Poll Shows Troops Support War

[fintstone]

POLL SHOWS TROOPS SUPPORT WAR
Neal Boortz

The left and the mainstream media have painted this picture in the press over the holidays that all of these poor, victimized souls are stuck serving their country in Iraq. The implication is that they don't want to be there, and don't believe in the mission. Now, granted, they'd probably rather be at home, but that's not what this is about. We're supposed to believe the war is unpopular with the rank and file.

Well, guess what...a recent poll shows just the opposite. According to a Military Times poll, 63% approve of the way President Bush is handling the war and 60% remain convinced it is a war worth fighting. 87% say they're satisfied with their jobs and only 25% say they'd leave the service. Doesn't square with what's being reported, does it? It's sure beginning to look like the leftist propaganda being churned out by the media in this country doesn't cut it. Then again, it never did.

How about some more statistics? 75% of the military folks polled oppose the draft. Again, these are soldiers that are already serving in the field. And what about the body armor shortage? Who do they blame for that? George Bush? Donald Rumsfeld? Nope. 60% blame the body armor shortage on Congress. By the way, for the most part, there isn't an armor shortage. Oh...and one more: who do the troops blame for Abu Ghraib? Doesn't seem like they really care....only 12% blame policymakers at the Pentagon.

So, the facts are in. The troops support the mission, and they support the president. Kind of makes it more difficult for liberals to portray the troops as the victims in Iraq. Of course, they'll do it anyway and as usual, the media will let them get away with it.

[rrpjr]

Yes, the Left's (and much of the media's) effort to cast a pall over Iraq in every respect -- from military management to troop morale -- is relentless. One sometimes cannot escape the impression that America's setbacks bring them some kind of satisfaction -- that they have some interest in our failure. I use the LA Times as my meter for liberal gloominess -- everything is couched in terms of a mission destined to fail. Good news simply cannot make it into the pages of the LA Times. Likewise, stories of historic and exciting outbursts of democracy around the world evoke the barest acknowledgments of newsworthiness, as if the newspaper begrudged these countries their new freedoms. Reading yesterday about the Ukrainian elections, one of the most dramatic stories in world politics in my lifetime, I had to get through several paragraphs before I found reference to who had "allegedly" poisoned whom, as if it pained them to make a moral distinction between the pro-West Ushenka (sp?) and the corrupt Russian-leaning president opposed to Ukrainian independence. You would never guess by reading the Left newspapers that these were milestone moments in freedom. This confuses me: I grew up believing Liberals loved freedom, and believed even more strongly than conservatives in knocking down tyrants and liberating people. Now, however, the very idea of "pro-Western" governments sprouting up everywhere seems to give them a sour stomach. There is something larger going on here, a problem in the soul of liberalism, I think.

Check out the new Weekly Standard: an Army Reserve officer just back from Iraq tells an interesting story. Good stuff.

[Don 944 LA]

most probably only get news and info from superiors / Govt. sanctioned news / redacted news feeds .... others have more access to news ...
just something to think of.

[Eagle Keeper]

Don STOP WATCHING X FILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike(dat's me)]

Don -

Wrong! Good try though. We in the military are allowed to form our own opinions and seek out information where ever we like. (We were told so by our commaders and given a list of where we could look! How silly is that?)

Even over in Saudi we were allowed access to the internet. Only no-no was pornography (how dare they!) or instant messaging. (bandwith)

Sad, huh?

Now try this option, maybe some of us do believe in what we are doing and why. No one seems to stop and think, if everyone is so against gw, how did he get re-elected? Alot of people believe.

[rcecale]

Jason, Mike,

Thanks for your replies. I was going to respond in the same manner but decided I would wait and let those who are actually serving NOW voice it.

For Don, or anyone else to think that the modern military person is just a blind follower is preposterous. I would put forth that today's military is a much more learned, inteligent, and thinking military than ever before in our history.

Thanks for your service guys!

Semper fi!

Randy

[djmcmath]

My sailors are often very well-versed on current events. Even while at sea, we get news on the broadcast, and we pull into ports where regular news is available. We don't often discuss politics, as it's a pretty big no-no to use our authority to influence people's views. From the discussions that I do listen to, my sailors clearly generate their own opinions, have and exercise free will, and are ultimately not much different than average voters. Scary.

Dan

[red ufo]

But aren't they supposed to support the CIC regardless?

I remember the good ole days when somebody said Clinton was a pot smoking, gay lovin, hippie, and that dude got relieved of his duty. But what he said was true!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by red ufo

I remember the good ole days when somebody said Clinton was a pot smoking, gay lovin, hippie, and that dude got relieved of his duty. But what he said was true!

What I said was "dope smoking, lesbian marryin', wannabe hippie, worthless piece of ****"

And for the record I was not "relieved of my duty", I quit

[fintstone]

As a general rule, IMHO, military folks are much better informed regarding politics than the average joe...mostly because it affects every aspect of their lives...how much they will be paid, get for retirement, where they will live, etc. They also can see through much of the misinformation...because they see how far that most reporting deviates from the reality they are observing with their own eyes. Here is another short article on the subject that actually made it to the NY Post:

New York Post
December 28, 2004
A New Divide
By John Podhoretz
IT will surely be difficult for many people of good will to reconcile the awfulness of the daily news coming out of Iraq - deaths of and injuries to American soldiers and committed Iraqis who want nothing more than to bring freedom and democracy to a forlorn and battered country - with the astonishing new poll released by the Military Times yesterday.

