Soldiers Want Out of Iraq

72% of Soldiers want out of Iraq within the year.

We all know that different soldiers feel differently about staying in Iraq and we can't accurately speak for them or the group as a whole. But here's a poll that at least gives us a clue.

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon. The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?” Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary.

Zogby Details

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so.
...
“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby,
...
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict:

I think if we really support our troops, we should listen to them and get them out of that god-forsaken and dangerous place.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think if we really support our troops, we should listen to them and get them out of that god-forsaken and dangerous place.

if you supported your troops, you wouldn't have sent them in the first place... imo.



*what do I know, I'm Canadian*

thats what im talking about. at some point troops would start to think for themselves. itll be harder to get troops to fight for some bull# in the future. i also think u need to believe you are fighting for the right reason to fight effectively

Good on the troops

Just goes to show you that the US military is NOT a bunch of brainwashed, do without question, can't think for themselves, group of idiots. Ofcourse there will always be a few morons that think so...you know who you are.

I think the military reflects America as whole. At first, just like the US, the military was all gung-ho lets get some payback for 9/11 type of attitude. And now people want answers, the "let's get some payback" campaign has lots it's effect on the military aswell as the nation.

72% of soldiers think they can finish the mission within a year?

Of course they do!

Sorry, no conspiracy here.

Also the state of the troops during the poll should be taken into account. Ofcourse of bunch of tired, sleepy soldiers that havent had a hot meal in 6 months are gonna bitch and complain and not want to be there. Do the "should we pull out" poll with troops not in Iraq....even do it with troops that have been to Iraq currently stateside, the percentages will probably be alot different. Same conclusion, just more towards the middle, IMO

[edit on 28/2/2006 by SportyMB]

Uh, if they aren't in Iraq how can you poll them to see if they want out? "I want out of prison!" You aren't in prison so how can you want out?

Sorry SportyMB, just pointing out that if the troops aren't in Iraq how do you poll them to see if they want out?

Sorry SportyMB, just pointing out that if the troops aren't in Iraq how do you poll them to see if they want out?

I was talking about the troops opinion on wether or not US troops (all of them) should pull out, not if they (as individuals) want to go home or not.

It's the same as anyone of us not in Iraq doing the poll on "should the US pull out of Iraq".

But I see what you mean, I edited my first post to be more specific.

[edit on 28/2/2006 by SportyMB]

i don't believe in the iraq war, i think its a load of *TESTICLES* to be honest (ive expressed my views about it in other threads).

as for the soilders, you can understand why they want out!!

but NONE of the soliders will have been there since 2003 - the soilders only serve a certain amount of time (maybe 3 months) then come home!!

but if they can't stand being on foreign soil (represting their countrys), then why did they join the military in the 1st place?? - afterall thats what your training for ^ALL THE TIME^ defending your country in warfare.

even if your country NEVER went to war during the years you serve in the army, chance's are that you'll be sent to overseas land on peacekeeping missions.

point i'm making is it's no good joining the military and then start complaining about something when it come to 'the crunch'.


[edit on 28-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Carseller4
Sorry, no conspiracy here.

The conspiracy is that there's a common belief, held by Bush as well as a good percentage of US citizens that the soldiers are all gung-ho about this war, that they are clear on their mission and that they're willing to stay as long as necessary.

From the original source:

Bush: It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. …We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed.
...
Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary.

Originally posted by Carseller4
72% of soldiers think they can finish the mission within a year?

Nothing was said about completing their mission. They don't even know what the mission is!

From the Zogby Details:

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”

85% think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Where are they getting their news? Imagine how they're going to feel when they get back here and find out they've been lied to about their 'mission'.

but NONE of the soliders will have been there since 2003 - the soilders only serve a certain amount of time (maybe 3 months) then come home!!

3 months...maybe more like 6 months to one year...oh yeah. And that's for one tour. It's not uncommon for troops to do 2-4 tours. Many Infantry units in the Marine Corps had a gone 6 months, back 6 months, gone 6 months, etc.... deployment schedule.

even if your country never went to war during the years you serve in the army, chance's are that you'll be sent to overseas land on peacekeeping missions.

I think they'll have more of a chance just being stationed overseas for other than peacekeeping. And a regular UDP or overseas tour cannot be compared to a tour in Iraq...or any hot zone for that matter.

point i'm making is its no good joining the military and then start complaining about something when it come to 'the crunch'.

So people in the military don't have the right to complain? That's what they do best...bitch and complain (joking...haha).

You know what they say, a Marine's not alive unless he's bitching



[edit on 28/2/2006 by SportyMB]

Everyone wants out of Iraq in a year or less, but using a poll such as this as a platform for the general "anti-war," anti-administration claptrap is reprehensible. Besides, no military is run by troop sentiment. While there are some who actually like serving in war zones, the vast majority of troops from any war at any time in history would prefer to be home. What else would anyone expect to learn from such a poll.

