Poll shows troops in support of war

Poll Results
- 63% approve of the way President Bush is handling the war
- 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting
- 2/3rds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting
- 87%% say they're satisfied with their jobs
- if given the choice today, only 25% say they'd leave the service
- A year ago, 77% said they thought the military was stretched too thin to be effective. This year, that number shrank to 66%

Other Findings
- 75% oppose a military draft.
- 60% blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone.
- 12% say civilian Pentagon policymakers should be held accountable for abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

Questions for Debate:

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?



EDITED: removed "widely" from first question since i agree with overlandsailor that 63% does not warrant it

From the link provided:

(emphasis mine)

WOW. This really concerns me. I have no time to research this so maybe someone else will do it. However, as a member of the military (active duty 1987-1991; National Guard 1993-1996; Navy Reserve 2002-present) and the member of a military family I do not recall ever hearing poll numbers of military personnel where ONLY 63% approved of the handling of the war they were in, and ONLY 60% thought it was worth fighting!?!? Those numbers seem incredibly LOW to me. I would be surprized to hear that those numbers were ever this low before with the remotely possible exception of Vietnam.


1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still widely in favor of our operations in Iraq?

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

"Widely favor"? Less then 2/3s of the troops think the war they are risking their lives is worth fighting. I don't think that qualifies as "widely". When I was in the service I cannot think of one person I served with in a time of war who thought the war we were in was not worth fighting, And I am a Veteran of several.

"Such support" is more reasonable I guess. However, Lack of support would be more accurate IMHO.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

They are drooping because the American public does not have patience when it comes to their men and women in uniform being away from home, and even less when they are dying. Right or wrong, the longer the conflict, the less the support.

Ok found the site for the real poll results: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

Other interesting facts to debate with these polls as well.

From the link provided:

(I focused on these because they are a concern to me, other categories exist)

When I was active Duty the big numbers would be Spouse, Better Job Opportunity, or a College Education. These days it would seem that the people in the military have real issues with how that are being used.



Way to go Leder, however, doesn't the idea that the military is not actually strongly supporting this war change the concept of this topic all together?

Just look at how the media paints the war. We are losing and they are winning, we are torturing everyone and killing civilians all over the place. Funny it's actually the opposite.



Notice it goes up to 66% for combat vets.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military.

There are always going to be differences between statistical samples (for example, U. S. citizens as a whole) and sub-samples (for example, the military).

I would guess there are multiple factors involved here, but one guess is that people who would join an all voluntary military might be more predisposed to support prolonged military action than those in the general population.

Military personal have limited access to the news from the states, though they do have far more access to it then they did in my active duty days. Those that are there know what is really happening because of first hand experience. However, I can see this coverage effecting the younger, greener guys and gals there to some extent.



Here's where I have a problem. These are the guys/gals who have been around awhile and know they need to take the media coverage with a grain of salt. They are the guys/gals, many of whom have been home at least once, who have seen all the possitive reactions to them at home first hand (or heard about it second hand). These are the guys/gals who have been in the country the longest and have seen all the possitive changes like hospitals and school re-opening, electricity and clean water being brought to places that never had it before, etc.

Yet, among these guys/gals, 1/3rd (33.333%) of them think this war is NOT worth fighting. As a member of the US military, that causes me concern. As I said before, I don't this these sorts of numbers have ever been this low in any conflict.

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

It really does surprise me that so many troops (at least from this poll) are still in favor of operations in Iraq based on the level of violence we've seen over the last couple of months. However, I don't expect many troops to be in favor of pulling out. But I think this poll reflects something that means more than supporting the war.

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

I believe the troops want to have some "sense of accomplishment" instead of bowing out of the country. Therefore, they want Iraqis to have a elected government and a constitution because they know it maybe there only way out of this country. The military is trained to be successful in accomplishing their missions. Whether they agree or disagree with the war, they know they must continue to fight to have any chance of winning.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

A really good question that I think a soldier can answer. As someone looking from the outside, I believe its more of a moral issue. The troops have to believe they are fighting for something thats worth fighting for. They get their motivation and understanding of what they are trying to accomplished from their commander-in-chief.




Lets see, what are we exactly winning?? a few battles in Fallujah?. You must know where the WMD are located because thats the WHOLE POINT of this invasion (remember ).I guess there hasn't been any civilian casulaties since the war started. I won't even get into the torturing issue. You would have to be on the remote island somewhere in the world to know there wasn't any torturing going on.

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

Keep in mind that the respondents to the poll are subscribers to the Army Times, Navy Times, etc....
These are people more likely to be officers, NCO's and enlisted who are professional or career minded. You are not likely seeing the disaffected, 'one tour and I'm out' vote. But that being said, from the military standpoint these subscribers viewpoints are more valued, in that, they are the ones who are staying on through thick and thin, and will shape the future of the military.

