“Supporting” the troops—or patronizing them?
The Democrats in Congress—and the few Republicans who agree with them—who’ve been pushing for a troop withdrawal continue to maintain that what they’re proposing is not only in the best interests of the American people, but it’s in the best interests of the troops themselves.
That would appear to be a no-brainer: surely the best way to protect the troops is to put them out of harm’s way, and that means their leaving Iraq and coming back home where they belong.
But what do the troops serving in Iraq think about it all? Sometimes I’m convinced that the aforementioned Congressional members don’t really much care about the answer to that question.
Those who are pushing withdrawal and the cutting of funds are concerned with a variety of matters, first and foremost politics. But I would guess that some of them do indeed have a sincere concern for the safety of the troops. Unfortunately, that concern is all too often embedded in a combination of patronizing condescension (“those poor, benighted, undereducated, oppressed troops”) and disapproval (“those babykillers, brutes, torturers”).
I’ve searched for polls that might offer some information to answer the question of what the troops themselves think or want, but I’ve found nothing especially relevant. Petitions, either pro-withdrawal or anti (see this and this) tell us virtually nothing except that there are two thousand active military personnel ready to sign the former, and three thousand ready to sign the latter.
There are some older polls that questioned the military on Iraq-related issues, here, but no data on the current withdrawal or fund-cutting proposals. There’s some interesting information available, though; in the most recent poll, which was taken at the end of 2006 among active military personnel (50% of whom had served in Iraq and 12% in Afghanistan). Morale was very high, support for the Iraq War was higher than lack of support, and more people thought success was likely than thought it unlikely.
But to me the most interesting responses were the answers to the following questions: how soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops, and how long do you think the U.S. will need to stay in Iraq to reach its goals?
Only 2% of the troops thought the answer to the first question would be “less than a year,” and only 2% thought the answer to the second would be “1-2 years.” The overwhelming bulk of the responses were in the “3 to 5 years” or even “5 to 10 years” categories, with a substantial minority thinking it might even take more than 10 years to accomplish either goal.
Contrast this with the impatience of Congress and much of the American public, who want it done by September or sooner or it will be “pull the plug” time. The members of the military who bear the brunt of it all understand the difficulty of the task, probably because they have studied the history of fighting insurgencies, guerilla wars, and terrorism far more than most of us have.
And yet, morale is high among them. They don’t have the benefit of easy optimism, but they don’t allow themselves the luxury of easy pessimism, either. I think what they are engaged in is actually realism, and that implies not only an awareness of the length of time this might take, but the extreme importance of the mission.
W. Thomas Smith Jr., a former US Marine infantry leader and now journalist on military matters, has written this piece about Iraq for the National Review. Smith dispenses with some misconceptions the general public, fed on a steady diet of MSM misinformation, have about the Iraqi people themselves. (Also see this article for a list of the accomplishments of the so-called “surge”; they are far from negligible.)
Smith mentions that most of the troops are stunned that anyone takes seriously Reid’s contentions that we’ve already “lost” in Iraq. And he reiterates what so many have said before: premature withdrawal from Iraq (and withdrawal any time soon would, by definition, be premature) would jeopardize the trust our allies (and enemies) have that we will keep our word.
Smith also thinks a premature withdrawal would have a more direct effect on the troops:
Success in Iraq is also about the morale and well-being of the U.S. military. Our forces would suffer in ways most D.C. politicians cannot begin to imagine if we were to retreat from Iraq.
That sort of suffering—the deep frustration of working hard for a vitally important goal and having all possibility of reaching it taken out of your hands just when things are beginning to improve—that sort of suffering is not the concern of those crying that their actions are only to “protect” the troops.
Congress, of course, knows better than those stupid, exploited, brutal (choose your own adjective) troops themselves know about what is good for them.
“Only 2% of the troops thought the answer to the first question would be “less than a year,” and only 2% thought the answer to the second would be “1-2 years.” The overwhelming bulk of the responses were in the “3 to 5 years” or even “5 to 10 years” categories, with a substantial minority thinking it might even take more than 10 years to accomplish either goal.”
