criticize the commander in chief,” he said.

One contentious area of military life in the past year has been the role religion should play. Some troops have complained that they feel pressure to attend religious services. Others have complained that chaplains and superior offi cers have tried to convert them. Half of the poll respondents said that at least once a month, they attend official military gather ings, other than meals and chapel services, that began with a prayer. But 80 percent said they feel free to practice and express their religion within the military.


heres the key part:

It also found that only 38 percent of the troops think there should be more troops in Iraq than there are now -- in other words, only 38 percent support an escalation. By contrast, 39 percent of respondents think there should be the same or less troops there.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Survey of 600 South Americans Regarding Che Guevera reveals he was a violent murderer.
  • Not a surprising bunch of statistics, the people who deal with it 24/7 have to be infinitely more angry about this stupid mess than us stateside folks. This is why the "I support the troops" crutch rings hollow most of the time because to truly support them would be to get them home ASAP.

    In other news, ol' Bushie wants to send more troops over there to serve as cannon fodder. It's hard to not be angry about this when you think about how he couldn't even be bothered to show up for his National Guard gig in Alabama.
    hate was just a legend
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Survey of 600 South Americans Regarding Che Guevera reveals he was a violent murderer.

    oh well, I guess the information in the article posted can be ignored...

    move on, nothing to see here, "freedom" is on the march....
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    While I oppose all war, I really do not give any credibility to a survey of soldiers. They signed up for this and (essentially) gave away their right to an opinion about what they are asked to do.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    While I doubt the validity of the statement "the majority of Americans disapprove of the war"...................... I will say that just because a majority feels a certain way, I try not to let that sway my own opinions. Even if a majority thinks or feels a certain way, that doesn't make them right.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • While I doubt the validity of the statement "the majority of Americans disapprove of the war"......................


    All you gotta do is turn on the tv. In March 2003 70 percent of americans supported the war. By summer of 2005, the summer that CIndy Sheehan became a household name, the war turned. Now, poll after poll, month after month has consistently shown that a majority of americans are against this war.

    Thats a fact.
  • While I doubt the validity of the statement "the majority of Americans disapprove of the war"......................


    All you gotta do is turn on the tv. In March 2003 70 percent of americans supported the war. By summer of 2005, the summer that CIndy Sheehan became a household name, the war turned. Now, poll after poll, month after month has consistently shown that a majority of americans are against this war.

    Thats a fact.

    Kind of funny how Cindy Sheehan is a household name, but Casey Sheehan isn't? Something to think about maybe.

    A military survey is fuckin ridiculous, that's the dumbest shit I ever saw. If you fuckin caught me on a bad day in Iraq I would've told you the most crazy left wing opinion on the planet.
    www.myspace.com/olafvonmastadon
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    While I oppose all war, I really do not give any credibility to a survey of soldiers. They signed up for this and (essentially) gave away their right to an opinion about what they are asked to do.

    um...are you saying that once a person joins the military, they can't have an opinion...?

    wow, that's messed up...:confused:
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    inmytree wrote:
    um...are you saying that once a person joins the military, they can't have an opinion...?

    wow, that's messed up...:confused:

    No - not exactly. I'm not saying they can't...I'm saying they voluntarily gave it up. It's pretty pathetic to join a military of your own free will and then oppose being sent into action.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    No - not exactly. I'm not saying they can't...I'm saying they voluntarily gave it up. It's pretty pathetic to join a military of your own free will and then oppose being sent into action.

    oh ok, I was just checking, I didn't want to assume..:)

    I would be willing to bet, many who freely joined the military did not forsee being sent into battle based on faulty intel...sent into battle without proper equipment, you know, things like that...
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    inmytree wrote:
    oh ok, I was just checking, I didn't want to assume..:)

    I would be willing to bet, many who freely joined the military did not forsee being sent into battle based on faulty intel...sent into battle without proper equipment, you know, things like that...

    You mean like this guy.

    http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/20070102/hz_specialfeatures_1/blogs19056

    "EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
    Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

    Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq. "
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    inmytree wrote:
    oh ok, I was just checking, I didn't want to assume..:)

    I would be willing to bet, many who freely joined the military did not forsee being sent into battle based on faulty intel...sent into battle without proper equipment, you know, things like that...