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

As cgorham said 'The military is trained to be successful in accomplishing their missions.' We are not trained to tuck our tail between our legs and run. For Iraqi's to be free, join the community of nations and taste democracy, it's a given that the insurgency must be crushed. And I'm being generous with the term insurgency, because my definition of 'Freedom Fighter' doesn't include indiscriminate killing of your own innocent countrymen. Sadly for some, even here at AD, it does.
Most soldiers believe that the shortest route home is through the heart of Fallujah, Mosul or Baghdad.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

In my experience, troops actually care little about the CinC in their daily duties. I was no fan of Clinton, but aside from his 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy ramrodded at the start of his first term, little fuss was made about his actions....except by those of us who were political junkies.
The guys are fighting for each other, fighting to get home and fighting boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.......but not for Bush or Michael Moore of whoever they feel is the icon that lights their political path.

Not all those who enlist actually believed they'd ever see this type of action(ground combat/guerrilla warfare). I'd like to see a poll that represents those numbers.



I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't seen these approval/opposition #'s since Vietnam because we haven't been in this kind of war since Vietnam. The likelihood of being killed or maimed in action hasn't been so high since the Vietnam war. A war of this type will never be very popular, no matter what the cause may be.

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

Not really.


2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

Blind faith in patriotism?, the illusion of strength through force and the ability of the divided people of Iraq to come together? Naiveté? Stupidity? An unwillingness to face facts?

Perhaps, strongest of all is the desire to think of oneself as the 'good guys'. I note there is a strong sense of this feeling in conservative Americans, both here and in the media. It appears that a lot of Americans, so in love with their precious guns, cannot readily concieve of any solution that doesn't involve a lot of people dying.


3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

Because most soldiers are young, have little education and are often 'gung ho' until they get hurt.

This is exactly the type of sentiment I would expect to see somewhere here on AD, I was just waiting for it to surface.

Stupidity? Naiveteé?

Yes, we American soldiers are just a bunch of bumpkins with guns and an 8th grade education, gung ho until we get killed, cuz we don't know no better....... Oh, wait...with some peoples fetish with minority numbers, we are from the ghetto also...with no future except joining the mans army.

Too bad we can't all be as enlightened as Europeans.

I don't suppose that it ever occurs to anyone looking in from the fringes that our troops know exactly what they are doing in Iraq, and exactly what the average Iraqi tells them. Most see what they are doing as their duty to their country, their comrades and a purpose that is ultimately for good.

Poo-poo it as stupidity all you like, it merely shows a disconnect with the reality that is lived by US soldiers.

I always have enjoyed your posts moif, even though we rarely agree....but frankly this one disgusted me by the blanket and unfounded assertions. I wouldn't presume to speak this ill of the Danish military.............

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of soldiers feel that way though!

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

Soldiers are trained to fight. They want to prove themselves, and they want to be heroes. They believe it to be an opportunity to make a difference in this world. When I was a teenager, I wanted to enlist. I even had dreams of being a heroic soldier, fighting for the cause of right.

Look at the literature we are exposed to as children: Arthurian tales, Ivanhoe, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and so many, many others. The warrior on the side of right is a heroic figure. We honor our distinguished warriors. It is very appealing until death and suffering are up close and personal. But even then there is the grim determination to get that guy who hurt or killed your buddy, and to fight with that group of soldiers that is your unit. It is an opportunity for close bonding that does not occur in your everyday civilian life. Your comrades become your immediate family.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

The members of the military who are deployed overseas do not get the same perspective on the news. There are troops over there who did not know about the mess hall attack in Mosul until their anxious family members contacted them to make sure they weren't there.

I have written many posts against George W. Bush and this war on Iraq. Perhaps my perceptions would be different if I were one of the troops fighting over there, and perhaps not. I see this President as incompetent and dishonest, furthering an agenda of the people who were dead-set on keeping him President because he is furthering the agenda. I believe these people are jingoists who want to further democracy in the world by invading other nations and then making them adopt a form of "democracy". I think George W. Bush has swallowed this line of thinking hook, line and sinker regardless of the impact it had on the Iraqis and the consequences experienced by our nation, fighting a protracted war with no end to this particular conflict in sight. I disagree with this nation (empire?) building policy. It is wasteful and ineffective, and the reasoning used to start the invasion was bogus to boot.

Wow, I have to Ditto Dontreadonme on this one. Moif you and I have crossed paths on many issues and though we frequently disagree I always respected you. I thought you respected me as well. I guess I was mistaken.

Stupid country hicks with guns. That's the US Military? Never mind the fact the the US Military uses some of the most advanced equipment on the planet that requires intelligence to merely comprehend how it works, let alone be able to operate it effectively. Never mind the fact that you can not join the US Military without a high school education which is a far cry better then most of the world today.

This absolutely offended me, as a member of the US Military (even if I do only have a few days left).

You might want to consider the level of intelligence, common sense, reason and education of the various veterans of the US Military who post here on AD before you decide to post such garbage in the future.