I love this quote:

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

Let us remember that National Guard and Reserves are generally older and tend more often to have families than regulars, although the all-volunteer military has blurred that distinction somewhat. The Marine Corps discourages marriage for first-enlistment Marines, so the majority of those Marines serving in Iraq are not married with children and therefore less likely to respond in the manner of their NG and Reserve cohorts. You can't blame the NG and the Reserves for wanting to get it over and come home, but reading too much into such sentiments is dishonest and opportunistic.

Originally posted by fattyp
if you supported your troops, you wouldn't have sent them in the first place... imo.



*what do I know, I'm Canadian*

Im not positive how its works in Canada but in the US the people dont send the troops anywhere thats done by the Commander in chief and Congress

The people can and do show support for the troops even if they dont agree with the reason they are over there.

I agree with you, st3ve_o. If they don't want to serve, then they shouldn't join the military.

However, like SportyMB said, it's more like 7-12 month tours. Many longer than a year.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
the soilders only serve a certain amount of time (maybe 3 months) then come home!!

Source

Decreasing the tour length of soldiers from about 15 months -- 12 months "boots on the ground" in Iraq plus time on either end for training and reorganizing at home base -- would improve morale,
...
The Marine Corps has its troops in Iraq on seven-month deployments,

Source

In fact, most of the Army soldiers deployed to Iraq spend more than a year deployed. Facing a long effort in Iraq and a force of about 500,000 -- only about 65 percent of which is eligible to be deployed -- the Army mandated year-long deployments for active-duty soldiers to ease the rotation schedule.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i don't believe in the iraq war, i think its a load of *TESTICLES* to be honest (ive expressed my views about it in other threads).

as for the soilders, you can understand why they want out!!

but NONE of the soliders will have been there since 2003 - the soilders only serve a certain amount of time (maybe 3 months) then come home!!



[edit on 28-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but my son served 6 months in Iraq. He is also going to Afghanistan for 6 months very soon.
Not sure where you got your info about 'maybe 3 months', but most tend to serve at least 6 months. Some do 12 months with R&R every 3 months.

I also know that my friends two lads were out in Iraq in 03,did 6 months, came back for 3, then went out and did a further 6 months.
I am speaking of the British Army here, so maybe things are different with the US troops.

.............is to gripe !!

I'm sure my Dad wanted to get off Okinawa in 1945 as well.

When your father was in Okinawa, he knew what the conditions for victory were. This war we are currently fighting HAS no conditions for victory. It was designed to create a permanent state of war, which makes the country easier to govern. When you can shut people up with the tired "We're at war" speech, you can ride that a long way toward running roughshod over your opposition.

The War On Terror is the greatest conspiracy of our time. I'm not saying that there aren't terrorists in the world, but no twisting of the definition of war will bring you a resolution of the problem. And maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't as big as we've been led to believe.

When the country is spending upwards on 2 Trillion dollars a year to fight an enemy that kills fewer people annually than toenail fungus, there's something a little wrong. Here's the conspiracy: It's all happening to consolidate power in the hands of a very very few.

When you start seeing the connections between the Bush family and the United Arab Emirates, in light of this Dubai World Port scandal, it really strikes home. When you find out that UAE and Dubai World have invested several times in business deals with George Sr., Neil Bush, and George W hisself, you realize that this is all about creating a fat post-presidency payday for little George. Can you imagine that right this second, there are young men and women, far from home, lacking battle armor, scared, sick and tired, missing their families, WHO WILL BE KILLED NEEDLESSLY because a little rich boy doesn't know how to say he made a mistake, it's enough to make you question why you believed the hype and voted for this guy in the first place.

At least it ought to make you question why you voted for this guy in the first place. If it doesn't, and you're capable of continuing to support an administration that is crushing the principles upon which this nation were founded, you're going to have to answer to a lot of very angry veterans coming back from Iraq who are going to want to know why you let a fat load like Limbaugh talk you out of loving your country.

I'm talking to you, Ferretboy.

Originally posted by vuoto
When your father was in Okinawa, he knew what the conditions for victory were.

This is an absolute falsehood and a perfect example of your ignorance of history. The boots on the ground in WWII knew even less about what was then called "The Big Picture" than troops do today. There were no cell phones, no television, no CNN and no one knew that the war would end because two atomic bombs would eventually be dropped on Japan.

You can make such statements because you have the advantage of hindsight and because it fits your political agenda, but you're not going to fool anyone who's honest and has even a modicum of historical knowledge.

Surely the conditions of War are for one thing, and one thing only. To win. This maybe at all costs, but the end result is the same.

To say that soldiers go to War with the knowledge of what is going to happen within the big picture is ludicrous. They are told what they need to know, when they need to know. End of story. Ask any soldier. I have....

They deal with scenarios day in day out, without a real clue as to what they are trying to achieve, yet they go on regardless.

The questions are not published. The methodology behind the statistics is not available; based upon the established polling procedures posted by the site. The size of the sample is extremely small in comparison to the population and...

From the posted source:

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques...

c'mon!

The home site for “Zogby” has too much advertisement to be a self sustaining organization plus I filled out the application to be on the board?!? So…why is this information considered a fact?

“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.”
---[---]---
John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.... (added emphasis)

*cough*...bs

From the sites own archive concerning the article posted (link)


This is a conspiracy board, right? How much more vague can you get?


mg