U. S. Soldiers' views

[Pure]

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


Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

· Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”

· While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy


· Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown

· Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks

· Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation

· Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

 

[Rope64]

· Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11

This makes me very ashamed to be an American.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

This makes me very ashamed to be an American.

Of all the things that this country has done in the past, the good and the bad together and separate; of all the things that our constitution and bill of rights and way of life represent; of all the freedoms that we have here that many countries don't have, and with all the joy those freedoms have brought us in the past; of all the retrictions we have on our freedoms what they mean to us and have done to our country and the lives affected within and without... You've chosen that statement and have said it makes you very ashamed to be an American?

Not, you're ashamed to be American because of how the current administration has made choices you feel are downright ugly; not you're proud because of how we all pulled together after 9/11 (the citizens showing they cared for one another), not you're proud that we helped liberate what was left of the Jewish population after WW2, or you're ashamed that we lost so many lives in Vietnam?

I got to wonder if maybe this country just isn't right for you...

Q_C

 

[glynndah]

This makes me very ashamed to be an American.

I read this to mean that Rope64's ashamed that some Americans still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Besides, everybody knows we're in Iraq bacause "Saddam tried to kill my dad".

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I personally question the validity of any survey of veterans deployed in a war zone by a group that advocates peace.

Which military personelle were quered. What questions did you ask? was the sample represenative? Was it double blind? What's the methodology involved in selecting respondants?

If, for example, the only people you wquestioned are disable vets going though rehab, I suspect your results will be rather skewed.

Not saying they are, but I'd not loose any sleep over this polls results, which ever way you are inclined to belive.

 

[Rope64]

I read this to mean that Rope64's ashamed that some Americans still believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Besides, everybody knows we're in Iraq bacause "Saddam tried to kill my dad".

Really, I'm ashamed because we have sent kids off overseas to kill and possibly to be killed, and filled their heads with lies about why we did it.

Quiet, yes, I question myself whether the US is the right country for me. But I was born here, so my inclination is to hold that it's the country that should change.

 

[Pure]

i do get 'rope's' point, in that the Saddam 9-11 connection's gotta be one of the great 'big lies' of the last 100 years, comparable to Hitler's saying that Jewish bankers caused Germany's depression.

No need to be ashamed of the country, but some of its leaders act like the Taliban, quite shamelessly 'selling' their snake oil. One might mention too, the jingoistic, uncritical role of the press in the run up to the Iraq invasion: What exactly were these soldiers supposed to be reading to figure things out?

 

[elsol]

I personally question the validity of any survey of veterans deployed in a war zone by a group that advocates peace.

Which military personelle were quered. What questions did you ask? was the sample represenative? Was it double blind? What's the methodology involved in selecting respondants?

If, for example, the only people you wquestioned are disable vets going though rehab, I suspect your results will be rather skewed.

Not saying they are, but I'd not loose any sleep over this polls results, which ever way you are inclined to belive.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

I hope the responses don't come as a surprise, Colleen.

I mean this isn't WWII... and it's actually not that hard to figure out that if this war EVER had anything to do with WODs, it certainly doesn't now. It's also a completely different story to say "I'll serve..." and to be told "The law says we get to keep you as long as we need to."

At first, the whole shoot-em up-bang-bang sounds cool and you hope you get to be the one that gets the call... but the first bullet whizzing by brings reality crashing down around you.

Especially when you watch someone get cut in half.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Pure]

colly,

zogby is a well known polling outfit, with a number of conservative clients.

polling methodology is well known, and not 'double blind.' (whatever that would mean {having non-English speakers read the questions to English speakers, so they wouldn't know what they're asking?})

sampling methods are also well known and described. most polling cos. including Zogby, have done OK aroudn election time, and have converged toward one another.

the methods, including sampling, are not infallible, but many sources of bias have been dealt with--mistakes of the past include: use of voluteers, rather than random; and at elections, polling all adults without regard to who's likely to vote; phrasings of questions (though tiny variations do produce different results)

but if you believe it's all snake oil, and that predictons come true by 'luck', I can't dissuade you, I'm sure.

 

[amicus]

Just another anti war tirade by the 'usual suspects', the pacifists, the anti any war, the anti US, no matter what, we had them in WW1 and Two, we had them in Korea and Vietnam, in Grenada and Bosnia, in Panama, anywhere the US goes to try to protect and defend freedom.

They started even before war in Iraq began with the UN inspectors of WMD sites, they continued with criticisms of 'shock and awe', they said the sand storm that delayed the advance was proof we could not succeed. Then there was, 'not enought boots on the ground', then there was not enough body armor and humvee armor and truck armor.

Then there was re enlistments, and recruitment and health care for veterans and much, much more.

