The big headline out of the Le Moyne College/Zogby poll on the opinions of U.S. troops serving in Iraq was the seven out of ten who said they'd like to see the mission there end within a year. But a closer look at the poll makes it clear that many news organizations are burying the lead. (Including the lead that half of those surveyed want to see a pullout within the next six months, and a third favor an immediate withdrawal...)
The large number of "out in one year" voters is heavily skewed to the Reserves and National Guard -- troops who likely didn't expect to be in Iraq as long as they have been forced to be by poor planning and stop loss. But another bit of stunning information also came out of that poll, and it is this, from the Zogby.com site:
While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.” Huh???
The notion that years after most Americans have come to realize that there is no tie between Iraq and 9/11, the idea that nearly nine in ten U.S. troops still believe in the linkage is stunning. It just goes to show how hard the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld sell was to the troops, and how intensely 9/11 shaped the consciousness of these mostly under 30 men and women. Hell, I interviewed a family readiness group leader for a local Guard unit three years ago, and this guy -- who holds a masters degree and who fought in Kosovo (his brother was the unit commander) by the way, so he was no dummy -- told me his brother was in Iraq as payback for 9/11. How on earth do U.S. troops still believe that yarn? Zogby goes on:
“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%). Other findings from the study: - Most U.S. troops oppose the use of banned weapons, and (sorry right wing "24" enthusiasts) they also oppose the use of "harsh or threatening measures" during interrogation...
- Most are not sweating the issue of body armour or inadequate combat provisions ...
- And a bare majority think the U.S. should double the number of troops and bombing missions to quash the insurgency ...
Interesting numbers. Zogby's poll is not the first to signal trouble in the military ranks with Bush's policy in Iraq. But it is one of the most specific pieces of research we have on the attitudes and opinions of those actually risking their lives for the policy. According to the Army Times: Stars and Stripes, an independent publication produced under the auspices of the Defense Department, did an unscientific survey of thousands of troops in 2003, finding low morale and other issues. In January, the annual Military Times Poll — which surveys readers of the Military Times papers as representative of career-oriented troops — found support for the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq slipped significantly in 2005. And while I expect the poll to be dismissed by hardcore Bush supporters, I think it's getting harder and harder for them to argue that the reason to remain in Iraq is because the troops there believe in the mission and want it to continue. Meanwhile, guess whose budget is cutting spending for veterans' healthcare, just as we're getting word that one in ten Iraq war veterans is suffering from PTSD? Says the AP:
At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half — if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.
After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves office. Update: RedState is true to form, dismissing the Zogby poll as biased, because Le Moyne College is "biased..."
Writer Kevin Zeese says bluntly: the Commander in Chief has lost the troops:
Not only do an overwhelming majority of soldiers in Iraq want the occupation to end rapidly but the foreign policy establishment of the United States is opposed to the war and is speaking out against the president's policies.
Mostly, though, RWB's are avoiding this poll like the plague. Nothing so far from Malkin, Blackfive, MVRWC and others... nada on Wizbang, or Jawa. Do I detect a bit of issue avoidance, fellas?
Update 2: Aha! Got a taker! Dr. Rusty Shackleford at Jawa faces the poll, and quickly writes it off...
Do our troops support withdrawal from Iraq? Duh. Every one wants to get out of Iraq. But there are ways to rig, spin, and manipulate poll numbers. First, set up a straw man argument: Bush wants us to stay indefinitely in Iraq. Second, ask if people agree with the straw man: Do you think we should leave Iraq? Third, make
sure that whoever does the polling has your agenda in mind. Whatever gets you through the night, Doc...
Tags: Iraq war, Military, Polls, Troops, News, Opinion, Iraq |
