Military Views on Iraq

By Bruce W. Jentleson

An interesting poll by the Army Times, to be published tomorrow but up now on their website, showing "high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort" and "disconnect between troops civilian leadership" (their headline, not mine).

    The polling is of "the career-oriented heart of the military." Some key findings:

Troops sound off
Military Times Poll finds high morale, but less support for Bush, war effort

2005 Poll
Disconnect cited between troops, civilian leadership
Four years of combat have done little to dent the morale of the professional military, results of the 2005 Military Times Poll show. But there are also hints in the results that the wave of good feeling may have crested.

By Gordon Trowbridge
Times staff writer

Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military’s professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

Approval of the president’s Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers
of the Military Times newspapers. Though support both for President Bush and for the war in Iraq remains significantly higher than in the public as a whole, the drop is likely to add further fuel to the heated debate over Iraq policy. In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush’s the president’s policy.

The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003.

The mail survey, conducted Nov. 14 through Dec. 23, is the third annual effort by the Military Times to measure the opinions of the active-duty military on political and morale issues. 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 military population. But the numbers are among the best measures of opinion in a difficult-to-survey population. The professional military seems to be lessening in its certainty about the wisdom of the Iraq intervention and the way it has been handled,” said Richard Kohn, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina who studies civil-military relations. “This seems to be more and more in keeping with changes in public views, and that’s not surprising.”

The survey mirrors a similar shift in U.S. public opinion over the last year. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, for example, recorded an eight-point drop in public approval for Iraq policy, from 47 percent in November 2004 to 39 percent in December 2005.

The drops in support seen in the Military Times Poll are “real drops, but I see them as reflecting the tone of the country,” said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland. “People in the military talk to folks back home. Eventually, the military does catch up [with public opinion].” Other changes from ’04

Opinions on the president and Iraq weren’t the only shifts in the 2005 poll:

• Positive feelings about Congress, civilian and uniformed Pentagon leaders and the media all fell.

• Respondents also were less likely than in the past to believe other segments of the country viewed the military favorably. In 2004, 37 percent said civilians viewed the military very favorably; that fell to 24 percent this year. Last year, 77 percent said politicians saw the military very or somewhat favorably; 63 percent said so this year.

• There was somewhat more support for opening military service to openly homosexual Americans: 59 percent said open homosexuals should not be allowed to serve, down six points from last year.

• Opposition to the draft fell slightly, from 75 percent last year to 68 percent this year.

• Nearly two-thirds said the military is stretched too thin to be effective, though that figure is down substantially from two years ago.

• Job satisfaction and approval of pay, health benefits, training and equipment remain high — though in many cases, the support is less enthusiastic than in past years, based on responses.

• For the first time in the three-year history of the poll, more than half of respondents said they had deployed in support of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But few of those shifts appear as significant as those on the president.

[T]o be sure, support for the president and his policies remains stronger in the Military Times Poll than in surveys of the general public: The president’s approval rating is as much as 20 percentage points higher than in the civilian population. Part of that difference is partisan: While roughly a third of Americans describe themselves as Democrats, just 13 percent of Military Times Poll respondents do so.

In follow-up interviews, most poll respondents said they remain solidly behind their commander in chief and his policy in Iraq.

“I think we’re fortunate as a country to have someone who has the focus and the persistence that he does because it’s so easy to get sidetracked,” said Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bohler. “The ability of the president to persevere in the face of overwhelming criticism is really impressive. It takes someone with a spine and courage.”

Many attributed the fall in support, both among the public and the military, withto a misguided lack of patience.

“We live in a society where … people want answers right away,” said Air Force Capt. Randall Carlson, a physics instructor at the Air Force Academy, who said he approves of the president’s policies. “Unfortunately with Iraq, there are no easy answers.”

‘They don’t report good news’ While 73 percent of respondents believe it’s likely the United States will succeed in Iraq, that’s down 10 points from a year ago.

“We’re losing a lot of troops. The suicide bombers are not stopping,” said Air Force Staff Sgt. Melida G. Castano. “It doesn’t look promising at this point.”

But others blamed the loss in confidence on the media, which many said has failed to report positive news in Iraq. Four of every five respondents said they believe media reports are often inaccurate.

“They don’t report the good news, and if they do, it’s on the back page,” said Marine Chief Warrant Officer-3 Michael Edmonson.

Though the number of respondents who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan was up 17 percentage points from a year ago, to 61 percent, that does not seem to have significantly affected opinions on Iraq. There was no significant difference in opinions between those who have deployed and those who haven’t, and responses from the Army and Marine Corps — the services under the most strain in Iraq — were not much different from other services.

Kohn, the University of North Carolina researcher, said the shifting opinions on Iraq may simply reflect shifts in the rest of the country. But he said he believes military opinions are at least partially insulated from civilian trends.

“The military is very capable of drawing differing judgments from the general population,” he said. “Military people think about these things with considerable sophistication. That is also sometimes undermined by their instinct to be loyal to the administration — any administration — to the government and to the mission.”

As in the previous two years, Military Times Poll respondents were reluctant to express opinions, even anonymously, about the commander in chief or his policies. About one in five refused to say whether they approved of the president’s performance on Iraq or overall.

“That’s my boss,” Army Lt. Col. Earnestine Beatty said in a follow-up interview. “I can’t comment.” Kohn said he worried that asking such questions of military members and publishing the results could tarnish the military’s image as a nonpartisan institution.

The poll “tends to communicate to the American people that the military is just like any other interest group,” Kohn said. “We want the public image of the military to be decidedly apolitical."

(4) Only 40% feel that the DOD civilian leadership "have my best interests at heart." The response for  President Bush still was 58%, although this was down from 69% last year. The response for the senior military leadership was 64%.

This side article is completely consistant with what Marines tell me who hav been ther.

“I think the majority of guys who are getting the chance to go over there are seeing the good we’re doing over there and that we’re doing something important,” said Marine Staff Sgt. Justin Fagala. “To actually be able to go out and do your job has a certain degree of satisfaction to it.”

Army Staff Sgt. Chris Lane, a drill sergeant at Fort Bliss, Texas, said soldiers appreciate putting their skills to use. Training without a mission, he said, is “like having a CPA [degree] and never getting to be an accountant.”

Marine,

What do they mean by "the good we're doing over there?"  What do they mean by "we're doing something important?"

It sounds to me like they are glad that they are able to use the skills and actually do the things that they learned how to do.  Where is the information about how we are actually HELPING IRAQI PEOPLE?

And the other question (raised in my "Cut and Run?" thread) is how are we going to fund these projects this year?

Marine,

What do they mean by "the good we're doing over there?"  What do they mean by "we're doing something important?"

It sounds to me like they are glad that they are able to use the skills and actually do the things that they learned how to do.  Where is the information about how we are actually HELPING IRAQI PEOPLE?

A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

By Paul E. Schroeder

Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.



Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II in Iraq. (Courtesy Paul Schroeder)

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."

Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.

I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.

In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.

At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.

Marine,

What do they mean by "the good we're doing over there?"  What do they mean by "we're doing something important?"

I would be interested to hear SPECIFICALLY what good they think we're doing over there.  Is the electricity on everywhere?  Is the sewer system working in most parts of Iraq?  Do women and children feel safe?  Do Iraqi men have jobs?

Gosh, I never thought they ever had my best interest at heart, matter of fact, back during the cold war I assumed those of us stationed in Europe would be the sacrificial lambs in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

That was the plan and the way it always worked out in the war games; mine not to reason why.

I'd really like to see more than just questions