Sure. That's why in the last 25+ years the US military, throughout the world has seen more "action" on humanitarian missions (like they are currently doing in Indonesia) then warfare.

You post is an insult to me, and anyone who has ever served or is serving in the US military. It ignores all the good the US military has acomplished throughout the world without violence and it paints us all as inferior. There is a word that best suits someone who chooses to look at an entire group of individuals as stupid, blind, etc. simply because of their association with that group. That word is Bigot.

source

source

Dontreadonme

Well, 'Bumpkins with guns' are your words, not mine.

I'm fairly certain that there is a large minority of the US troops in Iraq who have understood the reality withiin which they have been placed... perhaps about 40% for example?


I know plenty of 'enlighted' Americans.


This has occured to me, and I even held the conviction in the past that the US military would be a force for good in Iraq.
But that was before I saw the reality of what has taken place. That was before I understood that the Pentagon had been duped by the Iranians, before I saw how the US planning was based on a 'cheap' attack, and how Iraq was left to descend into anarchy after the fall of Saddam Hussein. the lack of any credible allies, the dissolve of the Iraqi armed forces, Abu Graib, Fallujah, 100,000 dead Iraqi's... all hammered home the message that the US military is not the instrument for bringing democracy to Iraq.

Whether or not 60% of the US armed forces have understood that yet, is neither here nor there to me, nor is your or any one else's patriotic sentiments with regards to your military. My concern lies primarily with the civilians.


When Danish soldiers have tortured civilians to death and taken photographs to brag about their exploits. Then I invite you to make any judgement you will.

Perhaps, you think that I am 'out of line' for making a 'generalisation'. If so, then I'm not too concerned. I happen to believe that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and Abu Graib and Fallujah have demonstrated the inferior quality of the US soldiers. They may have the best equipment and training in the world, but as far as I am concerned. They failed in their duties and America lost this conflict when it failed to hold Donald Rumsfeld and GW Bush responsible for the crimes committed.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


overlandsailor

I was not referring to you, or any other individual but to the majority of US soldiers in Iraq. If you choose to take offence at my opinion, then thats your right. BUt at no point have I made any accusation towards any individuals.

I am speaking about a group and the collective responsibility I believe it has failed in.

As for:
...all I have to say to that, is my opinion is not 'pre-conceived', I have plenty of grounds upon which to base my opinions, and frankly, I am not 'irrational' just because I have an opinion you do not care for.

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

Not particularly, no.

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?
Regardless of pragmatic factors such as distance from the domestic media, and as has been stated by people on all sides in this thread, the military, of necessity, has to believe that what they are doing is winnable and that they are going to win it.

Plus, as is normal for any profession, they tend to believe that a problem they have been presented with is best solved using their own particular skills. If we'd sent doctors or social workers to Iraq, the debate would be about the scale and focus of medical or social provision. If we'd sent accountants, they'd be telling us that the key thing to defuse the insurrection was to get the money paying for the bombs to be cut off. If we'd sent policemen, we'd be told it was a law enforcement issue. Lawyers would be telling us that the courts system was the biggest barrier. And so on.

So why, when we've sent soldiers - who are (again, of necessity) loath to admit that the situation is a lost cause - is anyone really surprised not only that they see Iraq problems as primarily military, but that they have the talent and tenacity to win that military struggle.

Incidentally, I think moif and DTOM (& OLS to a lesser degree) are not as far apart as the cynicism/indignation might indicate; one says "Perhaps, strongest of all is the desire to think of oneself as the 'good guys'. I note there is a strong sense of this feeling in conservative Americans, both here and in the media." while the other agrees that As cgorham said 'The military is trained to be successful in accomplishing their missions.' We are not trained to tuck our tail between our legs and run. While I can see how feathers got ruffled, I am not so sure that these are conceptually all that different.

Also, I can't help thinking that moif's cynicism is less aimed at the US military itself, but on the (perhaps naive and/or overenthusiastic) faith of the current administration that many of the international challenges it faces have military solutions.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?

Assuming that the poll concerned itself with the military currently serving in Iraq, I'd say that this could be because the home population is seeing different aspects of Bush's war policies - for example the constraining consequences of the USA Patriot Act.

Plus there may be some spill-over from other Bush policies (jobs, the economy, that kind of thing) that are not front-of-mind for serving military personnel on active duty.

Maybe all three questions can be answered with a simple statement: People in general think their jobs are accomplishing something that's needed. Even when the leadership is all wrapped around the axle, the grunt work still needs to be done.

If one focuses on the mission at hand in any situation, at least on the ground level, this take can reduce the doubt of the overall direction things might be headed.

I've done this and seen it in corporations, the most recent being WorldCom. Sure there was a lot of rumor about what eventually turned out true, but until that time the idea was to get the job done professionally. Even after that time as well.

I'm not military, so this is an outsider's view -- seems that loyalty to the CIC is stronger there than loyalty to the CEO in a corporation. That probably has something to do with the numbers.