That poll of 1,423 active members of the military indicates that the armed forces of the United States are passionate supporters of the Coalition's efforts in Iraq.

Support for the war inside the military stands at 60 percent, 25 percent higher than the latest Gallup measurement of the American people as a whole.

When it comes to President Bush's handling of the war effort, the results are even more lopsided. Only 42 percent of Americans approve, according to ABC News. In the military, Bush garners 63 percent support.

In other words, support for Bush's Iraq policy is an astounding half again as big in the active military as in the American body politic.

And, in the words of the Army Times report on the poll, "Support for the war is even greater among those who have served longest in the combat zone: Two-thirds of combat vets say the war is worth fighting."

It seems that the people who are actually putting their lives on the line believe in what they are doing - and that those who have spent the most time in harm's way are the most passionate of all.

Job satisfaction in the military, the poll found, is a breathtaking 87 percent, and only a quarter of those polled say they want out.

"Compared with last year," the Military Times notes, "the percentages for support for the war and job satisfaction remain essentially unchanged."

Among non-military Americans, the change over the past year is startling: 60 percent of the country supported the decision to go to war at this time last year, as opposed to 51 percent now.

Note, too, that the active military is angrier at Congress than at the Pentagon.
In the wake of the publicity surrounding the National Guardsman's question to Donald Rumsfeld about the supposed failure to provide appropriate armor, it is instructive to note this poll's conclusion about the matter. Quoting from the Military Times again: "60 percent blame Congress for the shortage of body armor in the combat zone."

That result suggests a greater degree of sophistication on these matters than most Americans - and most pundits - possess. Military personnel know that equipment problems in Iraq are the result of Congress' decisions throughout the '90s to slash the military budget, which had a parlous impact on "combat readiness."

It is heartening to know that those who are actually fighting the war believe in what they are doing and do not resent their civilian leaders for placing them in harm's way.

But what is not heartening is this sobering fact: We can locate the decline in support for the war effort almost entirely inside the Democratic Party.

By a margin of 80-19, Democrats now say they oppose the decision to go to war. The margin among Republicans is exactly the reverse: 80 percent of GOPers support the war, while 19 percent disapprove.

This is not only a partisan divide. It's a cultural divide. As the year 2004 ends, the rank and file of the Democratic Party has turned decisively and profoundly against the military effort in Iraq. And there is reason to believe it won't be long before they turn on the military as well.

Throughout the year, Democratic politicians have been trying to split the difference with the military - saying they support the troops while opposing the war. But that kind of sophistry won't stand.

The military wants to fight this war. Democrats don't. How long before Democrats decide that our men and women in uniform are just extensions of the president and party they detest - a bunch of warmongering, bloodthirsty and stupid imperialists?

Democratic Party bottom-feeders - like the odd and unpleasant people who inhabit the comments sections on Web sites like dailykos.com and democraticunderground.com - have already long since started spewing their bile at our soldiers, sailors and Marines.

Soon, however, the bottom feeders may rise to the surface, just as they did during the Vietnam War. These will be underground opinions no longer.

The good news is that the world has changed since the 1960s. Last week, when The New York Times shamefully tried to resuscitate the Vietnam-era leftist fantasy about tens of thousands of crazed war vets returning to haunt our shores here at home, conservative media voices gave it but good to the Old Grey Lady.

If they really want to fight a culture war rather than this just war to advance democracy and retard Islamofascism, we're more than ready for them.

Originally posted by red ufo
But aren't they supposed to support the CIC regardless?

Members of the military are supposed to follow the CINC's orders - not lick his boots.

[widebody911]

If morale and job satisfaction are so 'breathtaking' then why did they have to implement a backdoor draft to keep people in? Why aren't there lines around the block at every recruiting station?

Sorry, but "budget cuts of the 90's" isn't an excuse any more. You've had 2 years and how many billions blown on this fiasco so far? Quit trying to blame Clinton for the collective incompetence of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.

[fintstone]

Those figures are "breathtaking"...especially during an unpopular war. There is no such thing as a "backdoor draft," That is a democratic operative/media creation. Stop-loss programs are as old as the military. I was caught in a couple myself
Recruiting and retention are quite high, but the morale and job satisfaction of folks already in the military would, by definition, do little for recruiters...since those folks are "already in" and cannot be recruited.

[Don 944 LA]

Originally posted by Eagle Keeper
Don STOP WATCHING X FILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

never really watched it, even when it was on first time around.... Scully was hot though

Mike, sorry, I guess I am unaware.
comment was based on MY Navy experience in the past, where a 6 month cruise most of crew did not know of day to day issues in the US. ( pre-Internet )

[red ufo]

Originally posted by Don 944 LA
never really watched it, even when it was on first time around.... Scully was hot though

Mike, sorry, I guess I am unaware.
comment was based on MY Navy experience in the past, where a 6 month cruise most of crew did not know of day to day issues in the US. ( pre-Internet )

True,

If they are in a sub for 6 months like they are well informed hitting the drudgereport daily. What is there broadband internet in the tanks with Hannity and Colmes on everynight?

Anyway 56% of the US (you know the pool of people that might have to go to war) think this was a mistake. That is enuff people to decide and election, should decide a war too.