What the troops think

[Mickey]

LeMoyne College, a Jesuit college located right here in Syracuse, in combination with Zogby International, just finished and released a comprehensive poll of the troops in Iraq. I believe it may be one of the only polls of its kind taken since the war started. For discussion purposes:

 

What the Troops Think

 

Interestingly, the surveys were conducted face to face and in Iraq. Kudos to the pollsters for being willing to go where the troops are to hear them out. They found that "...26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more." With numbers like that, you have to worry about fatigue and the burden being born by the same people repeatedly.

 

29% want us to leave immediately. Another 21% in the next six months. I fear that means that 51% are going to be disappointed because I don't see us being anywhere near getting out by August. 53% want us to double the numbers of troops and the number of bombing missions. They too will be disappointed I fear. I confess that I have no idea what bombing missions they are talking about, I didn't think there were many targets for aerial bombing that we can regularly identify but I guess there must be. I pictured an insurgency that has its forces interlaced with everyday Iraqi's so that you don't often get a chance to bomb them and only them. Apart from that though, I don't see us doubling troop strength for two reason: A. not enough troops and B. too politically unpopular.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'd be interested in seeing some more on their demographics, such as rank, years in service, military occupational specialty, etc.

 

Not an opinion on the numbers, but "The Military" is definitely a population where one can get some pretty diverse views based on the factors that are unique to it.

 

This is to me, the fault of just about any polling. Not even to cheat, but unless one is meticulously careful in their target, one can get the right numbers to support any POV.

[X. Benedict]

I'd be interested in seeing some more on their demographics, such as rank, years in service, military occupational specialty, etc.

 

613723[/snapback]

Getting a good demographic sample in that theater must be a nightmare. Zobgby is usually pretty good, but for most good polling there is a high percentage of spoiled samples or interviews that are abortive. Interviewers are tough to control in a situation like this.

[OnTheRocks]

I'd be interested in seeing some more on their demographics, such as rank, years in service, military occupational specialty, etc.

 

Not an opinion on the numbers, but "The Military" is definitely a population where one can get some pretty diverse views based on the factors that are unique to it.

 

This is to me, the fault of just about any polling. Not even to cheat, but unless one is meticulously careful in their target, one can get the right numbers to support any POV.

613723[/snapback]

 

 

i am just curious.

are you thinking that most of those polled are new to service?

 

my thought is that if "military leaders" were polled honestly, these numbers would be even more slanted toward the "it's time to get out" point of view.

[Mickey]

I'd be interested in seeing some more on their demographics, such as rank, years in service, military occupational specialty, etc.

 

Not an opinion on the numbers, but "The Military" is definitely a population where one can get some pretty diverse views based on the factors that are unique to it.

 

This is to me, the fault of just about any polling. Not even to cheat, but unless one is meticulously careful in their target, one can get the right numbers to support any POV.

613723[/snapback]

Cough up the 19.99 for the executive summary.

 

They do have some numbers broken down based on branch of service and there were marked differences between the guard and marines and so forth. It isn't gospel truth but that is what margins of error are for. When you have numbers that one sided, on some issues anyway, it is more likely to be an accurate indicator of the general viewpoints being expressed even if the precise number itslef is hazy.

 

I'll tell you one thing, those Jesuits, the brothers, don't mess around. They are very strict academicians.

[Mickey]

i am just curious.

are you thinking that most of those polled are new to service?

 

my thought is that if "military leaders" were polled honestly, these numbers would be even more slanted toward the "it's time to get out" point of view.

613738[/snapback]

Well, they did set out the percentages of those polled on their first, second and third tours of duty. The also gave numbers for different branches, reserves, NG, Marines, etc. I don't know if that answers your question.

 

We can analyze the poll to death but since we weren't present for every interview, we can never determine for certain its absolute accuracy. Rather than debate what we don't know, ie, all the details of this poll's methodology and execution, lets discuss what the results mean in terms of policy concerns, with the caveat that we are assuming, for the basis of argument, that it is realtively accurate. If it turns out it is not, fine, we can dump our opinions and wait for a better poll. Not that I object to pointing out any obvious flaws in the poll, I just hope that isn't the only thing we discuss, ie, how to discredit the poll.

[Ghost of BiB]

i am just curious.

are you thinking that most of those polled are new to service?

