Majority of American Military Turn Aginst Iraq War

Well they went in to get Saddam out and they did - so now they must get out, their job is done, their goal reached.

In light of that I can understand why the soldiers may be feeling like that now - every battle fought must have a reason for the fight, that reason no longer exists.

jennifer1

I agree. Our military performed well to defeat Saddam. We won that battle. The War to secure Iraq has been lost and it is time to accept reality and bring our brave troops home!

The latest poll of American Military shows that only 35% support Bush and the Iraq war. What is even more disturbing is that 61% believe the war is lost! As 2006 ends, America lost the 3,000th death in Iraq with over 22,000 injuries. There is no end in sight and the vast majority does not support sending more troops to Iraq because they see no real chance that a small surge of 20-35,000 troops will make any difference in the final outcome. The latest polls shows only 17% favor sending more troops to Iraq. The lesson Bush has not learned is the one we learned in Vietnam. You CAN NOT conduct a war that the majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT. It is time to bring the troops HOME!

I'd like to know how they completed this so called poll. Especially since NONE of our major news sources have ANY embedded reporters left. There are only "7" left in the field and 1 is from AP and the rest are "foreign" corespondents.

Col and his polls.  The Military Times survey, conducted by mail Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the newspapers. Results are not representative of the military as a whole.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's lost, it is just not in our sights at the moment. As you say and many others, a new plan is needed, but leaving is not the solution. To walk away from Iraq and the leave the Iraqi people to their own fate that we created for them would make us worse than Saddam could have ever been. It's bad enough that many Iraqis have died as collateral damage due to this war, walking away would literally mean not caring about their lives and handing it to the dogs.

BTW Col you don't fool me with this whole crap about caring for the 3000 dead and 22,000 injured. You're just like politicians using numbers to do the fighting for you. Like most people, you know these numbers are pretty low for a war that has gone on for so many years. Soldiers are not ,ad because 3000 have died, they are getting mad cause they are not seeing the results they were told would happen, you need to stop combining 2 different issues to make a problem sound worse.

IslandDog

The VAST MAJORITY of the military do read the Army, Navy etc times. You do not know what you are talking about.

Charles C.

Yes it is lost. For over Four Years we have been told that victory is just over the horizon as more and more are killed and the violence gets worse. The sectarian fighting will not be ended by our troops. ONLY the Iraqi People can end the fighting! It is time to leave and let them decide what course they want for their country. Our objective should to prevent any violence in Iraq from spilling into other countries in the area!

Results are not representative of the military as a whole.

Thats from the poll col, not me.

Yes it is lost

I'm sure glad you are not active military now. 

Will you go to Iraq and tell the soldiers to their faces that it's lost?

IslandDog

The poll said the majority do not believe it is likely we will win. That from those that have been fighting this war.

In time all will know their sacrifice was for an argument that was false. We were NEVER in ANY danger from Saddam. Thus, Bush LIED to every military member he sent to Iraq. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American People. He was warned by many a lot more informed then he was what the likely result of American Invasion would be of Iraq. He did not listen. That is WHY his father had the sense to not make that mistake when he has 500,000 troops amassed next to Iraq!

Baker, Armitage and Powell all warned Bush. Now we have NO GOOD options available after 3,000 dead, over 22,000 injured and ½ Trillion spent to date. We have MORE enemies then BEFORE we invaded Iraq and have helped establish a government in Iraq like the government in Iran. What a GREAT accomplishment George!

What is even more disturbing is that 61% believe the war is lost!

You need to check your poll again. 61% did not say that. The numbers are much lower then that.

There is no end in sight and the vast majority does not support sending more troops to Iraq because they see no real chance that a small surge of 20-35,000 troops will make any difference in the final outcome. The latest polls shows only 17% favor sending more troops to Iraq.

Yet the poll only shows 26% want less troops there.   

Where did you get 17%? 36% wants more.

Gene please read the poll.

In time all will know their sacrifice was for an argument that was false. We were NEVER in ANY danger from Saddam. Thus, Bush LIED to every military member he sent to Iraq. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American People. He was warned by many a lot more informed then he was what the likely result of American Invasion would be of Iraq. He did not listen.

There were no "lies" col.  We have already debunked your accusations of lying countless times, but you still seem to ignore it.

 

I honestly don't think polls are significant. Polls can be very erratic unless the sampling is perfectly worked out.The man in the street in the USA is very worried about the loss of life amongst troops and Iraquis. The average citizen would like to see a scenario where Iraq stabilises and troops can return home. The war is not lost but it is not winning at the moment--hopefully new strategies will be found to improve the situation.

I speak only as an historian and believe you have two years to wait . George W. Bush is not going to be the redeemer of Iraq--he does not have the talent or the wisdom (or the team), to solve the present crisis. What America needs now is another FDR.