Oh, yes, I forgot the Abu Graib scandal....

I suppose we need these pestering piss ant critics, and I do grant them the freedom to criticize as they may. But the larger picture is that individual human freedom is being extended into areas never before free, oppression is being challenged, human rights and democracy are growing and those are good things.

Tolerate the piss ants, but pay no attention to them otherwise.


amicus...

 

[elsol]

Just another anti war tirade by the 'usual suspects', the pacifists, the anti any war, the anti US, no matter what, we had them in WW1 and Two, we had them in Korea and Vietnam, in Grenada and Bosnia, in Panama, anywhere the US goes to try to protect and defend freedom.

They started even before war in Iraq began with the UN inspectors of WMD sites, they continued with criticisms of 'shock and awe', they said the sand storm that delayed the advance was proof we could not succeed. Then there was, 'not enought boots on the ground', then there was not enough body armor and humvee armor and truck armor.

Then there was re enlistments, and recruitment and health care for veterans and much, much more.

Oh, yes, I forgot the Abu Graib scandal....

I suppose we need these pestering piss ant critics, and I do grant them the freedom to criticize as they may. But the larger picture is that individual human freedom is being extended into areas never before free, oppression is being challenged, human rights and democracy are growing and those are good things.

Tolerate the piss ants, but pay no attention to them otherwise.


amicus...

Personally, I agree.

I'm so glad the Sunnis and Shiites are free to kill each other.

Can we have some of that freedom here? I got into a bit of a spat with a co-worker today and he seriously needs his house blown up.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

War ain't fun. In fact, war sucks ass. These people have been in war, and experienced the suckass of war first hand. If that tilts the polls among them towards putting an end to war, I'm not surprised.

 

[Rope64]

I do grant them the freedom to criticize as they may.

Oh, you "grant," do you? You're full both of yourself and of shit. Work it out.

 

[mack_the_knife]

Oh, you "grant," do you? You're full both of yourself and of shit. Work it out.

One of the definitions of 'grant' - To concede; acknowledge.

The Dictionary is your friend.

 

[cloudy]

One of the definitions of 'grant' - To concede; acknowledge.

The Dictionary is your friend.

Are you back?

 

[mack_the_knife]

Are you back?

No...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

zogby is a well known polling outfit, with a number of conservative clients.

polling methodology is well known, and not 'double blind.' (whatever that would mean {having non-English speakers read the questions to English speakers, so they wouldn't know what they're asking?})

sampling methods are also well known and described. most polling cos. including Zogby, have done OK aroudn election time, and have converged toward one another.

the methods, including sampling, are not infallible, but many sources of bias have been dealt with--mistakes of the past include: use of voluteers, rather than random; and at elections, polling all adults without regard to who's likely to vote; phrasings of questions (though tiny variations do produce different results)

but if you believe it's all snake oil, and that predictons come true by 'luck', I can't dissuade you, I'm sure.

If Phillip Morris Produces a poll that confirms 85% of americans are against barring smokers from resturants, I'm going to wonder.

If Halliburton produces a poll that shows 85% of Americans facvor drilling in the artic wildlife refuge, I will again wonder.

When an outfit with an axe to grid produces olls, or new finding or evidence for <you may insert their cause> I will typically give it little consideration. If the DOD came out with a poll that showed similar results, then i would be impressed. Since the findings would seem to be emitabl;e to them.

When people with a pro peace axe tell me the soldiers in the field feel the way they do, I tend to call bullshit. I know a few soldiers, don't know one who dosen't believe he is doing his duty.

I'm a natural skeptic and a confimered cynic. I expressed the same skepticism at the results being nadied about in the DU thread and after a lot of digging, my skepticism was proven to be well founded.

I'm not saying it would be here, but I'm far from convinced it wouldn't be.

Would you like to go home?

Do you wish this was over so you could go home?

Ask either question and you will get a pretty solid result from troops in the field.

80% of respondants felt Bush's stay the course approach was worng and 85% thihk we should get out of Iraq could be construed from those questions. But if you asked them those questions, in those words, I bet you wouldn't have such pretty majoritys to work with when you published.

 

[Alpheratz]

Curious thread.

First, polls can say what the pollsters want them to say. Never trust a poll of any kind.

Second, all of the troops in the military now are volunteers. A lot of them had to go to great effort to get into the service of their choice. They knew what the military does for a living.

Third, rarely is the news media unbiased. When they report polls or anything else during a war, the stories reflect the personal and political bent of the reporter.

Finally, rational opinions are formed not by hearing someone's assessment, but by hearing everyone's assessments and developing our own. When we rely on a poll to tell us what to think, we are copping out.

 

[Rope64]

One of the definitions of 'grant' - To concede; acknowledge.

