September 22, 2009 11:14 AM

Unraveling Webb's Response

By
David L Miller
(National Review Online)  This column was written by W. Thomas Smith Jr.
In his rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union Address on Tuesday, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., stated, "The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military."

Where the Virginia senator got his definitive military majority is anybody's guess. But I would suppose it is from the recent poll conducted by Military Times, which shows a somewhat higher than marginal disapproval of the way the president "is handling the situation with Iraq."

Keep in mind, however, that of the 6,000 Military Times subscribers who were polled, 13 percent said they believe the U.S. is "very likely" to succeed in Iraq. Thirty-seven percent said "somewhat likely" to succeed. Thirty-one percent said "not very likely" to succeed. And 10 percent said "not at all likely" to succeed. That means 50 percent of those polled believe the U.S. will probably prevail, 41 percent of those polled believe the U.S. probably will not prevail, and eight percent had no answer.

Hardly accurate numbers to suggest — as Webb has — that the troops no longer support the way the war is being prosecuted: A subliminal suggestion to the general public that American soldiers no longer believe in the overall effort in Iraq (which is absolutely false).

What the numbers do suggest — and what we who have worn the uniform of the United States have always known — is that soldiers and sailors gripe. They get frustrated like everyone else. They blow off steam. And they have been doing so since armies first marched and navies sailed. They complain about the food (even when it is superb). They dismiss the equipment as being worthless (even when it is the best in the world). And they sometimes grumble that their leaders are stupid (though those leaders might be tactical masters on the battlefield). The unhappiest and most rebellious of those who gripe are also the most vocal in their griping.

But let's consider the poll and Webb's comment, and then consider the hard facts.

Polling the Military

Like all polls taken, the opinions registered are a reflection of a singular point in time.

And points in time during combat operations are fluid, always evolving, devolving, and dramatically changing from one day to the next.

Also, unlike polls conducted among the general populace, independent news polls taken solely among military personnel almost never reflect a consensus of the military, because most military personnel won't participate. They're extremely cautious about speaking on or off the record — even anonymously — without permission. The ones who are content and support the decisions of their superiors are often quiet, as are the discontented. But if one is to speak, it is usually the one who is perhaps disgruntled.

This doesn't mean that a soldier of one political ideology would speak and the other would not. But an unhappy soldier, for whatever reason, almost always seems to be quickest to speak.

What further narrowed the opinions gleaned from the Military Times poll are the facts that the vast majority of those polled had deployed to Iraq only once since 2003 (suggesting the poll reflected a majority opinion of either very new soldiers or those not in combat arms units). Only nine percent of those polled were Marines, when Marines make up over 12 percent of the U.S. Armed Forces, and a huge chunk of the Corps is directly involved in the fighting in Iraq. And those polled from all services had to be subscribers to at least one of the Military Times' independent newspapers.

So proof of how soldiers might really feel, may not be gleaned from polling. The proof is in the numbers of who is staying when he or she has the opportunity to leave, and why.

The Army

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, chief spokesman for the U.S. Army's personnel office, tells National Review Online, two out of three soldiers eligible to re-enlist have been reenlisting for the past several years, and 2006 was no exception.

"The 2006 re-enlistment rate of active-duty soldiers was, across the board, higher than the pre-9/11 rate," he says. "The unusually high, even by our standards, 2002 and 2003 rate is likely due to patriotic fervor and a desire to not leave the service before getting into the fight against terrorists."

Hard Numbers

The Army's reenlistment numbers for the past six years break down as follows: For Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06), the Army's goal was to retain 64,200 soldiers already on active duty. The service exceeded that goal by retaining 67,307 eligible soldiers. In other words, 3,107 soldiers — in addition to the ones the Army had hoped to re-up — raised their right hands and swore to continue defending the nation even if it meant service in Iraq. That's 105 percent of the goal of re-upping eligible soldiers (Contrary to public perception, not all active-duty soldiers are eligible to reenlist. For example, the Army does not want and will not retain a soldier who is not meeting physical fitness or other performance standards.).