Here is the link to the actual poll which demonstrates that Col Gene's statements are in fact lies and misrepresentations of the facts. It demonstrates why he failed to provide a link to the poll.
Army Times 2006 Poll

I dunno, the answers to Question 7 are pretty disheartening:

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%
No opinion/no answer 8%

Would it be fair to summarize that as half the troops think we will succeed and half think we won't?

Question 9 also indicates that the only 10% of the respondents feel that the US will reach its goals within the next two years, while 54% percent think that it will take 5 years or longer. 23% said more than years. That seems pretty scary to me.

As for the results not being representative, the full caveat reads "The survey, conducted by mail Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results are not representative of the military as a whole. The survey's respondents, 945 this year, are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population." Bold from me, for emphasis.

Larry, take a look at questions 3 and 5 again. Fully half of those answering haven't even been in Iraq and a third never been in either war zone. Their perspective on things is most likely based just on what they've seen/read in the media. While there is no way of knowing for sure, I'd be willing to bet that they are the ones giving the most negative responses.

Island Dog

The lies were that Bush ignored the Intelligence that said his claims that Saddam was a threat were real. Bush ignored the Military assessment that said Saddam was NO THREAT to the U.S. Bush ignored the warnings that invading Iraq would most likely destabilize Iraq and cause our military to become bogged down in Iraq. Despite all this we were told that Saddam was so great a danger we has to Invade Iraq. That was a LIE!!!!!!!!! That Lie caused 3,000 people to be killed and 22,000 to be injured.

re: question #7

The reason I think the military is less and less apt to believe we will meet our goals in Iraq is that our military HAS NO CAPABILITY of reaching our goals in Iraq. That's ENTIRELY in the hands of the Iraqi people, who seem to have little will to make a nation for themselves.

We, on the other hand, have lost our stomach for killing the Iraqis who are causing the problems. So we stand around and get killed. Nice way to "win" a war.

BakerStreet

I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!

The lies were that Bush ignored the Intelligence that said his claims that Saddam was a threat were real. Bush ignored the Military assessment that said Saddam was NO THREAT to the U.S. Bush ignored the warnings that invading Iraq would most likely destabilize Iraq and cause our military to become bogged down in Iraq. Despite all this we were told that Saddam was so great a danger we has to Invade Iraq. That was a LIE!!!!!!!!! That Lie caused 3,000 people to be killed and 22,000 to be injured.

I don't know how many times you have been shown to incorrect about this topic, but you still pretend that you haven't.  We have debunked your claims countless times and you still ignore it. 

[I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!

Cut and run you mean.  I'm sure glad you weren't in charge in WWII.

"I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!"

Sorry, you misunderstood. I said that we are getting killed because we've lost our stomach for shooting Iraqis. We should go back to war with the militias, cretins like Sadr, etc., until the nation decides it's just too damn bloody a proposition to do anything else.

If we can't do that, then sure, we might as well leave.

IslandDog

You have not done anything of the sort.

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied.

IslandDog You have not done anything of the sort.

BS! Both ID and myself among others, argued you into a corner on this very subject. And when cornered to where you "could not" argue your position anymore, you cut and ran.

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied

Maybe you should read this book: Link


Or maybe this document: Link

Or even this link:

Link

drmiler

What you posted does not change the statements of the CIA Agents or Generals Trainer and Zinni. It does not change the military assessment that Saddam was not capable of attacking any country. We showed that was correct with the ease we destroyed what military he had in March-April 2003. NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

drmiler What you posted does not change the statements of the CIA Agents or Generals Trainer and Zinni. It does not change the military assessment that Saddam was not capable of attacking any country. We showed that was correct with the ease we destroyed what military he had in March-April 2003. NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

This is EXACTLY what we're talking about. I give you examples of proof that your line of reasoning "might" have other facets, and what do you do? You ignore it and say it changes nothing. Is it any wonder people think you're a unintelligent moron?

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied.

And we have showed people that have told the opposite.  The problem with you is that you take someone who writes an anti-Bush book, and take it as the truth.  I have showed these people, including Zinni work with far-left organizations, so they have a biased agenda.

Most of the world believed Saddam had WMD's, and by the U.N.'s own account, Iraqs WMD's have never been fully accounted for. 

19 people living in caves didn't have any OFFENSIVE MILITARY CAPABILITY, but they were able to carry out significant damage to the U.S. 

Woodward is a book author, his book is proof of nothing.

 

NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

Many people thought Saddam was a danger col.  I have shown how incompetent someone like Zinni is and you completely ignored it. 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

What you do col is "cherry pick" the anti-Bush rhetoric, and totally ignore everything else that is presented to you.  You have a one-sided opinion, and you don't tell both sides of the story.