    But see....those things like faulty intel do not matter. The nature of joining the military is that you're agreeing to immediately do what your superior(s) ask you to without questioning.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • While I doubt the validity of the statement "the majority of Americans disapprove of the war"......................


    All you gotta do is turn on the tv. In March 2003 70 percent of americans supported the war. By summer of 2005, the summer that CIndy Sheehan became a household name, the war turned. Now, poll after poll, month after month has consistently shown that a majority of americans are against this war.

    Thats a fact.

    no, it's not a fact...it's a poll...it's statistics...it's bullshit...i don't believe what any survey or poll says
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • know1 wrote:
    But see....those things like faulty intel do not matter. The nature of joining the military is that you're agreeing to immediately do what your superior(s) ask you to without questioning.

    exactly, if you don't want to do that...then don't join...
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    But see....those things like faulty intel do not matter. The nature of joining the military is that you're agreeing to immediately do what your superior(s) ask you to without questioning.

    a "shut up and do it" kind of thing...right?

    sorry, but you can't take human nature out of solider, they are human, too...
  • cutback wrote:
    You mean like this guy.

    http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/20070102/hz_specialfeatures_1/blogs19056

    "EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
    Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

    Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq. "

    Don't be fooled by that fuckhead. Why didn't he dissent while stationed in Korea? Funny how he got orders to deploy then decided it was unjust, you know his family's in politics? We'll see him running for something someday, I'll bet on it.

    He says he has an obligation to refuse for the good of the troops, what about his obligation to his men, he left them high and dry without their platoon leader just to deploy without him, they got wives and kids and shit.

    I met him two months ago and we talked briefly, not impressed, sorry.

    Everybody has an agenda.
    www.myspace.com/olafvonmastadon
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    inmytree wrote:
    a "shut up and do it" kind of thing...right?

    sorry, but you can't take human nature out of solider, they are human, too...

    Then they shouldn't volunteer because that's exactly how the military works.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    A poll of 6,000 active duty soldiers by several agencies the other day, despite a blackout of media coverage revealed that our soldiers are exactly in line with the american people about the war. The majority of the 6,000 are against the war, most dont think bush sending more troops makes any sense at all, and most want the troops to come home.

    Published:
    Dec. 29, 2006
    Down on the war
    Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq

    By Robert Hodierne
    Senior managing editor

    Can you post a link please to the source? I know that soldiers are not allowed to talk to the press without serious consequences, so I doubt that there was any "survey". The gov't controls all mainstream media, so I have trouble finding this article valid. Sad to say, but until people wake up and realize that everything we hear and read aren't truths, you can't believe anything you read.
    I would LIKE to believe it, but if we can't even see a covered casket of a killed soldier on tv, then there's no way a poll was taken for all of us to read.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    Then they shouldn't volunteer because that's exactly how the military works.

    I guess you were saying that once they sign the dotted line, they have no opinion...ever...

    perhaps we should call soliders and military personnel "robots"...

    by the way, how do you know "exactly how the military works"...? I'm curious...
  • inmytree wrote:
    I guess you were saying that once they sign the dotted line, they have no opinion...ever...

    perhaps we should call soliders and military personnel "robots"...

    by the way, how do you know "exactly how the military works"...? I'm curious...


    If I may, it's called article 86 or 68 or something. Officers can not conduct interviews, polls, lettors to the editor etc. that publicly denounce the president of the United States or the US government.

    Enlisted men and women can't voice their negative opinions towards the president because the president is the "Commander in Chief" the highest person in ones chain of command, making fun of the president or policy by enlisted is no different than making fun of your drill sergeant, repurcussions may follow.

    Although it's not really enforced on the enlisted side, to think that such a poll could be taken accurately seems sketchy.

    That's why they're sticking it to Watada, he's the first officer to publicly voice his opinion.
    www.myspace.com/olafvonmastadon
  • bryanfurybryanfury Posts: 460
    Don't be fooled by that fuckhead. Why didn't he dissent while stationed in Korea? Funny how he got orders to deploy then decided it was unjust, you know his family's in politics? We'll see him running for something someday, I'll bet on it.

    He says he has an obligation to refuse for the good of the troops, what about his obligation to his men, he left them high and dry without their platoon leader just to deploy without him, they got wives and kids and shit.

    I met him two months ago and we talked briefly, not impressed, sorry.

    Everybody has an agenda.

    fuckhead?

    kind of hard to have a logical discussion when you preface your point with that.
    those undecided, needn't have faith to be free
  • seagoat2seagoat2 Posts: 241
    Anyone catch "Frontline" on PBS last night? It was about Dick Cheney & the intel. used to justify the Iraq war.

    Check it out at pbs.org
  • I was calling Watada "Fuckhead". I'm sorry but personally when I think about that guy I get very very angry.

    Let me again apologize for my language, it's a real problem especially in the work I do as a radio DJ. I'm working on it though.

    Don't let my colorful vocabulary lead you away from the facts though.
    www.myspace.com/olafvonmastadon
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    seagoat2 wrote:
    Anyone catch "Frontline" on PBS last night? It was about Dick Cheney & the intel. used to justify the Iraq war.

    Check it out at pbs.org

    I watched part of it before I feel asleep. Nothing I hadn't heard before, but it was interesting to hear from the people that were there.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    Yes, these men and women voluntarily joined the U.S. military ranks and knew that if required they could be placed in harms way. Our President asked them to go to war for Iraq freedom - THEY DID!!!!

    -they captured and killed the sons of Saddam
    -they captured and killed several would be replacement leaders
    -they defeated the formal Iraqi military
    -they found no weapons of mass destruction
    -they captured Saddam so that he could be brought to trial
    -they made it possible for Iraq to hold elections for the formation of a democratic style governing body
    -they fought insurgents
    -they fought the faceless enemy of the citizen turned bomber, police trainee with a gun to their back

    They did what our President asked and succeeded.

    -No weapons of mass destruction were found.

    -Iraq has an "elected" governing body "voted" in by the "people" of Iraq.

    -Saddam is dead

    -Iraq is FREE

    This is the military oath of our enlisted service personnel, it varies for Officers.

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    So help me God.

    The "military" men and women of the U.S. and coalition forces did their duties without question and hesitation.

    What possible reason is great enough for us to send an additional 20,000 more troops to Iraq. U.S. soldiers killing civilians engaged in a civil war does not constitute a military action only a necessity to defend and survive. The soldiers are realizing this. So their opinion, when expressed in a general survey, may have no effect whatsoever, yet it is their right to express such and they do not lose that right because they "volunteered" to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ...

    Civil wars are politically inspired, tragic aftermaths of wars with no end game. This one is no different. That is why we have a Department of State - SO GET TO THE TABLE and end this sh-t and stop playing games with the lives of our military personel.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    bryanfury wrote:
    fuckhead?

    kind of hard to have a logical discussion when you preface your point with that.

    That's why we use punctuation, and why it is so important.

    His quote was "Don't be fooled by that fuckhead". Had he written what you thought you read, it would have been "Don't be fooled by that, fuckhead."

    Subtle, but important.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    know1 wrote:
    But see....those things like faulty intel do not matter. The nature of joining the military is that you're agreeing to immediately do what your superior(s) ask you to without questioning.

    No, they do not. They don't become robots for chrissakes. Taking orders is something we all do, civilian or soldier.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • seagoat2 wrote:
    Anyone catch "Frontline" on PBS last night? It was about Dick Cheney & the intel. used to justify the Iraq war.

    Check it out at pbs.org

    That was pretty interesting. I always enjoy Frontline. I could have done without that douche Joe Wilson.
  • bryanfurybryanfury Posts: 460
    jeffbr wrote:
    That's why we use punctuation, and why it is so important.

    His quote was "Don't be fooled by that fuckhead". Had he written what you thought you read, it would have been "Don't be fooled by that, fuckhead."

    Subtle, but important.

    i was merely referring to him calling someone a fuckhead. but, i do see your point as it relates to puncuation :)
    those undecided, needn't have faith to be free
Sign In or Register to comment.