As for civilian criticism of the CIC, that's what happens in a democracy. I'd expect the numbers to be higher on the critical end in civilians.

Personally, I want this Iraq thing to get finished ASAP. I'm sympathetic to those who have legitimate beefs, like the need for armor and the other complaints that, though technically part of the program, still amount to bad treatment. As far as how GWB conducts his war, no, not pleased with how it started nor how it has turned out to date. From the last election, I'm in the minority on that.

So it might be that complaining does no good. It sure didn't for this situation. Maybe folks will be going silent, as often happens in corporations. It's a disapproving silence, but when the farmer comes to get Sunday's chicken, you don't want your head up above the crowd.

That might be another motivator in the military, but it's just my speculation from a different environment.

I suppose respondents also think that straightening out Iraq will be worth it in the long run. Hope they're right.

I've seen this thought tossed around a lot, that the military in general are intensely loyal to the CinC. That would certainly be regarded as the opposite line of thought during the Clinton years.
But in my 18 years of active duty, I can scarcely recall any discussions of any merit, at least outside the election window, where soldiers, NCO's or officers would sit around talking about the CinC. Sure it would come up occasionally, but if there is a mass feeling of loyalty to the man instead of the office, it's fairly well hidden. Of course we are required to be overtly loyal to the President, whomever it is, as he is the top rung of every soldiers chain of command. But I believe the loyalty lies strongly in the individual unit and service, rather than the CinC and SecDef.

Another factor that must be considered, is that speaking for the Combat Arms, where my experience lies, we train and train....and train in peacetime, not actually doing our jobs unless war breaks out. Combat Support and Combat Service Support generally function in their capacity during peace on a daily basis. Whether it be fuel ops, mail or medical these soldiers fulfill basically the same function in a wartime environment. And by way of anecdotal evidence through my wife and friends, these support soldiers seem more likely to complain or dissent about their predicament.

I know of nobody who wishes for war or suffering, but for myself and many in my field, there is a certain satisfaction and validation in actually doing your job for real. I probably can't explain it well, and some may paint it as some sort of macho, warlike psychosis inbred in us knuckle draggers and snake eaters. I would view this as inaccurate, as I've witnessed some of the most hardcore of my peers break down and cry at human suffering, deliver babies and risk life and limb for fellow soldier and civilian alike. There's just a certain yearning to know if you can actually do what you've been trained to do, to validate your skills, to have a chance at doing something meaningful and important......politics aside.

What do all of my lunatic ravings have to do with the question at hand? Just a supposition on my part, but I believe there is a greater percentage of Combat Arms folks who are career oriented compared with the support guys. And these would be more likely to subscribe to the Army Times, Navy Times, etc...(where the poll was conducted), hence the poll results. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any other explanation.

1. No! Opposition to war is always expected. Opposition from select groups do not deter soldiers as long as their families, their chain of command and congress stays in support of the mission.

2. Soldiers, not unlike the song “There must be fifty ways to leave your lover” serve for thousands of different reasons. Soldiers not supporting the action cannot be immediately attributed to “the action.” Unfaithful mates back home, finances, postponed life plans play a great role while out of normal control of events caused by dislocation.

After the Vietnam War American citizens consider war a negotiable option should they change their support and the same remains the policy of congress. This concept of thought should have been resolved prior to entering any other hostilities following the dividing war of Vietnam. Consider the outcome of the Korean Conflict when we were pushed to the Pusan perimeter, almost into the sea when the Chinese assisted N. Korea. What would the Far East look like today with a wet finger in the wind of public opinion?

US citizens would support or remove support quite differently if their elected representative in congress were forced to state to their constituency: “I have voted for authority for America to enter into hostilities with (Iraq) should the CinC find it necessary based on the most recent information available that supports my vote. I will continue to support my decision until victory should it cause the draft of every able bodied citizen between the ages 18-55 years of age I represent and any resources necessary to prevail in victory. Should you find my decision incorrect then vote accordingly during the next election. I am convinced my decision is in the best interest supporting treaties and or the freedom or our nation.”

In my mind this is the only way America will take war or hostilities seriously as it is entered into. Should such a decision be made I think the majority of America would support the effort until victory. Leaving the option of “when the going gets rough we retain the right to cut and run” is an insult to the black granite wall commemorating the sacrifice in Vietnam along with those still living with wounds. The “very thought” in a soldiers mind that he may die or live with war scars for something short of victory should never exist. Likewise, the thought in a fellow citizens mind of lets cut our losses shouldn’t be an option. The war was entered with the vote of the majority based on information not available to me and will end victoriously should be the only thoughts.

War is cruelty and there is no refining it and in the words of famous war poet, "Here dead we lie because we did not choose to live and shame the land from which we sprung. Life to be sure, is nothing much to lose; But young men think it is, and we were young.” A.E. Housman. So, when I hear Senator Harken call the CinC a bigot for not sending “a few good men (and women) to Haiti to die or loose limbs I find congress views war as “soldiers problems and the political will of support.” Haiti was a French colony as Vietnam and regardless of how you feel towards Iraq hostilities you must ask yourself “when would you support “all 18-55” citizens to be victorious? Would Senator Harken tell those whom he represents he would send them to Haiti for the same values? Otherwise the war isn’t worth it.
Also because young people fight wars and young people don’t fight for the flag blowing left or right or any other ideology than “country, duty and honor.”

3. For reasons pointed out in 1. And 2. Above.

DTOM,

This supports my observation that the military has more loyalty to the CinC than people have to the CEO of a corporation. Your point about it being the end of the command chain, no matter who is in office, is exactly what I'm getting at.

In corporations, who has the CEO slot is very important if any loyalty is to be built. Loyalty is not built in, especially with the knowledge that employment is not something to depend upon. Loyalty is in fact actively discouraged in most (but not all) outfits. We are all temps in corporation land, mostly.

With the military, loyalty to the CinC is built in. It is an assumption and does not need discussion. I think in return, career military folks get back what they give -- most can depend on having a job all the way through (assuming no death through war).

On the passion level, sure -- military folks do a lot more intensive things than civilians in their jobs, generally speaking -- unless you work in ER handling the nightly shootings, stabbings, mass car wrecks and so forth. Maybe passion has something to do with loyalty? I've known it in civilian life, back before we all became temps (or mercenaries, to nod toward the military), say from 1975 to 1985. When working for a hospital, there was a higher level of loyalty for the CEO.

To civilians, the President is an elected official who is accountable. To the military, the President is the CinC, to be obeyed. That's the major difference that I see and one that could explain higher numbers of support in the military.

Your observation that career military likely makes up the readership that was polled looks valid to me. It's pretty obvious in Colorado Springs that the military involves one big family -- retired military likes to hang with retired military. The lead guy I work for is one of these, and he is amazed at how little honor or character exists in corporate land. I grew up with it.

In any case, I think that's why civilian types as myself will be more critical of leadership. It also irks me when people, military or civilian, get a raw deal. Think that's built in.

I disagree when it comes to war, and public opinion. Realistically, only someone who's seen the war first hand can make educated statements on how things are going over there. Our media paints a pretty grim picture, and hence, many people subscribe to this school of thought. Being a vet, a reservist who has been stateside for quite some time, I understand where both opinions arise. Why would someone in Dallas think that things are going well? How could they??.....

However, the chaos and mayhem that CBS nightly new portrays is only a small portion of reality. It is a war, and there are insurgents, however the vast majority of fire fights and skirmishes are one-sided. We generally handily deal with these poorly trained/mal-equipped zealots. I spent my time in Afghanistan, yet still spend my "one weekend/month" at our handy local Navy/Marine Reserve base. Obviously, public opinion in reference to Afghanistan is far different than it was in Iraq, and we pretty much beat up on the Taliban contingency in Afghanistan. However, during my one weekend/month, I get to spend time reading emails from other Marines in the field (to include fellow officers) whom are in places like Baghdad. These men paint a far different picture, and typically morale is far higher than the media would like to portray.

In summation, I am confident that most troops (especially officers) have a far stronger idea of how this war is going. They have personal accountability to the success and understand what set backs we've actually taken. I don't think that the media is likely going to speak to that Marine/Army Capt on the ground whose unit has had wonderful success... which probably accounts for at least a portion of the statistical disparity.

Referring back to my former post in making the comparison with a CEO v CinC I conclude the answer to all of the questions could be wrapped up in a single conclusion.

In the civilian sector opposition exists in the anti-war, political sector where the members of the Democratic Party call it “Bush’s War” and then the constant bombardment associated with negative press and blame the CEO or CinC for the war. The soldiers, for the most part fail to fit any of those groupings.

If you analyze the US population in comparison with US soldiers you clearly see why support falls. The stockholders who elected the board of directors and the CEO divorce themselves from responsibility for the war or carrying out the war. The majority of the US Congress voted to commit soldiers to combat so citizens cannot divorce themselves from responsibility, but they do as members of Congress likewise are allowed to do.

In the case of a business CEO such a scam would not be allowed to exist. The board of directors would be held accountable for giving authority would they not? Look at this example of a forgiven board member of millions of shareholders, I gave authority to the CEO but I would never have given it had I known he would use it as he did, add the list of excuses. This guy almost got half the votes to replace the CEO and not one shareholder asked? Hey, if you had all of these reservations why didn’t you write them down on a piece of paper and send them over to the CEO agreeing with your limitations or why didn’t you demand an amendment to the vote to add such language or just vote NO until doubts were removed?

The only argument for voting yes to allow the authority to the CEO is logically you agreed based on facts available. To say, I was tricked by the CEO makes you still less qualified than the CEO because you didn’t reveal the trick. Stockholders would not buy the logic.