 

my thought is that if "military leaders" were polled honestly, these numbers would be even more slanted toward the "it's time to get out" point of view.

613738[/snapback]

 

I'd agree with that. I also think that you are not going to hear that coming out of 3 out of 4 of them, even if that is what they think. Especially out of careerists. Also, a good military leader at least verbally supports the mission or he/she can't lead. Not an environment for democratic thinking. (I mean democratic thinking, not "democrat")

 

Another factor is that very few soldiers in theater, with a mission have a really broad grasp of the overalls. By design and necessity, they have a pretty narrow focus. So, their ideas and opinions are very much colored by their immediate surroundings.

 

I've also met very few military leaders who at sidebar didn't have a better plan than the one they were working.

 

I also work with military leadership that I personally know and consider many of friends who are very liberal in their thinking, vote democrat, have many reservations about what is going on, as well as ideas, but they support the mission and do the best they can. None advocate "just pulling out".

[X. Benedict]

I'll tell you one thing, those Jesuits, the brothers, don't mess around.  They are very strict academicians.

613750[/snapback]

 

Yes. The Society can be a real pain in the ass.

[Ghost of BiB]

Well, they did set out the percentages of those polled on their first, second and third tours of duty.  The also gave numbers for different branches, reserves, NG, Marines, etc.  I don't know if that answers your question.

 

We can analyze the poll to death but since we weren't present for every interview, we can never determine for certain its absolute accuracy.  Rather than debate what we don't know, ie, all the details of this poll's methodology and execution, lets discuss what the results mean in terms of policy concerns, with the caveat that we are assuming, for the basis of argument, that it is realtively accurate.  If it turns out it is not, fine, we can dump our opinions and wait for a better poll.  Not that I object to pointing out any obvious flaws in the poll, I just hope that isn't the only thing we discuss, ie, how to discredit the poll.

613761[/snapback]

 

But to debate or discuss the numbers is directly related to the validity of the information. Since no one is going to ever know what the true "validity" is, no one is going to go back and discuss it later. As for your first point, no - that doesn't answer my question. Are we talking about an E-4 Combat Engineer on his second tour of duty? Or an 0-6 S-3 on his second tour of duty? I can virtually guarantee a different basis of analysis even if the conclusions are the same.

 

So, I can't really discuss what it means in so far as policy concerns, which in some ways is moot as the people in uniform once again are not in a democracy, they are in basically a dictatorship and I have no fears that they would ever start sabotaging the mission because they personally disagree with a lot of it. That, to me would be the only really significant issue to discuss and I simply don't think that will happen.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't think it matters what the ranks are. In my experience, being anywhere in that type of environment is going to lead to "let's get the hell out of here" syndrome. Professionalism only lasts so long when you're continually put under stress (multiple deployments to the same hot theater to do a mission you're really not trained/equipped for).

 

The operations side of the military is way too small and the bureaucratic side is way too big.

[BB27]

I don't think it matters what the ranks are.  In my experience, being anywhere in that type of environment  is going to lead to "let's get the hell out of here" syndrome.  Professionalism only lasts so long when you're continually put under stress (multiple deployments to the same hot theater to do a mission you're really not trained/equipped for).

 

The operations side of the military is way too small and the bureaucratic side is way too big.

614306[/snapback]

 

I agree. It doesn't matter what rank/branch/first or fifth tour. Put anyone in combat, and they are going to say they want to go home. It doesn't even matter whether or not you support what is going on, you just want to be home. I would be interested in knowing how many have families at home. Anyone with kids/wife at home wouldn't have to be told twice to go home. I wonder if this question (Would you rather be here or home) is even worth polling. You kind of allready know the answer.

[Ghost of BiB]

And in my experience, anyone allowing in outsiders had better be prepared for what they get. Lots more opportunity now than a few years ago.

 

Of course people want to be home. A long time ago, I had beers with Mike Wallace one night, lots of laughs and good time, then saw a 60 minutes that made us look like a bunch of idiots not even resembling the truth, let alone "off the record" conversations. That was early 80's, think it's better now?

 

But, I think this was another effort to say that since troops don't like being in combat, given the choice between being shot at or not, our "policy" should be to call it off because the troops don't like being there.

 

Well, maybe they have enough sense to figure out being shot at is not better than not being shot at?

