Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Troops oppose escalation. Media looks the other way
by kos
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:07:42 AM PST
The Military Times newspapers polled their readers -- active duty subscribers to their papers -- and found that (surprise!) they don't want to see the war escalated.
It has now been four days since the Military Times released its annual poll of active duty troops. The poll, which came out last Friday, contained some striking findings: It found that for the first time, more military personnel disapprove of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war than approve of it.
But there's a more important number in the poll. It also found that only 38 percent of the troops think there should be more troops in Iraq than there are now -- in other words, only 38 percent support an escalation. By contrast, 39 percent of respondents think there should be the same or less troops there.
Also in the poll:
Only 35 percent approve of Bush's handling of the war. 42 percent disapprove.
Only 41 percent think the US should've gone to war with Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.
Finally, there's this amazing bit:
In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identi fied themselves as Republicans, which is about double the popula tion as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the mili tary respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a figure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents.
Now the poll isn't of rank-and-file soldiers. As they explain:
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 overall mil itary population.
In other words, we're talking about the most conservative segment of the military. These are lifers. (The enlisted ranks are far more liberal, drawn mostly from poor African American, Latino, and Anglo demographics, though also young thus politically disengaged.)
But back to the poll's numbers on escalation -- they've of course been ignored by the media. No one has mentioned them.
Here's why this is an astonishingly derelict performance: These very same news orgs all lavished extensive coverage on another, completely unscientific measure of the troops' opinions of a "surge." A couple of weeks back, Defense Secretary Robert Gates convened a photo-op sitdown with around a dozen troops to listen to their opinions. Myseriously, all of those assembled agreed that they wanted more troops. The thoughts of this handful of soldiers was granted extensive coverage by The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, CNN and Reuters.
Yet now those same news orgs are refusing to deem it newsworthy when nearly 1,000 active duty troops -- the number that responded to the poll -- offer their opinions and make it clear that there's little support for a "surge" among the military personnel surveyed. Does this poll represent a perfectly scientific measure of what the military thinks on this question? No -- but it's without question the best thing we've seen yet. It's immeasurably better than the staged sit-down with Gates that the big news orgs loved so much.
Here's another link so you righties can't claim a liberal bias or attack the source:
Your posts are becoming your a tool for your own internet masturbation
That's odd, I've used the internet for years for that but not this site, that would be wrong .... very wrong...
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Officials: Bush mulls Iraq surge, address likely next week
POSTED: 4:52 a.m. EST, January 3, 2007
From Suzanne Malveaux
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week, several sources in Washington told CNN.
On Wednesday, the president is scheduled to host a Cabinet meeting and later a reception with congressional leaders.
Bush wrote a commentary published in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal promoting his agenda as the Democratic Party prepared to take control of Congress this week.
"In the days ahead I will be addressing our nation about a new strategy to help the Iraqi people gain control of the security situation," Bush wrote.
The president has not yet signed off on any changes, including a possible increase of U.S. troops, according to sources with information about Bush's deliberations on Iraq.
However, the sources said Tuesday he is "driving toward a conclusion" and a plan is "taking shape" which is "getting more detailed" as the president puts "on the finer points." (Watch what the president is doing to prepare his plan Video)
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe denied a report Tuesday that Bush was ready to sign off on increasing troop strength in Iraq by 20,000, saying that "the president has not made any decisions."
Last month, CNN reported that Bush was considering sending in as many as 40,000 soldiers.
That would mean increasing troop levels to their highest point in the nearly four-year-old conflict to perhaps as many as 165,000.
Other reports indicated the U.S. troop increase would be closer to 20,000, with additional Iraqi forces making up the remainder of the "surge."
A senior administration official involved in the Iraq strategy talks told CNN that a "targeted increase in troop strength" is "an active subject of discussion" and that the president was "significantly along in the process."
As a result, the official added, it should "surprise no one the Pentagon is looking at the mechanics of making that option possible."
Meanwhile, there are several steps -- including consultations with Congress and the Iraqi government -- that will happen before any tactical changes in his Iraq war policy are made, administration officials said.
"Tomorrow, the president will meet with his Cabinet to discuss the new Congress and domestic issues," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel on Tuesday.
Wednesday night "the president will host a bicameral, bipartisan reception with approximately a dozen members of Congress and their spouses," the spokesman said.
Administration officials told CNN that Bush will be hosting the Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate at the White House.
During that reception, he will hold "informal discussions about the year ahead," including his deliberations on Iraq.
Those invited include incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
However, a senior administration official noted the reception is more of a "social occasion."
The White House will conduct courtesy calls to members of Congress when Bush devises his final Iraq plan, the official said.
Those calls will go out "within a couple of days" before Bush addresses the nation.
Bush has not yet briefed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on his plan, but is expected to do so before addressing the nation.
However, administration officials have stressed they remain in "constant" contact with Iraqi officials.
CNN's Ed Henry, John King, Barbara Starr and Jamie McIntyre contributed to this report
RIPDEI.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Quote:
War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems
POSTED: 10:15 p.m. EST, November 4, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial. (Watch people prepare as curfew sets across Baghdad in anticipation of the verdicts -- 3:20 Video)
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
# "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
# "Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
# "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
# "The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
# "Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
# "A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
Irrelevant? I certainly never used that term... But, it would depend upon the context in which you would use the term...
Is it important for the troops to support a mission? A battle? An engagement? A War? Sure it is... Is it neccessary? IMO, I don't believe so...
The troops aren't tasked with establishing strategy and policy. Much like an employee of a company might not like the policies or strategic direction the CEO is taking the company, soldiers - regardless of how they feel about it, are expected to carry out the orders.
I am not at all surprised to see that a majority of soldiers are not happy with the management of the war, and that most would not be in favor of a surge in troops.
Our military has been and will always be a mirror image of our society. And last I checked our country recently spoke up and asked for a change in policy. Why would our military be any different?
Linear Mode