Vietnam proved the stock market proverb, “don’t catch falling knives!” It proved it to congress and the civilian population. If you think back to WWII it was not FDR’s War nor was Korea Truman’s war. Wars can’t be fought on wet fingers in the breeze of public opinion. Likewise, the responsibility should be equally shared by every citizen in our representative government for the decision to go to war. The only thing the CEO should be held to account on is the execution of the “countries War.” The soldiers remain in strong support because they see it like a sane shareholder without bias. In the civilian masses, on the other hand forgives itself, those who voted to enter into the countries war and just blame the CEO. As long as surrogates fight the wars and politicians and civilians are allowed to excuse themselves of responsibility the difference will remain in any polls taken.

Why can’t Americans take responsibility for their actions like shareholders in a large corporation? Why didn’t Senator Harken volunteer the AR & NG from Iowa to go to Haiti to die and loose limbs as he called the CEO a bigot?

Ol Sarge,

I really don't see the logic in this. How can I share responsibility for a war I was opposed to before it even began? How can I share responsibility for a President who acted upon faulty intelligence and highly questionable reasoning -- a President whom I and most others did not vote for the first time, and a large minority did not vote for the second time?

I think what you're saying is to share the shame, not the responsibility. Share the blame. We should have done something to stop this.

Well, we tried. We lived up to our responsibilities in a democratic republic. We voted when we had the chance the first time, but our votes, diluted by the Electoral College and the Supreme Court, did not pull the action that we intended.

We voiced our concerns about suddenly forgetting Afghanistan and bin Laden in favor of getting Hussein, who had little or nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack. We lived up to our responsibility.

Now you want us to take the responsibility for those who messed up? I am sorry, this does not fly in corporate land. You are not responsible for something you have no control over. I suspect the same is true in military land. It might not be true in Never-Never Land.

Now if we had an opportunity to vote on the specific action, which does happen in corporate land, then you have a point. The matter of reality is that we did not get that chance, except in the last election, and to this I'll take responsibility for having voted against the President who got us into this thing.

I'll also add that I voted for the non-incumbents in Congress. Some of them won!

And now this President should finish up what he started. I'll not raise any argument against his attempts at doing this. Hope the elections start Iraq down the road to stability to where US troops can be pulled out.

Seems that those in the know have a pretty good idea that this will be accomplished. Haven't heard about any timeframe, but oh well. We have no choice than to trust that this will be so within the next four years.

And if Iraq is still a hot situation after four more years? Yes, then what? Will President Bush admit to the initial idea being wrong? Will he take that responsibility? Will the Republican party put up somebody with better savvy?

Anyway, there are still folks who have problems with President Bush, both in and out of the military. I guess we who have the problems refuse to share the blame.

The Congress of the US acted upon bad intelligence along with the President. The President followed their lead of approval, without any restrictions to, as they say in Congress, “the question is on the motion lying on the table.” A duly elected majority, without hesitation, unlike the hesitation for judicial nominations, apparently a more important vote, overwhelmingly approved, without amending, what was written on the paper lying on the table? The same method for approving a law is used so why shouldn’t you approve of a law equally passed by the elected majority? Do you only follow laws passed by those you voted for? Do you even know what was written on the paper lying on the table? If the congress were acting on something important like a murder trial and had reservations and then voted guilty without resolving their reservations and proclaimed hang em high would you cry foul? Or would you excuse them, they, the Kerry’s were betting you would, and you did! The binding act is not what an attorney for the people says before or after a vote it is what the vote was and what the vote was affirming!

Congress could have stopped the re start of hostilities! Sadam could have avoided war!

If there were no surrogates in military land you or your family would be going in their place or going to Canada based on Congress’s Vote! How can you excuse congress so easily? Seems very convenient to me! Senator Byrd practically begged others to walk down to the Vietnam memorial for fresh air and time to think before voting. What part of this is “America’s War” don’t you understand?

We are completely off topic but I have to say the war was just! It was just if the first war, Desert Storm was just, and I think it was. Even without 9-11 Sadam should have been taken out for defying the world bodies will of proving disarmament as a condition of cease-fire. He was responsible for all the causalities in Desert Storm; he was shooting at our planes and giving the world the finger in arrogance. Had you, your son, brother, cousin or other loved one died or lost a leg in Desert Storm would you find justice in leaving him in defiance of conditions of a “time out” from hostilities forever?

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?


Ever since I first read this thread I've been kind of trying to get a handle on exactly what this particular poll means. To be quite honest, I'm not sure it really means much of anything. We are told by the people who talk about polls that they are just a snapshot in time. And we are told this on polls dealing with normal people who live normal lives and are asked questions about relatively static issues - economy, President's job approval, healthcare, etc. Chances are that these normal people's lives are pretty much the same one day to the next, yet their opinions are still considered to be a "snapshot".