National Review Online
Add a Comment See all 56 Comments
by clemenhagen1 January 28, 2007 2:59 PM EST
The war in Iraq is about a Sunni and Shiite civil conflict that goes back a thousand years. Al Qaeda serves only as a minor side event. To justify a continued U.S. troop presence in the midst of civil strife, especially religious strife makes no sense. To call a withdrawal of U.S. troops from such a civil conflict a surrender to al Qaeda is absurd. If our war IS with al Qaeda, which I agree it is, get OUT of Iraq and refocus our attention where it should be: on terrorists.
Reply to this comment
by sandycat2 January 28, 2007 2:12 PM EST
Al Qaeda in Iraq are now in Iraq. Apparantly they go where it is easier to kill Americans as that is what they say they want most to do. I don't follow any party line. I make up my own mind on things. Al qaeda is our sworn enemy. Give in to them at our own peril.
Reply to this comment
by clemenhagen1 January 28, 2007 1:59 PM EST
SandyCat: Was al Qaeda in Iraq BEFORE the war? No. And why not? Because Saddam, as a secular Sunni would have killed them. Following 9-11 we logically went to Afghanistan to target the Taliban, hunt down al Qaeda, and track bin Laden. In the mountains of Tora Bora we appeared to have him cornered. Since then what has happened? We cut deals with warlords in Afghanistan and bin Laden slipped away. Interesting. We reversed course and went into Iraq, allowing the Taliban to now recover in Afghanistan. Interesting. Our efforts in Iraq have created a chaotic zone void of any real institutional power, allowing mullahs and groups like al Qaeda to operate with impunity. Interesting. And I am to believe that George W. Bush and his cronies really want to eliminate al Qaeda when the mere term al Qaeda serves as their propaganda ace-in-the-hole. Interesting.
Reply to this comment
by dallison7 January 28, 2007 1:42 PM EST
Bluestandard, I got the Al Qaeda in Iraq from Zarqawi on the tapes he put out. I didn't get it from the government. Are you suggesting that the US government is part of Al Qaeda? I am not as stupid as you obviously think I am. Where is your response to this?
Posted by sandycat2 at 10:34 AM : Jan 28, 2007

GEEEEZZZZ
Sometimes you just have to give up, bluestardad.
Reply to this comment
by sandycat2 January 28, 2007 1:34 PM EST
Bluestandard, I got the Al Qaeda in Iraq from Zarqawi on the tapes he put out. I didn't get it from the government. Are you suggesting that the US government is part of Al Qaeda? I am not as stupid as you obviously think I am. Where is your response to this?
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad January 28, 2007 10:30 AM EST
sandycat2; I have tried to explain to you that some of these people on these blogs know what they are talking about. So please take the time to get informed before you support the standard party line of deception. If that is not good enough ask bushrocks1,Janeme4,liberman18,or Jane1234 who are all the same person, how you can become a paid hack and spew the Neocon Chicken Hawk party Line.
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad January 28, 2007 10:26 AM EST
sandycat2; When the Lebenon bomb killed the Marines I was commanding a War Head Detachment with the Enhanced Radiaion Bomb (Neutron) Bomb in Europe another thing the Government lied about having staged. So when the Government is lying About Al queda in Iraq you need to pull your head out and listen. The Bush Administration only pulls out the words Al Queda when it is in Trouble like Now in a vain effort to sway public opinion. Remember Bush has no desire to Catch Bin Laden Bush has cut a deal with the House of Saud to leave Bin Laden alone.
Reply to this comment
by sandycat2 January 28, 2007 6:53 AM EST
For those ignorant of the facts, Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Zarqawi was head of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Masri has taken over since the US killed Zarqawi. So the US is fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. And where were all you whiners when 250 plus Marines were killed by a Hezbollah suicide bomber in Lebanon or when 19 soldiers where killed by a bomb at Kobar towers or the 17 sailors who were killed by the bombing of the Cole. American troops have always been the first choice of targets by Islamic terrorists since their rise. When terrorist plane hijacking was in vogue, if there were any American soldiers on the flight, they were beaten to death. Terrorists have taken this one step farther to include as many American citizens they can kill, hense 9/11. Who knows what other kinds of attacks are waiting for us? We are in a war. When will the whiners get the message?
Reply to this comment
by j0hnwi11iams January 28, 2007 5:27 AM EST
It is the conservatives that are unraveling. They will realize, like Rome, the limits of empire. We can't afford to be the worlds only superpower. The military industrial complex will bankrupt this country.
Reply to this comment
by dirtydog55 January 28, 2007 12:37 AM EST
The statistics of how many re-up has little to do with whether they 'support' an unjust war or not. A soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman who has made a decision to make the military a career isn't likely to 'get out' because of an unjust war.

I know because I've been there; had ten years in before Vietnam got nasty, and wasn't about to throw it away because of Johnson or Nixon.

The real indicator is the military branches meeting their recruitment goals. The article makes no mention of that. The career military person is the backbone of the military, but, based on the numbers in the article, we wouldn't have much an Armed Forces without the recruitment of 'one termers', those courageous young men and women serve their country for four to six years and then move on.

This article is about what I would expect from an extreme right-wing media organization.


Reply to this comment
See all 56 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook