'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War

[reprehensor]

'Military Times' Poll Finds Fading Support for President, War

NEW YORK - While President Bush remains more popular within the military than outside it, support for him, and for the war in Iraq, "has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military's professional core," according to the Military Times, analyzing its annual year-end poll.

The Military Times Media Group is made up of the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Times.

Approval of the president's Iraq policy fell 9% from 2004; a bare majority, 54%, now says they view his performance on Iraq favorably. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60%, among readers of the Military Times newspapers (85% of those polled are on active duty).

"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," the report continued. "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."

continued at link

-----------

Bushie, you're doin' a heckuva job.

[Kolesar]

1. The military cheered when bush took over in 2001--literally

I was channel surfing the $40/month wasteland known as Adelphia cable and on CSpan came upon some change of command ceremony at a military base. When they announced bush took over, the crowd let out a loud roar of applause. I am sure it was due to the integrated anti-Democrat propaganda campaign, featuring Rush Limbaugh on the the armed forces network.

[happyslug]

2. The people in the poll did not even see their own conflict.

68% of the people polled oppose the Draft, yet 2/3 of the people polled still believe the Army is overstretched, yet they still support Bush handling of the Iraq war?

Conflict #1
How do you solve the problem of an overstretched Military? You expand the Military, but less and less people are enlisting so how do you expand the Military with a drop in enlistments? The only solution is the Draft but 68% of the people polled oppose the draft.

Conflict #2, They Support the War in Iraq, but the Army is over extended? If you do NOT expand the Military how do you end this overextension? The answer is pull out from Iraq, but they support Bush's war in Iraq.

Now, part of the reason is the Military Times magazines are written for the full-time "lifers" in the Military as oppose to those people who enlist once and get out (or serve the time as an officer and get out). Thus you have a built in prejudice for the most pro-military group in the Country. Thus the above conflict is understandable, they want to support the Military, but they are problems on how it is being used. At the same time the Military culture since the 1970s has blamed the lost of Vietnam not only on the Press but the Draftee army of that time period.

It is dogma among this group that "Volunteer" armies are better than draftee armies and they cite many examples of this. These same people ignore examples of the opposite for the main problem with most Draftee armies is lack of motivation. Any army, that is motivated in its mission is a better than a unmotivated Army. The German army during both WWI and WWII, the Russian Army during WWII, the North Vietnamese Army during Vietnam and the American Army during WWII and the early days of Vietnam are all example of this.

For example the US Army in the early days of Vietnam (i.e. pre-1968) did a better job fighting then did their fathers during WWII. They were motivated to fight for Freedom against the Communists. The problem with Draftee Armies is once they lose their motivation they deteriorate rapidly. The US Army starting in 1968 in Vietnam is a Classic example, through they have been others in History, the French Army starting in 1917, The Russian Imperial army starting in 1916, and the Classic Example the Roman Republican Army in the Third Punic war when most of the troops were asking why where they fighting to Destroy Carthage given than Hannibal has been dead for a Generation and Carthage only source of Wealth was from Central Africa having lost ALL say in the Mediterranean basin after the Second Punic War).

Another problem of Draftee armies is that if a universal Service Army (And most Modern Draftee Armies are such Universal ServicE Armies) is that being universal it reflects the will of the people. When the People do NOT believe in a Cause the Army will no either EVEN IF THE LEADERSHIP BELIEVES OTHERWISE. The Soviet Army was such an Army and found itself unpopular in Afghanistan (and thus pulled out of Afghanistan with less losses than the US in Vietnam and just slightly less time). Against Hitler the Soviet Army became more and more Motivated over time (Hitler made clear his threat to wipe out the Slavs and thus the Russian people took to WWII as their war). On the other hand the Soviet Army was a poor army for colonial expansion. It could be used to put down attempts to leave the Soviet Sphere of Influence (Such as Hungary in 1955, East Germany in 1953 and Czechoslovakia in 1968) or put up a show of threat (Poland in 1959) only if these were direct threats to the Soviet people (Given the history of WWII, all of these Countries could be used as stepping stones to attack Russia). On the other hand the Soviet Army was poorly motivated when used against non-threats to the the Soviet Union (Afghanistan for example, and why the Russians never sent troops into Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania as all three countries became more and more "neutral" during the Cold War or why the Soviet Army withdrew from both Finland and Austria as both agree NOT to ally themselves with the West).

My point here is that the full-time "lifers" of the US Military today view themselves as being a better military for having a "Volunteer" Army as oppose to a Draftee Army. This is their Dogma. It is untrue (the key is motivation NOT enlistment status). Thus they oppose the draft based on this Dogma. At the same time they admit the Military is overs trenched, the problem is the solutions to that problem is either unacceptable (the Draft or withdraw from Iraq) OR impossible (Increase number of enlistments into the Volunteer Army).