« Supporting the Troops | Main | Global Test »

Polling the Troops

24 May 2007 10:44 am

I think it's a telling example of the level of desire to believe that the troops agree with liberals about the war in Iraq that DanTheMan cited this 2006 Military Times poll as contradicting my claim that the troops don't want to end the war. The poll does say that "barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war" and that "in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place." It doesn't, however, say the troops want to stop the war:

Whatever war plan the presi dent comes up with later this month, it likely will have the re placement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.

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. [...]

The poll asked, “How do you think each of these groups view the military?” Respondents over whelmingly said civilians have a favorable impression of the mili tary (86 percent). They even thought politicians look favorably on the military (57 percent). But they are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of military respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

As I say, it's totally understandable that anti-war groups like to highlight the views of anti-war veterans for political purposes. And, of course, insofar as the anti-war movement continues to do this, the troops themselves may see it as persuasive. At the same time, it's best to be clear-eyed about this sort of thing -- the active duty military is considerably more pro-war than is the civilian population. I'd also really urge people to look at Spencer's article and get a sense of the psychology of the situation beyond the bare polling data. The people charged with implementing the policy don't want to feel as if they are failing, so they focus on the tactical successes they're experiencing and tune out the strategic failure that constitutes the broader context.

Share This

Comments (34)

Uh, Matt:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

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

Everything's relative, Matt. Spencer's perspective is valuable, and his caution is noted, but there's every reason to believe that this generation of vets, will, for example, feel more understanding of our decision to leave than, say, Vietnam vets.

The anti-war vet is too pervasive to be entirely dismissable as a trend. Look how many veterans ran for Congress as veterans in 06 and the sheer number of ex-military anti-war commentators. It's not a trickle: it's a flood.

Don't anti-war types realize that everyone in the military now joined or re-upped when we were already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan? By definition, this group isn't going to share your anti-war views. Also, the condescending "save the troops" sentimentalism isn't going to go over well with most in the military: part of the reason they volunteered is because they take pride in risking their lives in service to the country.

I think I'm going to look at the polling data one more time. In the article S Ackerman writes "found in December that 50 percent of active-duty respondents continued to believe success was likely--and that was even before the surge had begun [...] it still greatly exceeds that of stateside civilians, 60 percent of whom favor a pullout from Iraq in 2008, according to the most recent CNN poll" The Military Times poll he talks about was released on December 2006.

Ackerman is comparing 2 different things because one is asking about success in Iraq while the other poll is asking about pulling out. A November 2006 Pew poll does ask whether the Iraq War will succeed. The Pew Report shows basically the same numbers of people believe the war will also be a success. The Nov 2006 poll: succeed = 53%, fail = 43%, 6% don't know. I think his inference about the supposed disparity between the civilian and military view on this issue is therefore unwarranted.

Fred's right. Fuck 'em. If they're willing to stick their hand into the meat grinder, who am I to stop them?

The above is an imposter. Most probably fat matt trying to discredit me in response to my repeated eviscerations of his ludicrous posts.

Wasn't there a reputable poll about a year or so ago showing that around 70% of the American troops in Iraq then still believed that Saddam had attacked us on 9/11, thereby causing the war.

Assuming these numbers are still approximately true, I suspect that would explain much of the troops' belief in the need for their continuing presence in Iraq.

I like pie.

You and Ackerman are certainly correct that the troops are gonna hate our guts. Still, the idea that the liberals are stabbing our troops in the back by condescending and patronizing them is a new twist, isn't it? It's certainly a contrast from the image of protesters spitting at Vietnam vets. This replaces "stabbed in the back" with "mommy won't let me out to play". And while that'll still get the troops riled up against us, I wonder how it will play in the larger public, even the military-sympathetic public. There's probably quite a number of military families and even military officers who might rally behind a platform of condescension.

RKU:

yes there is -- its the one I linked to above that shows, "85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks"

The troops DO want to come home. And if they hadn't been brainwashed by the Republicans into believing the conspiracy theory about Hussein and 9/11, they would be mighty pissed off at the Republicans. Perhaps if some Democrats grew some balls and told them it might help.

Of course the troops are more gung ho about Iraq than the general population. They are a self-selected group. Furthermore, even if they were not self-selected, there would be some psychological pressure on them to think they are doing good work. Very, very few people want to think that the work they are doing is futile, even when things are going poorly. No one wants to lose.

Personally, I think the whole "support the troops, stop the war" is a bad, bad idea. The soldiers are going to read this as "save the troops, get them out of danger", and the first thing they'll tell you is that they don't need saving, and they are going to be pissed. It's patronizing. "We're doing this for your own good."

It's a wrongheaded and disingenuous approach anyway. The fact is, family members aside we Americans don't really want to remove the troops because we just love them so much and can't bear to risk losing them. We want to remove them because Iraq is not benefiting from their continued presence. We are burning money and resources in an effort that will not succeed, that in fact is actively hurting our national interest.

We need to tell them straight up: guys and gals, we appreciate your efforts, but what we're doing here is not working, and it's time we try a different approach.

Considering a large measure of the military are unemployable sociopaths it's not surprising many want to continue the mayhem and killing. Beats sitting in their parent's basement playing X-box.

There's a lot of people in these comments studiously avoiding my comment. Maybe you missed it -- its the first one. I want to hear some counterargument to that evidence before I hear anything else. Here it is again:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

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

Also, last time I checked, the American military is meant to serve the will of the civilian population, not the other way around.

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year,...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So at least 51% of 72% of the troops think we should leave? That's actually what, about 37% of all troops? Somebody check my math.

If the Democratic strategy is to try to avert mean things being said about them (they stabbed us in the back!) by a sector that is unlikely to vote Democratic anyway by conceding on all the important issues, the Democrats will richly deserve every contemptuous word. Big deal. Pro war people will say the anti-war people stabbed them in the back. Don't shed too many tears about this. I doubt that is the phrase that is going to come out of the mouth of the independents and the demograph that leans Democratic - it will come out of the mouth of the Fox news dittoheads. O please, learn a lesson from having given Fox the finger on the debates, and don't bend over backwards trying to please these people! Confront them. The army is paid for by the nation. The nation should certainly be happy to pay, within reason, for the army. In return, the nation's representatives decide what is best for the nation. It is not best for the nation for the Congress to pass an irresponsible funding bill with no benchmarks or timetables to create favorable conditions for ending the war. That's about all there is to it. We've had four years of mismanagement in Iraq, four years of irresponsibility, four years of bad to worse. Basta - enough! Stop shillyshalling about the rhetoric - let the rhetoricians on Fox do their damnedest. In the end, they will only convert the converted.

Wow Steve, you are truly an idiot. Check your reading skills, genius.

Duncan, tell me you are not that stupid. 72% is not the sample, it is the result, i.e. 72%, an overwhelming majority, think.

There would be no way to actually poll 72% of serving troops and even in the unlikely case you would 51% of that would not be 'overwhelming'. It is not hard, its something called 'English' and 'Math'.

I checked your math. It sucks.

Disturbance, you do realize that your poll is older than the one being discussed, right? Why would people want to talk about a poll that came ten months earlier than the one being discussed when we are looking for evidence of how the troops feel now?

Why would people want to talk about a poll that came ten months earlier than the one being discussed when we are looking for evidence of how the troops feel now?

Because the poll being discussed doesn't even ask the question, while the slightly older poll does?

Jonathan: Davebo has it exactly right. The Zogby poll asks the direct question.

Also, opinion is unlikely to have changed more than 5-10 points since then and is doubly unlikely to have changed in the direction of more support for the war.

Frankly, I'm suprised that Mega Media Matt put so much emphasis on Ackerman's rather weak argument.

All Ackerman has is:

1)anecdotal "evidence" from soldiers on the ground -- do you really expect a grunt actually in Iraq to tell a reporter on the record that he wants to leave?

2) Some poll data from a poll that doesn't ask the right question.

I haven't done a comprehensive search so I'm open to counterevidence. But until I see some counterevidence, Zogby's is the best -- in fact the only -- evidence we have.

If I remember right the Military Times poll was a mail in one, as in not random. I assume the Zogby one was random. I'd take a random sample over a self selected group.

Cindy: you're right. Zogby is a respected pollster, and here's his methodology statement on the poll:

?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."

Er.. given how many Democratic Senators running for President voted to put us into Iraq, isn't all this discussion kinda like Governor Corzine sitting in a body cast and making a commercial urging the people to New Jersey to use seat belts?

No --cancel that. It's more like a TV Commercial in which Democratic Governor Corzine is sitting in a body cast and his DRIVER comes into view and urges people to wear seat belts.

Folks in the US forces in Iraq like their jobs.

If they knew that on return they would have equally good civilian jobs, or education benefits of significance (like GI Bill benefits), or solid continued careers in the military, they would no doubt be happy to serve outside Iraq (except perhaps the hard-core careerists, just out of academies, who need their "tickets punched" in combat assignments overseas).

To avoid "back stabber" issues, Dems can and should make sure the vets get good treatment on return to the US.

I know a fair number of soldiers.

Even the ones who are unenthusiastic about the Iraq war are enthusiastic about war in general.

They perceive liberals as being anti-war, anti-military, and generally too weak to understand that sometimes you have to kill people to get things done.

They perceive liberals as viewing those who do think you have to kill people to get things done as barbaric.

They're the actual people with the guns who do the killing. Therefore, they perceive liberals as viewing them as *extremely* barbaric.

I'm certainly not saying its right. I'm just saying, an anti-war movement is going to have a seriously hard time getting political support from a bunch of self selected volunteer soldiers, no matter its nuances or political details. Or in other words, even if they think the war is bullshit, they think we're worse. And they're liable to continue doing so.

Think about it- from the perspective of a soldier, "The Iraq war was immoral and led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis" translates to "Look what you've done!"

Wow, I just got around to reading Spencer's article. What he said!

Gentleman, sentence structure is important when making a point. Ambiguity should be avoided. "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops" is a piss poor way to express a statistic. I imagine writing teachers everywhere cringe reading such prattle. How about this: 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year. Is it not redundant in it's former incantation? Isn't 72% a self evident overwhelming majority? Writing is like packing for a trip, throw in everything you think you'll need and then get rid of half of it. Would you start a sentence "A negligible 1% of American soldiers..."? What, your audience is too stupid to know 1% is negligible?

Isn't 72% a self evident overwhelming majority?

Well, you seem to think 51% is an overwhelming majority, so apparently some readers do need all the helpful descriptors they can get.

Royko, thought I'd try a little Republican math. Worked for Bush.

Ten months ago was in the pre-surge, pre-Petreaus, Rumsfeld era.

Fred, you dumbass, they had a choice, reup and get the bonus, or get stop lossed and get nothing.
I really hate these brave manly chickenhawks like Fred and the other 28%ers.


Comments closed June 07, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.