The “why” on this is simple. That’s how long *their* institutional training takes. The idea that the Iraqis can be up to speed with a substantially different system in just a few years is simply silly.
Importing our cultural concept of “NCO” might even be a more important thing than the notion of democracy.
Further irony is that we have a volunteer military: V-O-L-U-N-T-E-E-R, which WANTS to finish the job, and RE-ENLISTS in record numbers – putting themselves back in harms way – out of desire to finish the job, and we tell them:
NOOOOOO!! So sorry!! FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, we will not allow you to finish the job you are risking your life to finish, you stupid, exploited, brutal persons.
Neo,
I’m sure you remember the letter that Navy Lt. Nichols sent to Harry Reid recently. In the comments to your article about it, not one of the lefties addressed the validity or the claims in the letter itself. They couldn’t, because Lt Nichols is there with the truth every day, while we and the lefties are back here, having accounts relayed to them, i.e. “hearsay”. It has always amazed me that people like Charlemagne, Unknown Blogger, Sam, et.al. will instantly dismiss the military’s or administration’s accounts as “spin”, or “propaganda”, while Al-Jazeera, Ahmadinejad, and Zawahiri are taken “at their word”.
The lefties will point out other military personnel who object to the war, but unlike Lt. Nichols or milblogs like blackfive, Acute Politics, et. al. who will speak in specifics such as “went on patrol today”, “cleared village X of IUD’s”, “found weapons cache”, “fought insurgents ‘here'”, etc., those military people who oppose it speak in generalities like what we hear from lefties here at home such as “we can’t win”, “we’re only making things worse”, etc.
But, as you have said, the left thinks they know more about the situation than those actually there.
Like the Civil War, they can point to generals like George McClellan who disagree with the war, but, like McClellan, tend to be those who think they, and only they, have the sense to do it right, no matter how many “mistakes” were made under their commands, citing they weren’t getting what they needed to win, and those mistakes were “Lincoln’s or Stanton’s or Bush’s or Rumsfeld’s mistakes”.
But, in the end, they can only argue with us, because to tell the soldiers and sailors and airmen they just don’t understand they are losing would be like telling Joe Montana he’s actually losing the Super Bowl with the score San Francisco 55, Denver 10.
Joe Montana lost that Super Bowl. His loss was reported in every newspaper in America. His loss was reported on every major newscast. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi commiserated with Joe over his loss. They introduced legislation callikng on him to retire. Harry and Nancy love Joe. Though they don’t believe in “sports,” Harry and Nancy “support Joe.” They know what is best for him: retirement.
In our free country: one may choose any avocation; and follow any calling; except fighting Al Qaeda.
and Joe Montana never quarterbacked another day, after that Super Bowl “loss” to Denver. News media reported on the Super Bowl “loss” day after day after day after day after week after week. It was a dark, tragic episode in San Francisco 49er history.
And as predicted, the Broncos didn’t follow the 49ers back to San Francisco.
If the Iraq war is so popular with our troops, why isn’t serving there voluntary?
militarycity.commilitarycity.comarmymedicine.army.mil“But what do the troops serving in Iraq think about it all? Sometimes I’m convinced that the aforementioned Congressional members don’t really much care about the answer to that question.
It may sound callous, but I’m not convinced polling the troops about their mission is a good way to inform policy. However, since you brought it up…
From the poll you quote:
3) How many times have you deployed to Iraq?
Once 32%
Twice 12%
Three times 3%
More than three times 3%
Never/no response 50%
6) Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?
Yes 41%
No 37%
No opinion/no answer 9%
Decline to answer/no answer 11%
7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed?
Very likely to succeed 13%
Somewhat likely to succeed 37%
Not very likely to succeed 31%
Not at all likely to succeed 10%
10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve 35%
Disapprove 42%
The first thing I notice is that as up to 50% of the respondents have *never served in Iraq.* (85% had never served in Afghanistan.) At the very least, the majority of 32% were on their first deployments. Is that a fair way to gauge morale in the military?
As the site itself states:
Those polled differ from the military as a whole in important ways. They tend to be older, higher in rank and more career-oriented.