Ok, now contrast that with soldiers who are in a combat zone. That's an incredibly volitile environment! (and that is an incredible understatement Aquilla). These people's lives are hardly static, one moment to the next much less one day or one week to the next. If the poll answers of Joe the truckdriver in Fresno, California or Sally the teacher in Ames, Iowa are considered a "snapshot", then what in the world would we consider the answers of Tom the soldier in Baghdad? You ask him about the President's "policy" and maybe he's just been told his deployment has been extended and I'll tell you what he's going to sayt about "policy". Actually, I won't tell you because it would violate the AD language policy. Or, conversely perhaps he just came from some area in Iraq where things are going well and the people are happy that he's there. Maybe he's just seen some of the good things that have happened as a result of toppling Saddam and chances are his "policy" answer is going to be quite different. Add to that the worst person to ask about the "big picture" in a war is a soldier fighting it. Maybe things have changed with the advent of the Internet, but my experience has been that you don't know much about the big picture because you're concerned with little picture window from which a sniper is shooting at you.

So, I'd have to say that this poll has no real significance one way or the other. It might be concluded that members of the military tend to support pro-defense Presidents, but we already knew that. Other than that though, I really don't see much information there.

1. No, it does not surprise me.

2. We have a volunteer military. The overwhelming number of people who volunteer for service to our country feel passionately about the defense of our country. Many of these people volunteered after 9/11 and they know full well that we had war declared on us by a network of terrorists organizations AND the states that support them. Furthermore, those in the military tend to be more conservative than the typical Dean/Kerry/Hillary supporter (i.e., the base of the democrat party). Therefore, they tend to see the world from a realistic, rather than a utopian perspective. Those in the military realize that war is serious, dangerous, and messy business but that sometimes not fighting is far worse than the sacrifice of battle.

3. The public at large is exposed to the war from the perspective of the liberal media which was against this war from day one. That's why successes in the region are nearly never reported and why the Abu Grab prison scandal was promoted on the first page of the NY Times for weeks. The press is generally negative in outlook anyway and being pessimistic on the war is in their philosophical "sweet spot".

Not surprised at this at all, the key phrasing here is “support our current operations”. I would venture to say that a majority of those who opposed the war, including myself, realize that we have to finish the mess we created which translates to ‘support our current operations’.

The other half of this duty bound equation is: I support our operations but am I really happy with it? For some time now I’ve noticed with a high level of interest the lack of an updated troop morale poll, something I search for on an almost weekly basis. Go ahead, search your google off and the latest poll you’ll find will probably be at least a year and a half old (possbily a good topic on it's own). The most recent I could find:


Other, dated polls reflect similar numbers.

So, for you to paint this rosy picture that two thirds of our troops “support our current operations” is a bit misleading. I’m sure those surveyed know, like most of us, that we now have no option but staying the course.

Also, I think DTOM possibly hit the nail on the head with his usual insight: most surveyed were probably NCO’s and other officers, professional career military. I would expect nothing less from this group to support their commander in chief.

But let’s take a quick peak into the Bush bread basket:


Interesting, in his bastion of reelection enlistee’s are declining. To me that speaks louder than the survey.

Realistically, your logic is also flawed. The war was voted in by a bi-partisan congress, of which your friend John Kerry did (and did not, then did, then didn't..!) vote for. War cannot be waged by one man, and the intelligence that Bush was privy to spread to all of congress. Lay blame/credit where it is due. Why aren't there democrats in congress on CNN talking about pulling out? Why don't they oppose the war publicly? hmm... maybe because they're the professionals and know how they voted.

Frankly, I'd like to believe that you are intelligent enough to understand why recruiting efforts are declining. The fact is that even I (a proud Marine Reservist) never believed that when I signed on the dotted line that I would ever take part in war. I went to basic training, MOS school, and OCS, still believing that this was going to be one weekend a month and maybe a few trips in the summer. It has little to do with agreeing with the action, yet simply is an issue of self preservation. Something else that you have to consider is that the vast majority of reservists and guardsmen/women joined to either raise money for tuition or pay off loans.. or maybe just for a little added income. Now, it's a risk/reward situation. People joining now are staunch patriots or adventure seekers, as we all know there is a sincere risk involved. My enlistment is nearly up and I believe that when I joined I was barely out of college... and my intentions were to get a little discipline, a little added income, and mostly to get rid of my obligation to Sallie Mae! I can say that most soldiers in direct combat roles (nearly the whole Marine Corps) feel involved and as if they're contributing. Support personnell are far more likely to be dissident or cynical. That cook that left his family and regular job to sleep in the sand and take cold showers isn't going to feel nearly as involved or integral as someone an infantryman that sees direct action. Being a young Lt. in a specialized Marine Unit, I understand greatly that the reserve mentality is far different than that of active duty units, especially when it comes to the Army or Airforce guardsmen. This probably has everything to do with the declining number of enlistments...

Using these figures in reference to military support of the war in Iraq is extremely near-sighted. If you had any real idea as to how many people join the military out of neccesity as opposed to a sense of obligation or desire....

