US Soldiers have their own deck of cards of most wanted

The beatings will continue until morale improves . . . saw this on the door of a prosecutor's office in the Hall of Justice in Columbus, Ohio.

Forward ! he cried
From the rear
And the front rank died . . .

But, it's the right way to handle the problem, blame it on the soldiers, voila - problem goes away. Right?

BBB - That's "a soldier has", not "US soldiers have". If I interview one soldier who is happy with the way things are going, have I proven that all are? Would you accept my claiming that "US soldiers are happy with progress in Iraq" if I find one soldier who says so? What if I find 3? 50???

That some soldiers are unhappy is no news. That some people want to infer a majority viewpoint from the comments of a single soldier is useful to your point, but worthless to anyone who actually thinks.

Actually, it is MANY soldiers -- and it is a general discontent that is being covered quite extensively.

It also is unusual for MANY soldiers to be cited by name expressing discontent the way we see happening during this crisis.

Some would just brush this thing under the rug -- but anyone who actually thinks wouldn't do that.

I already see the larger problem and understand it. They have been promised multiple times when there DEROS date was expected to be and then it is changed. Very demoralizing to say the least :sad:

Scrat, You're trying to win with semantics? Come on! Another US soldier was killed today. c.i.

My point has nothing to do with semantics. It deals with the willingness some people show to assert that the opinion expressed by an insignificant sample represents the opinion of the whole. If I quote 10 Iraqis who claim that they are happy with the US' efforts in their country, would you let me claim that I have shown what all (or most) Iraqis think? I suspect not. (Nor would I make such a claim.) It's human nature to read someone stating what you think and assume it proves your point, but it isn't valid logic to claim that it does so.

Semantics is a valid issue. Many news agencies reported this story under a misleading headline saying that "US soldiers are furious" and "Soldiers feel lied to by their leaders".

Both headlines that I observed were re-written within 4 hours to include "some".

The news story is about a handful of soldiers only, as much as I'd love for them to start disliking the policies I abhor this is not so and the semantics used should reflect that.

Scrat, McG has already posted a forum on this very subject. Are Iraqi's happy with the US occupation? I'm sure we can find arguments proving both sides of this coin. However, it seems that most/many Iraqis are unhappy with the slow progress of water, food, utilities, and security. I don't need a majority of Iraqi's to argue the point; it's true irregardless of whether it means 40 percent or 60 percent. c.i.

As for the "some," that's quite significant if one understands that soldiers are not supposed to voice their opinion on these matters. c.i.

And again, I think that your opinion that most/many feel one way or the other is a function of the news you read. What you read is often shaped by what you choose to read, and this in turn has been shaped by the opinions you bring to the question and the opinions reporters bring to their coverage. (That's not meant as a criticism, just a statement of something I believe is a reality.)

Scrat, In that regards, we're all guilty of the same reality. c.i.

No doubt, though it seems to me that some of us are aware of it (including you), while others are not.

Hummm....I wonder if anyone in this thread has actually expressed the opinion that an "insignificant sample represents the opinion of the whole"...

...or if that is just another example of Scrat's tendency toward distortion and hyperbole?

Lemme think???

Can anyone help me with this?

I'd help ya out, Frank, but i promised to ignore . . . who were we discussing?

Pentagon retaliates against GIs who spoke out on TV
Pentagon retaliates against GIs who spoke out on TV
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, July 18, 2003

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/18/MN248299.DTL

Fallujah, Iraq -- Morale is dipping pretty low among U.S. soldiers as they stew in Iraq's broiling heat, get shot at by an increasingly hostile population and get repeated orders to extend their tours of duty.

Ask any grunt standing guard on a 115-degree day what he or she thinks of the open-ended Iraq occupation, and you'll get an earful of colorful complaints.

But going public isn't always easy, as soldiers of the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division found out after "Good Morning America" aired their complaints.

The brigade's soldiers received word this week from the Pentagon that it was extending their stay, with a vague promise to send them home by September if the security situation allows. They've been away from home since September, and this week's announcement was the third time their mission has been extended.

It was bad news for the division's 12,000 homesick soldiers, who were at the forefront of the force that overthrew Saddam Hussein's government and moved into Baghdad in early April.

On Wednesday morning, when the ABC news show reported from Fallujah, where the division is based, the troops gave the reporters an earful. One soldier said he felt like he'd been "kicked in the guts, slapped in the face." Another demanded that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld quit.

The retaliation from Washington was swift.

CAREERS OVER FOR SOME
"It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.

Only two days before the ABC show, similarly bitter sentiments -- with no names attached -- were voiced in an anonymous e-mail circulating around the Internet, allegedly from "the soldiers of the Second Brigade, Third ID."

"Our morale is not high or even low," the letter said. "Our morale is nonexistent. We have been told twice that we were going home, and twice we have received a 'stop' movement to stay in Iraq."

The message, whose authenticity could not be confirmed, concluded: "Our men and women deserve to be treated like the heroes they are, not like farm animals. Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home."

After this one-two punch, it was perhaps natural that on Thursday, the same troops and officers who had been garrulous and outspoken in previous visits were quiet, and most declined to speak on the record. During a visit to Fallujah, a small city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, military officials expressed intense chagrin about the bad publicity. And they slammed the ABC reporters for focusing on the soldiers' criticism of Rumsfeld, Bush and other officials and implying that they are unwilling to carry out their mission.

COMPLAINTS CALLED ROUTINE

"Soldiers have bitched since the beginning of time," said Capt. James Brownlee, the public affairs officer for the Second Brigade. "That's part of being a soldier. They bitch. But what does 'bad morale' really mean? That they're not combat-ready or loyal? Nobody here fits that definition."

The nervousness of the brass has a venerable history. It has long been a practice in American democracy that the military do not criticize the nation's civilian leaders, as Gen. Douglas MacArthur found out in 1951, when he criticized President Harry Truman's Korean War strategy -- and was promptly fired.

Yet several U.S. officers said privately that troop morale is indeed low. "The problem is not the heat," said one high-ranking officer. "Soldiers get used to that. The problem is getting orders to go home, so your wife gets all psyched about it, then getting them reversed, and then having the same process two more times."

In Baghdad, average soldiers from other Army brigades are eager to spill similar complaints.

"I'm not sure people in Washington really know what it's like here," said Corp. Todd Burchard as he stood on a street corner, sweating profusely and looking bored. "We'll keep doing our jobs as best as anyone can, but we shouldn't have to still be here in the first place."

Nearby, Pfc. Jason Ring stood next to his Humvee. "We liberated Iraq. Now the people here don't want us here, and guess what? We don't want to be here either," he said. "So why are we still here? Why don't they bring us home?"

E-mail Robert Collier at [email protected].

Frank,

If that's not a valid point why did AOL re-write their headline?

We'll have to wait to see if there are any fruit in the pudding by waiting for military recruitment to decrease over the next several days and months - and perhaps years. c.i.

ci,

No need to wait. The results are already in. It has gone up dramatically and continues to do so.

Craven

Are you telling me that AOL's headline claimed that "the opinion expressed by an insignificant sample represents the opinion of the whole?"