Reply
Thu 2 Mar, 2006 12:57 pm
I don't generally cut and paste much, but this one shook me and I wanted to share it.
We're always hearing about how the media slants the real opinions of the real soldiers on the ground - that the real soldiers on the ground are in solidarity with their president.
I'd especially like to get reactions to this from Foxfyre, Ticoyama, Okie and other strong supporters of Bush's Iraq agenda
_____________________________________________________________
Well, now we have it.
If you're one of those people with a yellow "Support the Troops" magnet on your car, you might consider doing what 72 percent of those troops in Iraq want, which is to go home.
You might not know it if you get your news from TV or your local paper--or even if you read the New York Times but skip the opinion page--but Zogby International, a leading polling organization, just did a major poll of 944 American soldiers and marines in Iraq and found that nearly three quarters of them thought the US should exit Iraq within a year. More than half thought the US should leave within six months, and 29 percent said the US should leave "immediately." (That's what the Commander in Chief and the vice president, both of whom avoided having to fight in Vietnam, like to call "cutting and running.")
The Zogby poll results should be big news, but it didn't make the poll-obsessed USA Today, or most of the major TV news programs.
A spokesperson at Zogby said, philosophically, "This is the kind of story that has a long shelf life. These are not the kinds of opinions that shift up and down rapidly; they are strongly held opinions being expressed by the troops who were interviewed. We find that these kinds of polls don't get covered as news in themselves in today's media. They tend to get picked up and used to illuminate other stories, over time."
The spokesperson, Communications Director Fritz Wenzel, said that the 48 hours following Zogby's release of the new poll, with its startling results, were "the busiest days I've had in this job," with over 50 reporters contacting him for interviews. Oddly though, this busiest day of calling didn't produce much in the way of stories.
A likely explanation for this seeming paradox is that reporters clearly recognized the news value of a poll finding that the vast majority of American forces in Iraq believe that the war is a fiasco and that it's time to get the hell out, but senior management wouldn't let them go with the story. That's why the poll results, instead of being reported as the breaking news that they are, will end up being tucked discretely into broader pieces, as the Washington Post did, putting the information midway through an article on President Bush's falling approval rating (now at 34%). That's why the New York Times ignored the story in its news pages, and let it be covered in an op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof.
The poll, conducted between mid-January and mid-February, asked the troops other questions besides just the one about staying and fighting on or going home.
Among the other startling things Zogby discovered:
* While the administration keeps going on about "foreign fighters" being the problem in Iraq, only 26% of the troops questioned thought eliminating foreign fighters would weaken the insurgency.
* The strongest opposition to "staying the course" in Iraq came from reserve and National Guard troops, but even among active-duty Marines, the most gung-ho of troops in Iraq, 58% favored a pull-out within a year. Nearly half of reserve and guard troops favored an immediate pull-out.
* While the president talks about starting to reduce the number of US troops in Iraq, currently at a peak of 136,000 (a political imperative with congressional elections coming up this November), a majority of troops in the country say it would take a doubling of troops and a stepped up bombing campaign to control the Iraqi insurgency.
* A clear majority of the troops oppose torture and aggressive interrogation techniques and four out of five polled oppose the use of such banned weapons as napalm and phosphorus bombs, such as US forces employed in the assault on Fallujah in November 2004.
* This kind of information, which runs counter to the prevailing wisdom about attitudes of soldiers in the field, should be big news based upon the standard "man-bites-dog" theory of what constitutes news, but so far, the major media are for the most part ducking it, treating it as a "dog-bites-man" non-story.
A good illustration of how this kind of journalistic cowardice undermines effective political discourse in America is provided by the continuing ignorance about the causes of the war. Even in America itself, a large percentage of people still believe, against all the evidence, that invading Iraq made sense because Saddam Hussein was behind the 9-11 attacks. He was not, as even the president has been grudgingly forced to admit. Yet the media have done such a bad job of making this clear that Zogby reports 85 percent of troops in Iraq still think they're fighting "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks."