Words can’t express the heartfelt gratitude for you and other members of the military who bless me with a level of security that is quite possibly unsurpassed and who respond with honor to provide humanitarian aid for countries decimated by an unimaginable catastrophe. I am both proud and forever grateful for the might we call our military

And thank you for the benefit of doubt on my intelligence.


Living in Louisville I’m acutely aware of the differences between career military and reservist. I can count students in the night classes I teach, my former Boy Scout master, fellow coaches, my father and neighbors as either active or retired military who have served at Fort Knox. On the other hand one third of my former staff consisted of reservist so I’m fully aware of the motivational factors that differentiate the two.

I live close enough to Fort Knox that when atmospheric conditions are right my windows rattle from gunnery practice. I mentioned this a while back in a pm to DontTreadonMe and he responded that a sign outside a base where he was once stationed said ‘Pardon our noise; it’s the sound of freedom’. I love that sound. And I believe in a strong military to protect our freedom, I just happen to think we’ve made a huge mistake.

And that brings me to the point that I poorly attempted to make. If those who support Bush and the war effort are going to call his reelection a mandate on his policies (talking heads and several on this board who’ve essentially made this claim), or for those who start misleading threads like this one that continually attempt to justify this mess simply because those in the military “support current operations”, then why aren’t the ranks of reservist swelling to the point where they have to turn enlistees down? Especially in the heart of Bush country and the bastion of patriotism.

It doesn’t matter if they are reservist or regulars, if they truly believe in this war and this president they should be eager to leave their loved ones behind and lay their lives on the line.

aevans176,

Speaking of logic, I could not have voted for the Senator Kerry as I do not live in Massachusettes. Nor did I vote for the Republican Senators from Colorado, but I did vote for some of the Demos who took this state back from Republicans.

I'll take partial responsibility for that result

The logic holds for other representatives as well (school board, county, state etc.). I am not personally responsible for a representative's mess-up. I am only responsible for voting better people into office, if and when they get to run, if and when I get to vote. There is no law that reads my heart, soul and mind get bought each election season.

Anyway, appeals to have unanimous consent for anything in a free country, except from a murder jury, is illogical. Things just don't work that way, unless you're in Hussein's Iraq before the war where he was elected unanimously. Nobody was surprised, and of course that was not a free country back then.

The brow beating going on here might indicated one reason why the military still supports (agrees with or whatever) the ground work in Iraq, as not doing so could be made painful in various ways. I've given other reasons, as have other posters brought up logical reasons why this might be so.

As to pulling out as a solution, that indeed is a topic for another debate. I frankly don't know what the solution is. Perhaps the present administration and Congress do. Perhaps the military does. Various contributors to this board seem to know, however, few agree.

I personally would not have gone to war on this issue, and when the decision was made, nobody asked me. I don't see how that makes me responsible. I do see how pushing responsibility is a tactic to keep people, including members of the armed services, quiet.

Like AuthorMusician, I deny responsibility for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not my candidate, not my President, not my war. The anger and grief experienced as a result of the 9/11 attacks was wrongfully utilized by the administration with the complicity of the CIA (George "slam dunk" Tenet, in particular) to garner support for this expensive and tragic side-trip called the War on Iraq, not to be confused with the so-called War on Terror. (If anyone was promoting "terror" it was this administration with the stupid color-coded alert system which didn't do squat and the admonitions to stock plastic sheeting and duct tape in the event of an attack! Practically speaking, what would that have done?)

My son wanted to see some action before his time was up in the Army National Guard, but he told me that he basically needed the extra money that combat pay provides. A little after Christmas he told me that he was supposed to come home this month, but that he had seen others who were going home get turned around to come back and serve for however long the military dictated this time, so he's not absolutely certain. He will have been in Kuwait for a year sometime this month. The military tabloid (?) cannot convince me that people subjected to the stop loss policy are thrilled about it, favorable poll or not.

Despite communications from those opposing the looming war to the Congress and to the President about the folly of invading Iraq, Congress relinquished its power and gave the President the authority to wage war. They are not without fault in what transpired. But it is not my fault or the fault of those who were against the war that our country took this literally ill-advised course of action.

1) With great opposition to the war in some circles in the US, does it surprise you that our troops on the ground are still in favor of our operations in Iraq?

This was discussed earlier on another forum and it was found that most of those surveyed were Republican, so no, it does not surprise me.


2) What do you think some of the reasons are for such support?

Might be true or not, but the Republicans have always been perceived as war mongers; they like war.

3) Why do you think Bush's approval ratings on the war are dropping in the US, yet stay about the same for the military?[/b]

It is my opinion that military personnel have made a committment to support every decision made by their Commander in Chief, while the American public does not.


These polls were conducted by ARMY TIMES, ARMED FORCES NEWS, etc. so the only ones who could answer were subscribers to the magazines; thus not an open poll.
Some of the poll questions that were not so favorable were not mentioned in this thread, I notice.

I'll see if I can find the link for this poll and get back with ya'.

edited to add link to this poll: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/