Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal!

[Tessy]

Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country! This is according to a Zogby poll released about one month ago.

The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of service members thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.” LOL!!! Kinda blows away some of the ridiculous arguments I'm hearing here at this site from people pretending to speak for the troops.

Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure when but just thought total withdrawal was the best thing.

Of course bozos calling themselves "policy experts" in the media try to spin it - I guess for the continued approval of the few remaining brainwashed gun-ho fools.

Justin Logan, a perfect example calling himself a "foreign policy analyst" for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently. LOL, like it's just a big misunderstanding and only a lack of communication... Hehehhee.

The president has opposed any plans for a withdrawal date, saying troops will remain until Iraq’s security is assured. Logan sees so many troops recommending absolute withdrawal as showing “an alarming disconnect” between the policy and its implementation. He obviously doesn't seem to understand that in-country troops know what they're saying and why they are saying it.

But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, called those who support withdrawal scared and inferred they were cowards saying: troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, and then tried to spin it and cover himself all at once saying: or they could be optimistic about progress so far, then admitted under his breath and lastly as if it were nearly impossible admitting: or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.

“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll at all.

John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies. Zogby said the survey was conducted face-to-face throughout Iraq, with permission from commanders. Despite the difficulty of polling in a war zone, he said, pollsters were pleased with the results.

“This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying,” he said. “Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying.”

The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.

“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.

More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not. I guess you can tell which group has been fired on.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, a group of 118 Republican lawmakers, said the poll does not diminish his opinion of the importance of the armed forces role in Iraq. This is not much different than Nam where the war-hawks seemed committed to sacrificing as many American lives as it took in order to secure an environment in which American corporations could thrive.

“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.”

Of those surveyed, 75 percent have served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years old, and 75 percent were male.

[A_C_E]

Good.

Bring them home with as much haste as can be safely used.

[Galactic Gigolo]

Unfortunately many Americans are stupid, and if you phrased the question in the way John McCain does (stay until the Iraqis can protect themselves, come home 'with honor,' 'free and prosperous Iraq,' blah blah blah), that percentage would probably go down to 50%.

[Tessy]

Even if so that would be pretty steep! Half the troops think they're
involved in an immoral or unjust action? As it is 72% are saying that now.
Pretty bad! 50% would be no difference to me. Not till it got below 10%
would I believe that what soldiers were seeing and experiencing was
indicating to them that their cause was just and right.

[northhunter]

Not saying it wasn't that way but I didn't see a link to the actual story or the poll, just your post about a poll. And I'm not saying I disagree with the need to bring our troops home as early as possible, I just don't remember ever conducting a military operation with a show of hands does anyone else?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by northhunter

Not saying it wasn't that way but I didn't see a link to the actual story or the poll, just your post about a poll. And I'm not saying I disagree with the need to bring our troops home as early as possible, I just don't remember ever conducting a military operation with a show of hands does anyone else?

exactly, their opinions mean nothing.

General: "Private, Go to War."
Private: "It is my opinion that this current action is not in the best interests of our country"

It can't work that way.


oh and this poll is from 2006

[motivez]

Don't you think it's kind of degrading to say their opinions mean nothing?

I mean, nothing with respect to Pentagon policy formation, sure.. but that's true for all of us except when it's time to vote.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Don't you think it's kind of degrading to say their opinions mean nothing?

I mean, nothing with respect to Pentagon policy formation, sure.. but that's true for all of us except when it's time to vote.

as a member myself I think I can say that. Civilian support matters more than military members, we vote as well. Civilians have ways to oppose/support military policy in ways that military members can't.

[six6ftr]

Correct, it does not matter what we truly think or feel, we've been given orders and we will follow them to the best of our abilities.

[Tessy]

That's where you're mistaken. Read the Army Field Manual. If the orders
you're given are illegal or improper it's your duty to disobey them! Don't
and you're liable in court.

And technically any Iraq deployment or order therefrom is illegal and can
be shown as such in any court.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Tessy

That's where you're mistaken. Read the Army Field Manual. If the orders
you're given are illegal or improper it's your duty to disobey them! Don't
and you're liable in court.

And technically any Iraq deployment or order therefrom is illegal and can
be shown as such in any court.

Deserter GI Gets Year In Jail

FORT STEWART, Ga., May 21, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A U.S. soldier who said he left his unit in Iraq to protest an "oil-driven" war was convicted of desertion Friday and sentenced to a year in jail and a bad conduct discharge.

A military jury met for about 20 minutes before giving the maximum sentence to Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, an infantry squad leader with the Florida National Guard.

"I have no regrets. Not one," Mejia said before his sentencing.

In his comments to the jury of four officers and four enlisted soldiers, Mejia said he was not afraid of going to jail. "I will take it because I will go there with my honor, knowing I have done the right thing," he said.

Mejia, 28, says he refused to return to his unit after a two-week furlough in October because he believes the war in Iraq is unjust. He turned himself in to the Army in March and sought status as a conscientious objector.

Military prosecutors argued that Mejia abandoned his troops and didn't fulfill his duty.

"He enjoyed all the benefits of the military, just not the duty," Capt. A.J. Balbo, the lead prosecutor, said in his closing argument. "The defense says he accomplished all his missions. Except the most important one — showing up."

Mejia's commander in Iraq, Capt. Tad Warfel, said the verdict would send a message that "deserters are punished, regardless of what their arguments are or their excuses."

Mejia told jurors that one of the turning points for him was an ambush his unit faced in Ramadi, when he said four soldiers were wounded by shrapnel and he saw an Iraqi civilian decapitated by U.S. machine gun fire.

"So things change, perceptions change," Mejia said. "You lose perspective of the value of human life. It happens."

Mejia was led out of the courthouse by military police with his hands cuffed behind his back to a waiting patrol car. Some civilian supporters shouted words of encouragement, including "Bravo, Camilo!"

Defense lawyer Louis Font said in his closing argument that Mejia made "an honest mistake of fact."

"This case clearly is about what was in the accused's mind," Font said. "He had an honest and reasonable view that because he had become a conscientious objector, he would not be required to serve in Iraq anymore."

Mejia's application to be an objector is being considered separately.

In his objector application, he also claims he saw Iraqi prisoners treated cruelly when he was put in charge of processing detainees last May at al-Assad, an Iraqi air base occupied by U.S. forces.

He did not mention specific abuse claims during his comments to the jury Friday, but told them that their decision, and the actions of American troops in Iraq, would be noticed around the world.

"I say that we're all on trial because the world is watching. They're looking at the decisions we make (such as) war crimes, abuse of prisoners," he said.

CBSNews.com: Print This Story

what makes them technically illegal?

[Tessy]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Deserter GI Gets Year In Jail

CBSNews.com: Print This Story

what makes them technically illegal?

That's fine! I would take the year gladly! Me and Elvis Presly! But he
went AWOL and that's a little different. I'd do it by the book. That way I'd
either get off all together or I'd get 4 years.

[avsp]

IIUC you sign up for 8 years service which may be spread over a much longer period

As such upon enlisting you have no idea who the President may be nor what wars you may be called upon to fight.

Obviously one assumes that the President will be accurately reflecting the will of the people & thus it can be seen as 'serving the nation'.

However this doesn’t mean that one won’t be asked to fight in wars that one might otherwise feel are unwise or unjust.

All this must be self-evident upon joining.

How does one reconcile this loss of personal discretion with ones conscience? Does one literally put any such concerns to one side as part of the submission to orders & the general cause?

I realise these may be seen as an incredibly provocative questions. I mean no offense. But I'm going to be blunt, although words will, of course, disobey me.
If one enlists during peacetime & will be there for a while then isnt one really a 'mercenary'? If not, what’s the difference?

I know people who've served & they readily admit that upon enlisting their motivation was simply to fight, ..., 'for the buzz' is the term used. They had no such 'moral' concerns, & in some cases the motivation was also druven by economic considerations, (few jobs & they were very dull, low qualifications, desire for transferable skills etc). Equally the desire to be 'macho' or for the camaraderie involved seems a fairly common motivator

I spoke to a UK army recruiter recently & he said few people were motivated by 'patriotism'. He also pointed out that training was to eliminate the difference in people’s initial motivation & to concentrate such things purely to the immediate mission at hand. As for all this impacts on morale, ..., he just grinned & said that’s what senior officers were for, 'to moan about'.

[six6ftr]

Originally Posted by Tessy

That's where you're mistaken. Read the Army Field Manual. If the orders
you're given are illegal or improper it's your duty to disobey them! Don't
and you're liable in court.

And technically any Iraq deployment or order therefrom is illegal and can
be shown as such in any court.

If it is a lawful order, it must be followed to include Iraq Deployments. Not going in called missing a movement which will subject you to a court martial.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Deserter GI Gets Year In Jail

FORT STEWART, Ga., May 21, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) A U.S. soldier who said he left his unit in Iraq to protest an "oil-driven" war was convicted of desertion Friday and sentenced to a year in jail and a bad conduct discharge. Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

CBSNews.com: Print This Story

what makes them technically illegal?

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Watada's court-martial ended in a mistrial when he argued that his orders were unlawful, because Military Judge John Head ruled that question can not be resolved within the military justice system, saying the argument was thus reduced to an admission of guilt. A second court-marshal was scheduled but has been stayed by Federal district court Judge Benjamin Settle, who issued an order stating that Watada's "double jeopardy claim is meritorious" and no evidence that it lacks merit was presented.[4] The Army is challenging the injunction.

[6SpeedTA95]

Just because withdrawl is supported doesn't make it right.

At one point the same number of people supported the invasion of Iraq...we were wrong.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Watada's court-martial ended in a mistrial when he argued that his orders were unlawful, because Military Judge John Head ruled that question can not be resolved within the military justice system, saying the argument was thus reduced to an admission of guilt. A second court-marshal was scheduled but has been stayed by Federal district court Judge Benjamin Settle, who issued an order stating that Watada's "double jeopardy claim is meritorious" and no evidence that it lacks merit was presented.[4] The Army is challenging the injunction.

of course they are challenging it, he is still in the custody of the Army and he will be going to jail.