The clearest message of the Zogby poll is that those who want to "support the troops" now know what the troops themselves want, and what they want is "OUT!"
Those Americans who want to do something significant to support the troops beyond just displaying a meaningless yellow ribbon might start by calling their local media outlets and asking why there hasn't been a story about the latest Zogby poll.
That could be followed up by a few calls to local Congressional delegations, calling attention to the poll, and demanding an end to the war, in the interest of supporting our troops.
-Dave Lindorff
"A clear majority of the troops oppose torture and aggressive interrogation techniques and four out of five polled oppose the use of such banned weapons as napalm and phosphorus bombs, such as US forces employed in the assault on Fallujah in November 2004."
Whether they do think that or not, and whatever the reason, they're wrong. The invasion was the only way to be certain that Saddam Hussein would not have access to doomsday weapons.
Bet they'd feel differently if they thought they were accomplishing something useful. Except for the torture/napalm/white phosphorus part, I mean.
Not really much of a surprise there. You take a bunch of guys trained for war and tell them to be police. . . they're not going to be interested in doing it for long.
Good article Snood.
Brandon9000 wrote:Whether they do think that or not, and whatever the reason, they're wrong. The invasion was the only way to be certain that Saddam Hussein would not have access to doomsday weapons.
I think we need to invade Iraq again. Saddam could be building a nuke in his jail cell. There is ONLY one way to be certain after all. Right Brandon?
Brandon9000 wrote:Whether they do think that or not, and whatever the reason, they're wrong. The invasion was the only way to be certain that Saddam Hussein would not have access to doomsday weapons.
What is the only way to be certain that Iran woun't have access to doomsday weapons?
Brandon9000 wrote:Whether they do think that or not, and whatever the reason, they're wrong. The invasion was the only way to be certain that Saddam Hussein would not have access to doomsday weapons.
Even if we stipulate that we HAD to attack Iraq (and I do not), I was looking for a reaction to the events happening NOW. Soldiers wanting out - ...?
Ohhh! Uhhh! Uhhh! I know this one!!!
<< ebrown waves hand frantically>>
"We are installing Democracy..."
(or is the right answer "We can't let the terrorists win")
Brandon9000 wrote:Whether they do think that or not, and whatever the reason, they're wrong. The invasion was the only way to be certain that Saddam Hussein would not have access to doomsday weapons.
Believing that is probably the only thing that keeps many Bush supporters sane.
I'd venture a guess to say that if, after a couple of years of sustained combat, you had asked soldiers fighting ANY war if they want it over and want to come home, the answer would have been a resounding YES.
Being in combat isn't fun.
Soldiers don't LIKE killing people. (No matter WHAT your Liberal friends say.)
NO ONE wants to be away from their friends and family for long periods of time.
If you read any NON fiction about the soldiers in World War One, Two, Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War, you will find a common thread through all them.
We are TIRED and we want to come HOME !
That doesn't mean that they are allowed to, just because they WANT to.
That's why the military isn't a Democracy...
The people above you decide when it is over.
If they ran the military any other way:
1) Half your troops would vote to go home after their first fire fight.
2) Most of the rest would decide to leave the Theatre of Operations within a year.
3) No Army would ever achieve their stated objectives because everyone would 'vote' to go home.
4) The cart doesn't pull the horse and soldiers don't get to vote whether to go home or not.
5) Doing things any other way leads to anarchy and an ineffective military.
Fedral wrote:I'd venture a guess to say that if, after a couple of years of sustained combat, you had asked soldiers fighting ANY war if they want it over and want to come home, the answer would have been a resounding YES.
Being in combat isn't fun.
Soldiers don't LIKE killing people. (No matter WHAT you Liberal friends say.)
NO ONE wants to be away from their friends and family for long periods of time.
If you read any NON fiction about the soldiers in World War One, Two, Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War, you will find a common thread through all them.
We are TIRED and we want to come HOME !
That doesn't mean that they are allowed to, just because they WANT to.
That's why the military isn't a Democracy...
The people above you decide when it is over.
If they ran the military any other way:
1) Half your troops would vote to go home after their first fire fight.
2) Most of the rest would decide to leave the Theatre of Operations within a year.
3) No Army would ever achieve their stated abjectives because everyone would 'vote' to go home.
4) The cart doesn't pull the horse and soldiers don't get to vote whether to go home or not.
5) Doing things any other way leads to anarchy and an ineffective military.
Man, I gotta hand it to you - you surely blow smoke very well. The case has been made over and over by you rightwingnuts that the military is pro-Republican and pro-Bush. At least you make that case when you think it serves to buoy up your perverted reasoning about why we are taking military action in the first place. And now that there is hard evidence that this military in this war is more against being in Iraq than for - you sidestep and pull a lot of pseudo-authoritative stuff about what "any" fighting man in "any" war would do.
Well, my full-of-BS- Bushophile friend, this isn't 'any' war - this is BUSH's war. This is the war he insisted on - he had to have - he sent Powell to the UN to make a fabricated case about - he changed rationalizations for so many times, no one has accurate count.
The FACT is that most Americans don't want to be there anymore. The FACT is that most soldiers don't want to be there anymore. You can't sell that Lee Greenwood proud-to-be-an-American-and-spread-freedom crap right now, so you try to peddle some other crap about weak liberals.
And please - don't presume to tell me how soldiers think. I should have some idea withut your advice - I've been active duty for 16 years and counting...
How much of that has been in combat Snood?
Actually, Fedral, I think you will find that soldiers ALWAYS want to come home, but do NOT always think they should "get out of there".
I think of my uncle's letters from England during WW II, where he flew bombers over germany...especially the letter sent on D Day, as he waited to take off on what he obviously knew, as always, might be his last mission.
Sure, he wanted to come home, but he also clearly felt that what he was doing was worth the horror, and was deeply frustrated that others were flying while ha was still on the ground.
I am anti war.
"The majority of Americans are for the war, you left wing, traitorous loony, you are out of step with America, and see, the nations of the world will join us".
Most nations haven't joined the war and are against it.
"The majority of Americans are for the war, you left wing, traitorous loony, you are out of step with America."
The majority of Americans do not support the war.
"You traitorous loony, the TROOPS support it, the left wing communist media are misleading you."
The troops want to come home."
"THEY ARE WRONG!"
It's like the torture....
"NO torture is happening, you traitor"
Yes it is.
"A few bad apples, you are denigrating the troops"
The torture orders are coming from the top.
"A FEW BAD APPLES, damn you"
See, here is the evidence it comes from the top.
"The subhuman bastards deserve it."
snood wrote:
And please - don't presume to tell me how soldiers think. I should have some idea withut your advice - I've been active duty for 16 years and counting...
I was a soldier, son of a soldier, grandson to 2 soldiers and great grandson to 4 soldiers.
My family has given many lives and pieces of ourselves in every war that the U.S., British and Italian armies have fought in the last 100+ years.
The current generation (Mine) and the next,my nieces and nephews are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was raised BY soldiers, around soldiers and WAS a soldier, but I guess that isn't enough for you because I post facts that disagree with what you say.
If you WERE any kind of professional soldier, you would have read enough books ABOUT soldiers to realize what I'm saying is the truth.
Have you even read Company Commander? It is counted as one of the defining books about combat in WW2. In it you will find a veritable cacophony of complaints by the troops under his command that they are tired and 'When will this be over.'
This from the 'Greatest Generation'.
So don't try to tell me that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow different from any others.
By the way, as I recall, they called WW One,
"Mr. Wilson's War".
Fedral wrote:snood wrote:
And please - don't presume to tell me how soldiers think. I should have some idea withut your advice - I've been active duty for 16 years and counting...
I was a soldier, son of a soldier, grandson to 2 soldiers and great grandson to 4 soldiers.
My family has given many lives and pieces of ourselves in every war that the U.S., British and Italian armies have fought in the last 100+ years.
The current generation (Mine) and the next,my nieces and nephews are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was raised BY soldiers, around soldiers and WAS a soldier, but I guess that isn't enough for you because I post facts that disagree with what you say.
If you WERE any kind of professional soldier, you would have read enough books ABOUT soldiers to realize what I'm saying is the truth.
Have you even read Company Commander? It is counted as one of the defining books about combat in WW2. In it you will find a veritable cacophony of complaints by the troops under his command that they are tired and 'When will this be over.'
This from the 'Greatest Generation'.
So don't try to tell me that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow different from any others.
By the way, as I recall, they called WW One,
"Mr. Wilson's War".
You know what? You can read all the books in the library and still be dumb as a rock. And you can be descended from the fiercest warrior and still be a punk. So spare me the geneology. I'll just take a pass on that crack about "any kind of a professional soldier" - you will never know what kind of man or soldier I am. All you know is that I am not for this war, or this president. And I'll try not to assume anything else about you besides the fact that you are for both.
snood wrote:
You know what? You can read all the books in the library and still be dumb as a rock. And you can be descended from the fiercest warrior and still be a punk. So spare me the geneology. I'll just take a pass on that crack about "any kind of a professional soldier" - you will never know what kind of man or soldier I am. All you know is that I am not for this war, or this president. And I'll try not to assume anything else about you besides the fact that you are for both.
Recall sir, YOU were the first one to directly disparage ME by calling me a rightwingnut and a full-of-BS- Bushophile.
You were the first to assume that I knew nothing of soldiers.
When you post discourtesy and get discourtesy in return, you should neither be suprised nor should you act offended.
I am not a fan of war. My family has lost far to many members for me to be in favour of more death, but I think you are missing the point...
Far too many in opposition to the war are STILL arguing about how we shouldn't have gotten into this war, I just want to scream.
"The children are drowning and YOU are still arguing as to who left the door to the pool open."
Face it folks, we are THERE. No amount of complaining is going to 'undo' what has happened. So instead of complaining about whether we should have invaded in the first place, try expending 1/10th of that effort into helping SOLVE the problem of getting out troops out without abandoning the Iraqis to anarchy.
Fedral wrote:snood wrote:
You know what? You can read all the books in the library and still be dumb as a rock. And you can be descended from the fiercest warrior and still be a punk. So spare me the geneology. I'll just take a pass on that crack about "any kind of a professional soldier" - you will never know what kind of man or soldier I am. All you know is that I am not for this war, or this president. And I'll try not to assume anything else about you besides the fact that you are for both.
Recall sir, YOU were the first one to directly disparage ME by calling me a rightwingnut and a full-of-BS- Bushophile.
You were the first to assume that I knew nothing of soldiers.
When you post discourtesy and get discourtesy in return, you should neither be suprised nor should you act offended.
I am not a fan of war. My family has lost far to many members for me to be in favour of more death, but I think you are missing the point...
Far too many in opposition to the war are STILL arguing about how we shouldn't have gotten into this war, I just want to scream.
"The children are drowning and YOU are still arguing as to who left the door to the pool open."
Face it folks, we are THERE. No amount of complaining is going to 'undo' what has happened. So instead of complaining about whether we should have invaded in the first place, try expending 1/10th of that effort into helping SOLVE the problem of getting out troops out without abandoning the Iraqis to anarchy.
Nobody's acting offended, "Fedral". I don't care what you think. And what the f#$$ do you think we're talking about, if not solving the problem. Either in the short term or in the long term, we need to get the hell out of Iraq. And the baby wouldn't have drowned if not for your fearless president and his glorious plan.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace