2006 Military Times Poll results

[JPriller]

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

some highlights:

66% of respondents had served at least one tour in Iraq of Afghanistan
35% approve of president's handling of the Iraq war, 42% disapprove
50% believe success in Iraq is likely
3/4 believe today's U.S. military is stretched too thin to be effective
47%/47% split on whether Iraq is part of the war on terror

the survey warns:
The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.another interesting bit: evaporating of Republicans
While Bush fared well overall [52% approval], his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.

Similarly, when asked to describe their political views on a scale from very conservative to very liberal, there was a slight shift from the conservative end of the spectrum to the middle or moderate range. Liberals within the military are still a rare breed, with less than 10 percent of respondents describing themselves that way.

[RegBarc]

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

some highlights:

66% of respondents had served at least one tour in Iraq of Afghanistan
35% approve of president's handling of the Iraq war, 42% disapprove
50% believe success in Iraq is likely
3/4 believe today's U.S. military is stretched too thin to be effective
47%/47% split on whether Iraq is part of the war on terror

the survey warns:
another interesting bit: evaporating of Republicans

I think it's entirely possible you have people disagreeing (in the military) with Bush's handling of the war because they think he's too soft in it's execution.

For example, my brother. Served a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan, and his one complaint about Bush that sticks out to me is that it's not closer to total war there. They aren't allowed to plow through and really hit at them.

I know it's an anecdotal example of my brother, but there's this different mentality that does exist. I won't deny that it's possible that they disagree for other reasons; I'm sure they do. But perhaps many in the military disagree because the President's handling of the war is too...measured, so to speak. To corroborate this, look at the "stretched too thin" response. They seem to want to "Warp 9, Engage" the bad parts of the country.

[JPriller]

I think it's entirely possible you have people disagreeing (in the military) with Bush's handling of the war because they think he's too soft in it's execution.

For example, my brother. Served a tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan, and his one complaint about Bush that sticks out to me is that it's not closer to total war there. They aren't allowed to plow through and really hit at them.What you're describing is people who don't know how counter-insurgency works. The battle isn't to hold territory, it's for the support of the people (and remove support for the insurgents). As long as the insurgency, sectarian violence, attacks on our troops are popularly supported, we simply can't win. Ramping up the force so that even MORE innocents are killed and their families and towns alienated from us, the easier we make it for the enemy and the worse we make it for ourselves.

It's like one of those Chinese finger-trap things you get a carnivals. The harder you pull, the tighter it gets. You have to do something initially non-intuitive to succeed.

I know it's an anecdotal example of my brother, but there's this different mentality that does exist. I know for a fact that it does, you can find any number of right-wing pundits and blogs promoting it. But it's a woefully misguided mentality that advocates a sure-fire recipe for additional disasters.

I won't deny that it's possible that they disagree for other reasons; I'm sure they do. But perhaps many in the military disagree because the President's handling of the war is too...measured, so to speak. To corroborate this, look at the "stretched too thin" response. They seem to want to "War 9, Engage" the bad parts of the country.Take a look at the article paragraph on that:
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there. As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 per cent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.That looks like they don't just think there aren't enough troops in Iraq, they think we don't have enough troops ANYWHERE for what we're now committed to, we're simply stretched too thin.

One hopes all the folks bellowing for war with Iran will take notice.

[Combat Medic]

What you're describing is people who don't know how counter-insurgency works. The battle isn't to hold territory, it's for the support of the people (and remove support for the insurgents). As long as the insurgency, sectarian violence, attacks on our troops are popularly supported, we simply can't win. Ramping up the force so that even MORE innocents are killed and their families and towns alienated from us, the easier we make it for the enemy and the worse we make it for ourselves.

It's like one of those Chinese finger-trap things you get a carnivals. The harder you pull, the tighter it gets. You have to do something initially non-intuitive to succeed.
Yes, but just like with a chinese finger trap while a low level of force makes it tighter a large amount of force rips it to peices. I'm personally for the "Kill them all for god will know his own" mindset. If a base gets rocketed from a city, that city stops existing.

[JPriller]

Yes, but just like with a chinese finger trap while a low level of force makes it tighter a large amount of force rips it to peices. I'm personally for the "Kill them all for god will know his own" mindset. If a base gets rocketed from a city, that city stops existing.If you're willing to abandon everything we claimed we were going to war FOR, then maybe that'd work for you. But we didn't invade Iraq to utterly destroy it. Disregarding phantom WMD and AlQaeda ties, we invaded to modernize it and democratize it so that its people could know peace and prosperity instead of suffering and wanton death and destruction.

Your strategy amounts to "screw that, it's too hard, so let's just blow the whole place to hell" and delivers the Iraqis into a far worse situation than they had under Saddam.

Recall also that we aren't dealing with a problem we can cow into submission with impressively merciless applications of force. Terrorists aren't going to stop wanting to kill us because we kill lots of their co-religionists - the opposite is true - and wanton killing of innocent Muslims will create conditions far more favorable to creating more and more terrorists.

Whenever I hear someone advocating this strategy (and it isn't rare, I wish it was) I ask them a variation of the same question - is the idea to win, to someday defeat terrorism and Islamic extremism by relegating it to the historical dustbin, or is the idea to look tough and perhaps satisfy some vengeful bloodlust while we dig ourselves a deeper and deeper hole?

[Combat Medic]

I would say that freedom isn't easy and these people have shown that they don't want to work for it. As far as I'm concerned there are two options. We install a dictator that will be a kindler gentler Sadam, or we start leveling cities.
And, in my mind this started as wanting to invite the Iraqis into our arms and let them join us in democracy. But, they don't want it and our soldier's have died for their apathy. So, I say we bring about peace in another manner. As far as I'm concerned one American solderier's life is worth a thousand 'inocent' Iraqies.

-Mike

[JPriller]

I would say that freedom isn't easy and these people have shown that they don't want to work for it. They were never given a real chance to. Democracy requires security and stability to take root, and we didn't send the troops to provide either. So sectarian militias filled the gap, while our blunders further and further alienated the population.

I'm afraid this isn't one were the blame can be pinned on the Iraqis.

[Combat Medic]

They were never given a real chance to. Democracy requires security and stability to take root, and we didn't send the troops to provide either. So sectarian militias filled the gap, while our blunders further and further alienated the population.

I'm afraid this isn't one were the blame can be pinned on the Iraqis.
If they wanted security they would tell the authorities where the insurgents are hiding. They wouldn't let them live in their town. That isn't happening.

[JPriller]

If they wanted security they would tell the authorities where the insurgents are hiding. They wouldn't let them live in their town. That isn't happening.And this is because the Iraqi civilians have learned something about our occupation - we'll haul into a town, kill some bad guys and drive the rest off, and then pull out and move on to put out some other "fire". Then the bad guys will creep back in to reassert themselves, and express their displeasure to anyone they suspect ratted them out.

They know we're just brief visitors. We can't protect them sufficiently. The bad guys and the sectarian militias are a constant. Do you truly wonder why the populace often decides to side with the militias or turn a blind eye to the bad guys?

[pseudonym]

Yes, but just like with a chinese finger trap while a low level of force makes it tighter a large amount of force rips it to peices. I'm personally for the "Kill them all for god will know his own" mindset. If a base gets rocketed from a city, that city stops existing.
If we're doing this, explain to me how we're any better than Saddam.

[Gai-jin]

So JPriller, it sounds like you agree we need to significantly increase our forces in Iraq, as Regbarc suggested?

[pseudonym]

So JPriller, it sounds like you agree we need to significantly increase our forces in Iraq, as Regbarc suggested?
What good is sending more troops in, unless they'll be staying indefinitely? This war could have been about counterinsurgency or a flat out military occupation, but instead we're running some sort of half-assed hybrid of the two which has accomplished nothing but civil war.

As JP pointed out, counterinsurgency requires that we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. That may have been a realistic goal a few years ago, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it now-we've done too much to alienate them. And a full-scale occupation would require alot of troops for a very long time, and a level of brutality comparable to Saddam Hussain, the man we supposedly came there to rescue them from.

[Gai-jin]

JPriller was saying that because we don't have enough troops, we're not staying long enough to maintain the calm after we clear an area.

If the people have 'learned' to expect that in the last few years, a few years of more troops and staying in the cleared areas longer should help them 'learn' otherwise, right?

[pseudonym]

JPriller was saying that because we don't have enough troops, we're not staying long enough to maintain the calm after we clear an area.

If the people have 'learned' to expect that in the last few years, a few years of more troops and staying in the cleared areas longer should help them 'learn' otherwise, right?
Are you actually advocating this, or simply trying to get JPriller to call for a huge expansion in troop levels for the next several years (good luck on that, by the way)?

[Gai-jin]

Just trying to clarify.

It sounds like there's agreement here that more troops are needed to finish the job. I think withdrawing from Iraq now would leave them very bad off. I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I think if the choices are between backing out, leaving things worse off, and sending in more troops to complete the mission, I'd go with completing the mission.

[JPriller]

So JPriller, it sounds like you agree we need to significantly increase our forces in Iraq, as Regbarc suggested?I have to question whether that would accomplish anything at this late point, especially just the 20K or so "surge" being bandied about.

I think that'll be much too little, much too late. The time to have hit hard with big numbers was 2003, providing security and stability (and thus earning confidence and popular support) from the get-go. But unfortunately, that was the "Powell Doctrine" that Rumsfeld was so anxious to disprove.

Now, if we had some plan for bringing the number of reliable forces up to around 400K, that might let us accomplish something. But we don't have those numbers or anything like it, and the current sectarian situation prevents such a number of reliable forces from being made up from Iraqis - the militias that have long since infiltrated the security forces are the ones causing much of the violence. And I doubt George is interested in trying, I think he's only contemplating this "surge" thing now so he can say later "well I tried what you guys wanted and it STILL didn't work, so don't go around blaming me".

[Combat Medic]

Yes, but just like with a chinese finger trap while a low level of force makes it tighter a large amount of force rips it to peices. I'm personally for the "Kill them all for god will know his own" mindset. If a base gets rocketed from a city, that city stops existing.
Just so that you guys don't think I'm a short-sighted idiot, yes I know that this is not a resonable course of action. Just like I know we can't use nuclear weapons against them.