Anyway, you characterized the findings as follows:
“Morale was very high, support for the Iraq War was higher than lack of support, and more people thought success was likely than thought it unlikely.
Regarding support/lack of support, you are right, but didn’t mention that only 41% support the mission. (One wonders about the 20% “no opinion/decline to answer” rate on that one as well.)
Same for success being likely vs unlikely – “more people thought it likely” – a true statement. Yet a full 41% see mission success as either “not very likely” or “not at all likely.”
I don’t think those numbers are very impressive.
I won’t spend much time on the National Review piece by “former infantry leader [who did not serve in Iraq],” other than to note the unironic tone with which he reports our forces “suffering in unimaginable ways” if they get out of Iraq. (BTW, I also missed the “far from negligible accomplishments” of the surge you said he listed.)
On the other hand, I was wondering when you were going to take up this recent study from the Office of the Surgeon General, The Mental Health Advisory Team IV OIF 05-07 Final Report. I thought for certain with your interest in mental health you would have written a piece it by now. Maybe you missed it, I’m sure your interest in MH extends beyond calling people narcissistic and deranged. 😉
Anyway, the report assesed the mental health of the deployed force around September of 2006. About morale, that study found:
“Soldier morale in OIF 05-07 was similar to that of OIF 04-06, with 45% of NCOs and junior enlisted OIF 05-07 Soldiers reporting low or very low unit morale…Marine morale…was also low, with only 27% of Marines reporting high or very high morale…Overall, Soldier morale in OIF 05-07 was moving towards levels recorded during OIF I when Soldier and unit morale were at their lowest.”(P. 16)
45% reporting low or very low morale, and heading south.
And what were the main causes of the low morale? You might be surprised to find that they were not war critics at home, not the liberal media, not “leftists,” but rather:
“Forward Operating Base rules…that had no practical purpose other than to harass…and simply represented an attempt by senior leaders to implement garrison rules in a combat environment” (P. 16) [The most visible example they say is a rule about how they are required to dress when not on duty.]
The second major reason for low morale was “fairness in accessing morale, welfare and recreational assets.”
Apparently the Army is causing its morale problems itself, they don’t need any liberals to do it for them.
I can’t cite personal experience as a current soldier, since I did my service before 9/11. However, from my experience as an MI troop in the 1990s, one reason I believe soldiers are more willing to continue mission in Iraq is that as we worriedly watched Iraq in the 1990s, we expected that we’d have to go back to Iraq because disarmament/containment-punishment was not working. That op had to end sooner or later, and unless we returned Saddam to full power, that meant we’d be going in. For us, it was a question of when and how, not if.
Which is to say, a soldier’s sense of our nation’s affairs is not episodic. Desert Storm was part of our ‘family business’ history, and we knew Iraq as unfinished business. We didn’t doubt that the lives we saved in 1991 by leaving Saddam in power meant future soldiers – perhaps us – would die in Iraq, and that’s come to pass. I would guess that today’s soldiers may have the sense that failure to do the job right in Iraq this time will only mean death for future American soldiers.
UB, you forgot to mention that “/no response” part of the 50%, so who knows how many “never served” in Iraq.
Right on, neo!
The two guys I know in the service right now are professionals and professional killers, doing their job – and glad to be doing so. These are not pimple-faced draftees.
My last email from one of them in Iraq “I am fine. We are kickin’ ass.”
The Democrats are impatient because they’re afraid that if we stay and fight, we might not be defeated. They want us to lose. They hate America, and their covert Muslim paymasters hate America. The Democratic party is a treasonous, criminal conspiracy dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible and destroying this country’s ability to protect its citizens. They want us all to die, and they’re willing to tell any lie to accomplish that.
If the Dems were actually concerned about the welfare of soldiers, they’d be talking about victory. If they were actually concerned about the safety of America, they’d be talking about victory. If they actually had even a shred of concern about human rights or human decency, they’d be talking about victory.
But they’re not. They’re interested only in defeat. They savor the prospect. They gloat over the thought of America beaten and humiliated. They love the idea of stronger, emboldened terrorists striking at America and killing innocents.
