A new Zogby poll was conducted among active duty troops serving in Iraq, and startlingly, 72% of them think we should withdraw within the year, nearly 1/3 saying that we should withdraw immediately. Those would be the same troops that President Bush insists "want to stay and finish the job". Even more disturbing, 85% of the troops surveyed are still under the impression that Saddam's Iraq was a party to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, even though the administration has acknowledged that no such link existed. More information and further breakdown of this polling is available here.

In my opinion this speaks volumes about the methods by which this war has been handled by this administration, both tactically, and from a public relations standpoint. The question that remains is how to get ourselves out of this mess while ensuring that Iraq doesn't become a terrorists' haven.

I don't think that we can continue to occupy Iraq, not only because of the waning support all the way around for it, but because we're never going to be able to achieve any real stability there, at least not through large-scale military operations.

I think that we should bring the majority of our troops home, while leaving some special forces units and advisors/trainers to aid the Iraqi military in keeping the peace themselves. We should also lend whatever support we can to the democratically elected government of Iraq to assist them as they work to build/rebuild vital infrastructure and maintain rule of law. If Iraq is ever going to gain the benefits of a free society as well as any sort of real security, it has to be the Iraqis who work and fight for it because it's become abundantly clear that we're going to be unable to do it for them over the long term.

Questions for debate:

Should we continue to occupy Iraq, despite declining levels of support from the American public, the Iraqi public, as well as our troops fighting there? Why or why not?

Is there a course of action we could take to maintain at least some semblance of stability in Iraq without the necessity of having 150K+ troops deployed there, and what would that be?


Edited to add link

Is there a course of action we could take to maintain at least some semblance of stability in Iraq without the necessity of having 150K+ troops deployed there, and what would that be?

Yes, and the course of action is already being implemented. While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment of bringing the majority of combat troops home, and leaving advisors in place, I believe it needs to be more in the form of a phased withdrawal.
As we speak, Fort Riley, Kansas is being designated as the center for the training of the deployment of MiTT Teams. Military Transition Teams have been formed and used for nearly a year now in Iraq, as well as Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT's) in Afghanistan.
Unlike the solitary and unfocused advisors of the Vietnam era, the MiTT's will contain a fairly wide range of experience within the senior NCO's and officers on the eleven man teams. These teams will be 'embedded' with ISF companies and battalions, and will provide training, support and advisory assistance to these units.
The Army is moving quickly and with vigor on the MiTT concept. Previous teams were ad hoc and supported by a Brigade or Division in theater. The teams deploying from Ft. Riley will be supported and trained by the combat brigades stationed there, two of which incidentally, have been cut from the deployment rotation schedule in the coming year......thus in part signifying the reduction in regular combat units on the deployment roster.

As far as the poll goes, I am a bit concerned when a respected polling firm conducts a survey with an obvious biased partner as the LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies. I'm not dismissing the results outright, but I am wondering about the disconnect between the poll results and what myself and my peers hear and experience on a daily basis.

Do you have a link to the actual, specific question that was asked? Because without that, "poll results" are meaningless. I'm sure, for example, that any troops there would want to be home within the year, because they'd want the mission to be accomplished within the year. That doesn't necessarily mean that they'd want to come home before the mission is accomplished. So I'd have to see the actual question, as well as choices they were given for answers, before commenting further.

Blackstone:

Since Stefan isn’t online, I’ll post the link to the Zogby poll he referenced.

You can read Zogby, spin it any way you would like and the debate can continue.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Do you remember when the President and the war supporters were saying that all the soldiers did not want to leave Iraq and that they felt they were accomplishing a lot.....

Then there was the big debate with Murtha in Congress where one side was saying soldiers families wanted them to come home now and the other said the soldiers were like those of Vietnam that just wanted to "finish the job".

At the time I suggested "let them vote then!". If we weren't sure what the soldiers stood for, I suggested we let THEM decide whether to stay or leave Iraq.

Now it's official, the soldiers want to leave in a large majority.

I say we leave ASAP. Strictly based on American lives and the outrageous cost of this boondoggle.

It's spiraling into the abyss and Bush wants 1/4 of a TRILLION to continue?

I can't believe people still support this war/occupation. If you had to dish out $2000 for the war to continue....would you?

I found this part of the poll interesting:

"And 55 percent said harsh and threatening interrogation of prisoners to gain information of military value was not appropriate or standard military conduct."


Uh, ONLY 55%? So 45% think it's appropriate and standard practice?

If you take things at face value i.e. trust in the 'public consumption' version of events, then yes of course the US should leave. The (current) reason for being in Iraq is to 'help' the Iraqi people until they can 'get back on their feet' again. Based solely on that, then the US should leave immediately if the Iraqi people themselves want them to leave. Think about it. Are we really need to believe that we need to continue to try help people who are saying 'get lost we don't want your help'? In a sane world and in a comparative situation, people would be saying "I guess we'll take off now then". Think about it again. We've all heard about forced feeding. Ought we believe in 'forced helping' too?
Also, the American public, the Iraqi public, as well as our troops fighting there....what's left after that?

We've recently heard a bit about it about (I think) a few months ago, how the US was stepping up the air bombardments in Iraq. That's one way to maybe maintain control of an area, but only if the useless Iraqi forces are competently working in tandem with them on the ground. That's not going to happen anytime soon and you simply can't win anything with air might alone. There's no need to argue that at all I'm sure. Without ground troops you're never going to be able to control anything on the ground, and that includes (d-uh) the people on the ground you want to control i.e. the enemy. Missiles and bombs are also great 'hearts and minds' diminishers, further complicating things for the people trying to control an area with air power alone.
Anyways, I think (successful) air operations is the only way to maintain any sort of control if the 150,000 number goes down dramatically.

Well I am in the military and the statement that 85% of US troops think that Saddam had a hand in 9/11....is not suprising.

Mobilized soldiers do not have access to alot of news and down time is generally reserved for drinking, sleeping and communicating with those back at home. By design and time constraints our US troops if I had to guess are the least politically informed people who come from a traditionally politically uninformed/indifferent nation.

I was mobilzed for deployment (actually my pre-Iraq mobilization base was Ft Riley) and as we waited to validate way back in 03 I had officers and NCO's continuously state that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This is right before Iraq was invaded and right after. I also had training instructors on several instances tell me that we had found the WMD's in Iraq. I had a full bird colonel more or less state this verbatim like a month after Baghdad fell to our entire company. "Well those weopens of mass destruction? We found them today. We found Tabin".

Of course this was a time of "greeted as liberators" and our unit was deactivated right around the time the "mission accomplished" banner was flying.

We were not seen as necessary. Proof to me that no one had a clue about the insurgency.

I never went to Iraq but the man I joined the military with (buddy program) was cross-sectioned into a unit and did 10 months in Iraq.

A ten month stint where he would call/E-mail and ask me what was going on with the war.

He was in Baghdad and had to call me to know what was going on.

I am a lower enlisted soldier and I am telling you from first hand experience that your typical mobilized and deployed American soldier knows virtually nothing about news or the politics of the war.

The only people who do know were political hounds before they joined. Those are the people who use their limited computer time to research while everyone else e-mails family and chats on messenger.

People volunteer to go to Iraq because they bank 25G's Tax free. Not because they just feel the necessity of the war and yearn to help Iraq become a democracy.

Most soldiers have no sense of why the war was started or why it continues. Speaking with first hand information the past few years has been nothing but mobilizations, alert status, Stop-Loss, realignments, pre-mobilization orders, tentative Homeland Security mission, Stand by, In-processing, deployability status, vaccinations, stand bye, were going to Qatar.....Kuwait...no Afghanistan.

You get the picture. So they (US soldiers) hold onto the most accessible and noble cause...giving people freedom and when you are put in a choiceless situation you have to latch onto something to make the fear feel worthwhile. So in the back of your mind your not thinking that your could possibly die for a mistake. Your a US soldier it isn't as if someone is going to contradict you. Bush understands this and tries to cast his lot with the soldiers in order to shield himself from criticism.

It's all mental preperation to leave. Even when your not deployed.

Your average American soldier knows less then your average high school sophmore about the politics of this war.

You would be surprised what your mind does and how your rationalization goes when you metally prepare yourself to be in a combat enviroment for 12-18 months.

Your experience is certainly different than mine. I've been in three different units since 9/11, and have never had anyone try to pass me the line that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Maybe I've just been unbelievably lucky, but throughout my entire career as an enlisted man, all of my NCO's and officer's have been apolitical to the point of stating that it was unprofessional to disclose who one voted for in the presence of subordinates. That is a rule that I have followed as well.
Now in casual banter amongst my peers, politics comes up, but I have yet to come across a peer or a soldier who belives the Saddam-9/11 myth.

This is understandable since there weren't exactly televisions and PX's open during the timeframe of the invasion.


Agreed.


Disagree completely, at least speaking for active duty troops. With Reserves and Guard that may be more the case.


Again, speaking from my experience, many people also wish to go for the operational experience and increased promotion possibilities.


That's a mighty big brush you're painting with........

Without embellishment I would guess that 70% of the military people that I intermingle with or have intermingledswith were of the belief (as far as I know still are) that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or was working in tandem with Bin Laden to create 9/11.

This Zogby poll put the number higher I believe but I wholeheartedly believe that that is the reality amongst troops. It is the reality that I have witnessed.

In addition it was active duty troops who seemed to perpetuate the claim the most from my experience. Which I find logical considering their environment.


"That's a mighty big brush you're painting with"........

Given that poll and the reality of my experiences I do not know any other way to state it.

Most civilians I know tend to have a far greater understanding and interest in politics then soldiers I have lived with and around.

Maybe that isn't fair because as someone interested in politics I may graviate towards civilians who follow politics and in regards to soldiers I cannot really choose who to be around.....

Still the result's of this poll from a very respected polling institutuion (Zogby) is pretty much as I would expect based upon my own experiences with fellow soldiers.

I agree with the neutrality of NCO's and Officers claim to an extant. Meaning I was never encouraged to support anyone by a superior. However, I have heard many officers and NCO's openly support the war and it's undertaking when addressing various units I have been in. Also brass from battalion giving us briefs about various deployment realities.....and singing the praises and necessity for the war....without naming politics or parties but still showing where their allegience lies.

I do not know the current military as much as some, since my service ended 20 years ago.

I do have a daughter in Sadr City and my son-inlaw in Tikrit right, both with the 101st. Neither of them believe the Iraqis had anything to do with 9-11 and both think that we should totally withdraw, and today would be a very nice day to start.

They think that all they are is targets. Can't say that they are wrong.

We had a debate a while back on whether Iraq was going to stay as one conutry. I predicted that a civil war was not if, but when. I think we can say that the opening shots have been fired and we need to get off the firing line right now.

I think the 72% is skewed. Here's the breakdown:



So the choices were now, within 6 months, between 6 to 12 months, or "stay as long as needed" (i.e. maybe never leave). link

Should we continue to occupy Iraq, despite declining levels of support from the American public, the Iraqi public, as well as our troops fighting there? Why or why not?

We need to stay. To leave now would be to leave Iraq as a worse place for the security of the US than when Saddam was running the joint. The timeline depends on the Iraqis.

Is there a course of action we could take to maintain at least some semblance of stability in Iraq without the necessity of having 150K+ troops deployed there, and what would that be?

I believe we will draw down our troops levels starting about mid-year. We should be at or under 100,000 by the end of 2006. I believe that we do not need so many troops there as the Iraqis begin to take over the majority of security responsibilities. We must encourage Iraq to take up the struggle by showing them that we are withdrawing. It's the same as any other welfare recipient: the free ride is going to end some time.

As we draw down our troop commitment, the Iraqis will shoulder the burden. They must. We shouldn't do this in a sudden fashion, but a predictable one.

I'm starting to doubt the legitimacy of this poll more and more. Something just doesn't smell right. I would really like to see the actual questions that were asked, because we know that a good pollster can produce precisely the results his clients want.
That coupled with the thought that I find myself distrustful of any organization with the word 'peace' in its name.

The Zogby summary of Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous.......
I raise the 'load of hooey' flag on this one, until or unless I see the poll questions.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, active duty soldiers have just as much access to information as civilians, and there is no widespread disinformation program underway. But I understand if you've had different experiences, I'm not saying it hasn't been true for you, but I haven't seen the same thing.

If I may, why is that skewed exactly? The questions sound very reasonable, and I see no slant to the phrasting meant to obtain a specific result...




Well of course there are those who would say Iraq was never a threat to the security of the US, but no point in having that debate yet again.




Its great in theory, and it is a repeated mantra among the hawks with egards to the war in Iraq. The problem is that they are not. The government of Iraq has so far shown NO capacity to govern or keep the peace. Many of the 'peaceful' sections of the country are peaceful because they have been handed over to local religious militias, OUTSIDE governmental control.

There is a serious question about wheither the Iraqi government will EVER be able to govern and keep the peace, but there is esentially NO chance they will be able to do so in the next 6 months.

This is hardly new. During the entirety of the Iraq war, the US had literally tens of thousands of advisors, trainers, educators and drillmasters in Vietnam training the military. The Vietnamese police and military were equipped entirely with US equipment at enormous cost. Yet after a DECADE of this solid US equipping and training, they proved utterly useless for even the most basic police or civil order tasks, to say nothing of combat operations.

There are a host of reasons why this was the case, some are exactly the same as what is going on inside Iraq, some are not, but so far the effect is the same. The Iraq government cannot heep the peace. So eventually Bush Jr. is going to have to decide, either he commits MORE troops (because the forces currently there are not enough to keep the peace either) which will be politically imposible, or he withdraws regardless of the consequences.



Then, I suspect, history will see him as a man who turned Iraq into a bloody civil war, left Afghanistan in the hands of fractious, violent Taliban-esque warlords, and seriously damaged the US economy and took some 20,000 US casualties in order to accomplish both these ignominious tasks.

Actually I see no reason why this would not be true.

Most Vietnam veterans hated Napalm with a passion, even though it was never used against them. It was dangrous vile stuff that would recombust after it had been doused, and was a constant danger to the troops who had to proceed through areas that had been it with it. Furthermore, it seemed no more effective at killing the inhabitants of a treeline than an ordinary HE would have been. Not to mention during 'hearts and minds' operations, troops in villages often had to deal with and treat civilians and villagers burned by the stuff.

I cannot speak for WP, but there is a lot of evidence that troops on the ground just don't like napalm, mind you those are for practical rather than higher moral reasons...

Both Karnow in 'Vietnam: A history' and Edelman in 'Dear America' deal with this at some length...

I understand the chemistry of Napalm, and don't doubt the opinions of Vietnam vets, as I wasn't there.
But to imply that current OIF veterans dislike WP seems preposterous to me. It is used in the majority, as an illumination round, both airburst and ground, and for marking. WP does not have a capability for recombustion, and it's no more deadly to someone on the receiving end than conventional fragmentation or blast weapons.
To imply that soldiers think WP shouldn't be employed.....to me.... is like saying the machine gun shouldn't be employed.

The link says the “interviews” were face to face with 944 personnel and we have no clue as to the exact questions or how they were presented. Thus IMO this is as bogus a survey as you are likely to find conducted by an admittedly biased group.

Here's a puzzle:

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year

A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

This means that at least 25% of the troops think we should double our troop strength and withdraw within the next year. I hope they don't work in logistics.

I'd also like to see the actual questions asked. I wonder if they're in the executive summary that Zogby's selling for $19.99 at their web site. Anyone interested enough to pool some money and buy it?

According to Wikipedia, white phosophorous is "not specifically banned by any treaty," so if Zogby/Le Moyne phrased the question in terms of "internationally banned weapons like napalm and white phosphorous," it's a bogus question. It's based on a falsehood.

Ahh... a point but marginally skewed in reference to the reason that you most likely make the statement.

Iraq is made up of violently opposing factions, held together by dicatorship for the vast majority of their contemporary history. They're like warring tribes in Africa, in which case the Kurds are the only overwhemlingly pro-US faction. Frankly, leaving would require a mobilized and unified military presence by the Iraqi government, in which case we'd have to funnel their oil/financial resources into building said force. Then, the problem would be attempting to keep the resources from being used to fund/sustain a civil war.

Until the war, Saddam kept the civil wars at bay with an iron fist. Sunnis and Shiites both hate the Kurds, each other, and generally believe that Iraq should be theirs respectively. Saddam used fear and intimidation to keep violence to a gov't sponsored venture.

So, what's a good way to handle this??? Who knows... but I would like to point out a couple of quotes from the article (even if Zogby's polls aren't necessarily the best sources):


What is this saying? It's pretty simple. The majority of supporting units (Reserve and Guard units are far less likely to be combat arms units, excepting the Marines) are left in the desert, away from their civilian jobs and families, unhappy about their circumstances. I'm not surprised. We all know that I'm a Marine reservist, and did spend time in Afghanistan. Part-Timers in general are less enthralled with being there, as many joined for tuition exemption or the couple hundred $$ every month. They're not as well trained, usually not as well equipped, in seemingly less impactful roles, and are away from the comfort they've grown accustomed to. It seems to be a no-brainer as to why they'd say something like this in a poll.

That all being said, Marines are generally on the opposite end of the spectrum, and many Army units would also be involved in actually helping to quell insurgency. They probably feel like they have a more meaningful impact, are less likely to have civilian jobs waiting in the states, and are more likely to be career military.

Finally, I'd have to say that it is necessary to attempt to move Iraq towards self-government. I obviously (nor have the majority of the rest of us) been there, so it's tough to make a decision objectively. However, I'd have to say that economic incentives to quelling violence might be a great alternative. Everyone would agree that the richest nations are far less likely to be killing each other. If you have a lucrative business to attend to, religious wars are harder to wage. Maybe we could make an attempt to prop up the Iraqi economy? Get them back into the international oil business on a large scale, and distribute the wealth as well as possible. We don't see many gun battles in Saudi Arabia do we? ... of course zealots come from everywhere, and stopping the violence completely is unlikely. However, a rich and comfortable man is far less dangerous than someone with little or nothing to lose...

A coiple things. Firstly I'm not sure the fact that the Marines are the least likely to want to pull out means what you assume it does. I think the marines are the least likely to pull out... well, because they are marines. I had a good friend when I was a student who was on academic leave from the USMC, and... well, they train you to think, but they also train you to think like them. Thats not an insult at ALL, being fanatic is what has allowed the USMC to build up such a stirling military record, but they are still pretty fanatic...


Secondly, actually you do see a fair number of gun battles in Saudi. I was there for a while, and only the biggest ones, or ones involving foreigners make the news, and there are still quite a few that make the news.. however thats kindof beside the point.


Actually, I agree entirely. Richer people are less likely to pick up guns, and economic assistance in Iraq is a great idea, but of course for that to even be possible, there needs to be a stable government, a measure of peace and a self-sufficient economy. None of those exist right now, and its a bit of a catch 22. Once the conditions exist, economic incentives will help keep the peace, but the conditions cannot exist unless the peace is kept...

Its not looking good, and what's WORSE, is that given the news from bagdad today:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060301/w030130.html

...I suspect the insugents, or at least one or two of the many factions, have REALISED that the breaking point is near, and are pushing for it... I recommend the above article. Good if scary reading...

Should we continue to occupy Iraq, despite declining levels of support from the American public, the Iraqi public, as well as our troops fighting there? Why or why not?
The answer to that is a resounding "NO", but then, I have never supported the US’ invasion of Iraq. All the purported reasons for going to “war” with Iraq have been thoroughly debunked, and now it seems to be more a face-saving exercise than anything substantial. The country is devolving into civil war (now there’s something totally unexpected! ) and is further away from peace than they were under Saddam, and that’s saying a lot.

Is there a course of action we could take to maintain at least some semblance of stability in Iraq without the necessity of having 150K+ troops deployed there, and what would that be?

Who knows? To paraphrase Colin Powell, we broke it, we’re stuck fixing it…over and over and over and over again… Personally, I don’t believe the country will ever be stable or peaceful. It’s not in their nature. There will always be infighting by groups and tribes and whatnot that refuse to get along, let alone with the rest of the world. The US stuck its hands elbow-deep in this particular tarbaby, and no one with any brains is going to help us get unstuck.

That sounds like a pretty loaded question to me. Soldiers of course don't want to be left to rot in a never-ending situation. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to cut and run. What most soldiers usually want to do is WIN, and then go home. Any poll that doesn't take that possibility into account is suspect, at best.

As for the first debate question, I don't fully accept the premises stated, but in any event, no, I don't think we should leave right now, because that would only give encouragement to the terrorists, same way our departure from Lebanon following the barracks bombing gave encouragement to them, the same way our hasty retreat from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" incident gave encouragement to them. And doing that could easily result in them gaining the upper hand in Iraq, which would be disastrous.

Yes, Bush himself has screwed a few things up, and is not all that impressive a leader, but that's a completely separate question from whether it's a good idea to pull out. So many people try to personalize the conflict by making it all about him, but if more people could depersonalize it, and just concentrate on getting it done right instead of constantly glooming-and-dooming it as a way of scoring points against him politically, we could make so much better progress. Despite so many odds, progress has been made. Unrelenting predictions of the place going up in flames have not materialized. The Iraqis deserve credit for being able to hold things together so far.

There's one question in particular I'd like to ask those who keep insisting that this mission is impossible: Have you seriously and honestly sat down and tried to come up with a way that it can be done successfully? Or did you just assume right from the beginning that it can't be done? If the answer to the first question is No and the second question Yes, then I'm sorry, but I can't take you seriously.

As for whether stability can return without the presence of so many of our forces there, I think that's mostly up to the Iraqis. I think they're capable of doing it. We can help, but at the end of the day, it needs to be understood that the burden is primarily on them, otherwise no solution will be a lasting one.

I'd like to second Lord Helmet's suggestion.
Economic incentive.
Remove ALL foreign companies from Iraq--I don't care about the Iraqi's aren't ready to run their own country. Open it all up to competition from IRAQI only companies. It will be messy at first, but the Gold Rush opportunity it will produce will drain any insurgent/terrorist support in an eyeblink.

Let THEM run their own country. Quite simply Greed and Pride will win--why deny Human Nature and continue to feed a steadily growing Dead Pool.

People making money are not going to allow someone to pee in their backyard so to speak. They probably won't be turning in AlQuaeda to the local authorities anytime soon--enemy of my enemy and all that--but a few bodies dumped roadside works for me.

The Iraqis will meet the challenge of rebuilding their country and I would say its the best shot of building any lasting unity in that Motley of a country.

Bye bye Halliburton and Hello Mohammad and Sons.

I've found the poll questions online, along with answer percentages and demographics. Here's the actual question asked:



So the poll question did not contain the falsehood that white phosphorus is "banned." Zogby's press release was the source of that (as well as the misspelling of "phosphorous").

I apologize for not actually answering the question in this debate yet, but since I already did a drive-by slam of the poll's methodology, I thought I ought to share this new information.

My husband is in Iraq right now. In fact, one of his friends was just killed on Monday while on patrol (the name was just released a little while ago).

I can tell you that as of three months ago, my husband said that almost every single person he knew over there thought that we had no business being there after having been there since August and seeing what our purpose (or lack thereof) really is. This is coming straight from the horse's mouth. This is coming from people who, immediately before deploying, thought they were needed, thought that they were "fighting the good fight" and anyone against the war in Iraq had no idea what they were talking about.

Now, I am not privy to the details and the reasons WHY they don't think they should be there at all. But I know that "almost every single person" is a lot of damn soldiers.

Of course you can choose to believe my husband or not...after all, he's just a crazy liberal like me.