 

But, let's all discuss the numbers and call it proof Mickey's right.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

...our "policy" should be to call it off because the troops don't like being there.

614803[/snapback]

 

Thus proving once and for all Newbie's hypothesis that all policy is reactive?

 

But I digress. I'm sorry. Carry on.

[Mickey]

And in my experience, anyone allowing in outsiders had better be prepared for what they get. Lots more opportunity now than a few years ago.

 

Of course people want to be home. A long time ago, I had beers with Mike Wallace one night, lots of laughs and good time, then saw a 60 minutes that made us look like a bunch of idiots not even resembling the truth, let alone "off the record" conversations. That was early 80's, think it's better now?

 

But, I think this was another effort to say that since troops don't like being in combat, given the choice between being shot at or not, our "policy" should be to call it off because the troops don't like being there.

 

Well, maybe they have enough sense to figure out being shot at is not better than not being shot at?

 

But, let's all discuss the numbers and call it proof Mickey's right.

614803[/snapback]

What am I right on? I wasn't aware of having argued a point of view other than ask that rather than dissect the poll's accuracy or lack thereof, discuss its findings?

 

I do recall saying that a bunch want to leave within a year and they are likely going to be disappointed. Is that what I am right on? I also mentioned fatigue based on those numbers as well, was that it? Lastly, I also mentioned that those who want to see our troop strength doubled would also be disappointed. Is that where I was right? You said:

 

"I think this was another effort to say that since troops don't like being in combat, given the choice between being shot at or not, our "policy" should be to call it off because the troops don't like being there."

 

Honestly bib, where did you get that from? I didn't say that.

 

There were a lot more issues polled than "do you want to go home", are they also not worth discussing?

 

I guess its fine to shunt aside the poll as meaningless based on an armchair review, its what we do around here for the most part. I have no objection just as long as it isn't a double standard and we are all just as quick to dissect the accuracy of other sources such as anecdotal stuff and the like. I seem to recall a lot of posts in the past about how things are going great but the media is hiding it based on anecdotes allegedly from soldiers. As long as we are consistent, and this isn't being ignored because it doesn't fit in with a rightsided viewpoint, I'm cool.

[Ghost of BiB]

Rather than debate what we don't know, ie, all the details of this poll's methodology and execution, lets discuss what the results mean in terms of policy concerns, with the caveat that we are assuming, for the basis of argument, that it is realtively accurate.

 

Polls relation to policy concerns?

 

If I seem like I'm piling on, it's because I know you're a lawyer, probably a very good and clever one and have argued a lot of cases. I sense a tendency to present "evidence", and shape the argument to fit that evidence while mitigating or even ignoring argument or evidence to the contrary. Common practice here, you can be more subtle about it than most though.

 

In the quoted statement, you would have us shape a conversation based on evidence (poll numbers) that may be accurate, but perhaps not truly representative with the idea that should another poll surface later that better explains it's demographics, the subject will be revisited. Well, it's doubtful that that will ever happen. So, we discuss the poll in question where a blind man can see that troops don't have a huge interest in being in Iraq, and that shapes the merits of the conversation. Anyone saying that the poll does NOT indicate that troops don't want to be in Iraq would be wrong, easily refuted by one piece of evidence. Stacked deck. Then, you tie it to policy implications (dangerous with ANY poll, but whatever).

 

Plus, sometimes it's simply fun to jerk your chain.

[Mickey]

Polls relation to policy concerns?

 

If I seem like I'm piling on, it's because I know you're a lawyer, probably a very good and clever one and have argued a lot of cases. I sense a tendency to present "evidence", and shape the argument to fit that evidence while mitigating or even ignoring argument or evidence to the contrary. Common practice here, you can be more subtle about it than most though.

 

In the quoted statement, you would have us shape a conversation based on evidence (poll numbers) that may be accurate, but perhaps not truly representative with the idea that should another poll surface later that better explains it's demographics, the subject will be revisited. Well, it's doubtful that that will ever happen. So, we discuss the poll in question where a blind man can see that troops don't have a huge interest in being in Iraq, and that shapes the merits of the conversation. Anyone saying that the poll does NOT indicate that troops don't want to be in Iraq would be wrong, easily refuted by one piece of evidence. Stacked deck. Then, you tie it to policy implications (dangerous with ANY poll, but whatever).

 

Plus, sometimes it's simply fun to jerk your chain.

615361[/snapback]

You are a very suspicious man. I think that given a whole bunch wanted to double troop strength while at the same time a whole bunch wanted to be out in a year meant that the poll had pretty mixed results as far as should they stay or should they go. I was trying to think of how those seemingly opposite numbers could be reconciled. I also thought that in terms of morale and fatigue, the poll was revealing. Beyond that I hadn't drawn many conclusions from it. On the left we are often accused of not "supporting the troops" so I thought posting and disucussing the first hard poll taken in theatre of those troops would help to dispel that ridiculous slam. Mostly though, I was just proud of the locals at little LeMoyne College. Its a Syracuse thing.

[Ghost of BiB]

You are a very suspicious man.  I think that given a whole bunch wanted to double troop strength while at the same time a whole bunch wanted to be out in a year meant that the poll had pretty mixed results as far as should they stay or should they go.  I was trying to think of how those seemingly opposite numbers could be reconciled.  I also thought that in terms of morale and fatigue, the poll was revealing.  Beyond that I hadn't drawn many conclusions from it.  On the left we are often accused of not "supporting the troops" so I thought posting and disucussing the first hard poll taken in theatre of those troops would help to dispel that ridiculous slam.  Mostly though, I was just proud of the locals at little LeMoyne College.  Its a Syracuse thing.

615377[/snapback]

 

Troop strength should have been doubled two years ago, but wasn't workable. Doubling troop strength now, even if we could and wanted to is politically untenable for everybody, us, Iraq, etc. I was sort of surprised that the question was even raised. Makes me suspicious of what they were trying to figure out.

[Mickey]

Troop strength should have been doubled two years ago, but wasn't workable. Doubling troop strength now, even if we could and wanted to is politically untenable for everybody, us, Iraq, etc. I was sort of surprised that the question was even raised. Makes me suspicious of what they were trying to figure out.

615389[/snapback]

I have no idea. I think that the notion of the troops being pro-Bush or pro-war or whatever has been advanced by administration defenders and the administration itself. Apparently, from a political perspective, it is considered advantageous to have the troops support you as much as it is to be preceived as one who "supports the troops". To that extent, what the troops really think is a political asset that could benefit one side or the other on the war. I think the sides on the war are becoming less and less of a mirror image of the parties. People are starting to cross party lines when it comes to the war.

 

LeMoyne is a religious school devoted to strict academics and though they tend to be conservative, they are a different kind of conservative. They are not Tom DeLay conservatives or Ralph Reed conservatives, if that makes sense. They are pro-life but not just for fetuses, thus they don't like the death penalty anymore than they like abortion. That kind of thing. More traditionally catholic, not christian soldier catholic, more Jesus-turn-the-other-cheek catholic.

 

Their dedication to academics though is pretty absolute, so I don't see them bending the findings one way or the other. As for Zogby and who might have commissioned them on this, I don't know.

[X. Benedict]

LeMoyne is a religious school devoted to strict academics and though they tend to be conservative, they are a different kind of conservative.  They are not Tom DeLay conservatives or Ralph Reed conservatives, if that makes sense.  They are pro-life but not just for fetuses, thus they don't like the death penalty anymore than they like abortion.  That kind of thing.  More traditionally catholic, not christian soldier catholic, more Jesus-turn-the-other-cheek catholic.

 

 

616110[/snapback]

The Jesuits as well as the Franciscans tend to take social justice seriously, many of the Catholic Dioceses and more conservative congregations have allied themselves with the Ralph Reeds. (Sharing a narrower stance on abortion).

 

Interestingly enough, from a just-war perspective (Catholic War Doctrine), while it was pretty clear that this war in Iraq didn't fit the standard of a just war, many theorists have recognized that leaving now would also be unjust. Fun times.

[Mickey]

The Jesuits as well as the Franciscans tend to take social justice seriously, many of the Catholic Dioceses and more conservative congregations have allied themselves with the Ralph Reeds. (Sharing a narrower stance on abortion).

 

Interestingly enough, from a just-war perspective (Catholic War Doctrine), while it was pretty clear that this war in Iraq didn't fit the standard of a just war, many theorists have recognized that leaving now would also be unjust. Fun times.

616196[/snapback]

Iraq is the gift that keeps on bleeding.