Democrats are simply evil. They don’t just deserve electoral defeat — the Democratic leadership and their money men need to be arrested and hanged.
Eric Chen:
Concur. As an CIC/MI type pre and post 9/11 on both the mil and civ side, this was/is unfinished business. And, since we tend to be Jacksonians as far as foreign policy is concerned, there is a certain sense of the folly of letting an opponent up off the canvas. Many in the military knew, esp. given the Brit’s experience, post WW I, that this would, in its’ turn lead to insurgency, and that it would take a while for the conventional war types to acknowledge this. It is no mistake that Civil Affairs is part of the Special Warfare community.
Yes, Eric, that CIC; the Holabird School for Wayward Boys; pre Sierra Vista Riding Academy.
Trimegistus:
I admit to a certain desire to reverse and recast the Democrat Party’s more outrageous talking points. But, we might be better served by merely pointing them out and allowing them to marginalize themselves while retaining a degree of superior condescension.
There is a real danger that scuffling in the rhetorical gutters and streets could lead to the real thing. I’d like to find a path out of the domestic political gridlock we are locked into.
Lee wrote:
“UB, you forgot to mention that “/no response” part of the 50%, so who knows how many “never served” in Iraq.”
I thought I covered that by saying “up to 50% never served,” that being the outer limit. Either way, I think the point stands that the Military Times poll is not as reliable an indicator of morale among the troops serving in Iraq as the MHAT report.
Neo: How is it that “politics” has become a venal excuse for not doing the right thing? “It’s just politics”.
Sometimes I’m convinced that the aforementioned Congressional members don’t really much care about the answer to that question.
Of course they don’t. What’s going on in Congress wrt the troops and the war has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with attacking Bush and scoring some points for 2008. During the nineties I thought the behavior of the Republican Congress wrt Monica Lewinsky etc. was pretty sickening, and here now in 2008 I’ve seen that the Democrats–playing games with troop funding, and Pelosi grandstanding in Syria–can be just as bad. At this point I’m thoroughly disgusted with the lot of them and want to throw *all* the bums out.
Hey Neo. Welfare has a corrosive effect on civilians. What makes people think it will make the military any better?
I corrected an incorrect link; the accomplishments of the surge were not in the Smith article, but in one by Bronwen Maddox at Timesonline.
UB, I think one reason the military don’t “poll” well is they tend to be ingrained with a sense of “operational security”, you might say. Like the “50% never served/no answer” answer. Not going to quote directly, but paraphrase(feel free to correct if you feel the need) your linked reference: 6,000 polls randomly sent to “active duty personnel”, 4,000 determined to have been sent to those “actually” on active duty, approx. 950 actual respondents.
Political affiliation not a question asked.
And, yes, I’m implying more those to the left of center took the time to respond. Obviously no proof, but there it is.
militarycity.com***
That’s the poll Neo linked to to support her “high morale” and “support for the mission” argument. I have no problem with random polls per se, but this poll by its own admission does not profess to represent the military as a whole, and obviously cannot fairly represent the view of deployed troops.
The MHAT is obviously a more reliable gauge, but it doesn’t support her argument, so…
BTW, since you brought it up, political affiliation was asked, here.
Politics, Civilians and Policy
1) How would you describe your political views?
Very conservative 8%
Conservative 37%
Moderate 37%
Liberal 7%
Very liberal 2%
Decline to answer 9%
2) In politics today, do you consider yourself a:
Democrat 16%
Republican 46%
Independent 22%
Libertarian 2%
Other 3%
Decline to answer 11%
Yup, UB, Number one. Eyes must be going bad.
No, this info was just on a different page. (The poll was not well laid out on the site.)
Neo’s prediction about a vague sense of repeating Vietnam was right. Before, it was never really clear what Congress would do about the war if the Demos were elected, but of course Neo long ago told us about what the Demos did in Vietnam.
Knowing history is useful against those who tend to repeat it often.
Neo’s right:
1) Our troops do not think the war lost;
2) Our military “votes with its feet”–recruiting mostly meets its targets, and our soldiers are not disproportionately poorer or less educated; and
3) It’s the Democrats, not the Iraqi government, who want to cut-and-run.