The Dictionary is your friend.

Can you look up the definition of 'dickhead' for me?

 

[cloudy]

Can you look up the definition of 'dickhead' for me?

you pegged him quick.

 

[Ootpic]

This makes me very ashamed to be an American.

Worse than that . . .

What are your rights? 'D'oh'

Most Americans have an easier time naming members of the cartoon Simpson family than listing the five freedoms granted by the nation's founders, a survey by a museum released on Wednesday said.

Here's a hint: one of them is not the right to own and raise pets, an error committed by one in five respondents.

http://*******.com/mcn5z

 

[Jagged]

Abu Graib scandal...yes and people went to jail for their crimes against prisoners like other evil regimes...oh wait were not evil right.


Saddam didn't have a hand in 9-11 but evils in his own country and support in those who do including groups like al-Qaeda who had a working relationship with their intelligence agency.

The enemies coming into Iraq are fanatics and they are enemies not insurgents...they kill American soldiers and probably have fought where ever Muslim fanatics are making war.....which is the majority of the conflicts around the globe oddly enough.


Rope yes many of us are ashamed that your an American, but remember these people our nation is fighting right now don't care if you will fight for their civil rights or you voted against the president. They may simply kill you last. Debate all you want about this but remember we can agrue how the country should fight these people not whether we should or not.


To all the brave men and women fighting around the globe they will be remembered for guarding freedom in the darkest hour in a new kind of war. History will show that we did not like a Muslim empire take hold over the world and freedom spread. Nobody likes being away from home and the focus should be on improving pay and benifits and compensating those who have lost money through their service (guard and reserves). It is sad when we can look back at the age of Rome and find out that soldiers then had better benifits and retirement packages (maybe for 20 years of service and interest free mortgage). A hero should not be delivering pizza so their children have everything they need.


Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan are three examples of what happens when people like those in Al-Qaeda end up with control of a nation. They make nations into a warmachines caring little for its people other then a resource to fill their armies and work in their factories. This is the new crusade...and we must save the world again.

 

[Joesephus]

I don't want to be an American but...

I have lived for many years in a couple of Islamic countries. I'm amazed at how little Americans understand this "war." For part of that I blame Bush. He doesn't do a good job of explaining, but then he can't can he? I mean if he says this is a war against Islam every Muslim in the world is obliged to fight by the Holy Qur'an.

There is a civil war gong on in Islam, and no one can escape it. It's not Sunni vs Shiite vs everyone else, it is modern Islam versus ancient Islamist who are opposed to the modern world. I'm ashamed of my own country that we are doing more in this war. We are allies but... no I'm not part of the English speaking world, and my name it because I love Roman history not because I Jewish. I come from a Christian background but few would call me Christian.

For those of you who oppose the war, to whom are you going to surrender to? Are you prepared to convert to Wahhabism? If not, how are you going to opt out? Perhaps you could try to buy some land at ground zero and hope that they won't strike the same place twice.

 

[TheEarl]

Saddam didn't have a hand in 9-11 but evils in his own country and support in those who do including groups like al-Qaeda who had a working relationship with their intelligence agency

Actually, Iraq was one of the few Middle East nations not to have any problems with fanatics. Saddam's iron-grip squeezed most of them out of the country as he would brook no competition.

It's been categorically proven that Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Quaeda and that he actually thoroughly disliked Islamic fundamentalist groups. That's not what this war's about.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

Joeseophus said, There is a civil war gong on in Islam, and no one can escape it. It's not Sunni vs Shiite vs everyone else, it is modern Islam versus ancient Islamist who are opposed to the modern world. I'm ashamed of my own country that we are doing more in this war. We are allies but... no I'm not part of the English speaking world, and my name it because I love Roman history not because I Jewish. I come from a Christian background but few would call me Christian.

For those of you who oppose the war, to whom are you going to surrender to? Are you prepared to convert to Wahhabism? If not, how are you going to opt out? Perhaps you could try to buy some land at ground zero and hope that they won't strike the same place twice.

Yes I agree there's a *civil war* going on. And from that follow limited goals--as compared, say, to Nazi Germany. Al Qaeda and similar groups envision a Caliphate, a united, pure Islamic world, somewhat of the area of the maximum ever controlled by Islam. (Roughly from Morocco to Pakisan, including Turkey and maybe the lowever part of E Europe, such as Albania.)

The 'far enemy' is simply the one exploiting the lands described and supported the corrupt rulers, like Saddam. So it is really the US present in the mideast that pisses them off. I don't really think "Islamists" have it in for the US, per se, but as a world bully and policeman.

So, on one theory--leaving aside a little matter of oil--- the US could just leave, for example, Iraq. No surrender is necessary.