Skip to comments.Military Notebook: Support for Obama weak in troop poll
Posted on 04/18/2010 8:08:21 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Results released last week of a survey of military service members, conducted by Military Times, showed weak support for President Obama among the troops he commands.
Just 36 percent of the service members who were surveyed approve of Obamas handling of the war in Afghanistan, well below the general publics approval of Obamas performance in Afghanistan.
Nearly half of the active duty service members in the survey called themselves conservative, while only 8 percent called themselves liberal.
Only 12 percent of service members surveyed by the Military Times identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 41 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.
Of note is how many troops dont identify themselves with either party. A similar survey conducted in 2004 showed that 60 percent of military service members identified themselves as Republicans, with 12 percent calling themselves Democrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at macon.com ...
The Fuhrer despised???? Ya think!
And how many of those "approved" either out of loyalty to the chain of command or out of fear of reprisals if their names were associated with their true feelings?
I hope this is an anonymous poll!
I guess to a war protester the war stops being wrong when it's a Dem in command. Wait until Obama's out of office, though, and we'll see them out again, and the Nora O'Donnells will report it as "They've been patient but now..."
What is more interesting is that there has been a 20% drop in republicans. There are people who want to serve our country who don’t think 9 years and counting of war is a good thing.
Islam has not yet been defeated.
Probably all in the rear, drinking their my tais...
My take is the drop in self-identified Republicans is because they know the poll will carry more weight if they don’t say they are GOP.
I saw this under Clinton. While at Ft. Benning they all but went around and drafted folks to be at the airport with little flags so they could wave at Gore when coming off the plane. We don't want Gore walking down the stairs and no one there to greet him.
Bottom line, the military can't stand those like Clinton or Obama. Why would they? Cut on defense spending, undermine their mission, rise to power by attacking and declaring failure that for which they give their sweat, blood and tears? Maybe it's the fact that this guy has no experience as a soldier, never served, hardly visits the troops except when he's allowed to make it a photo op, didn't know the title of his own position or how to pronounce Corpsman, can't salute, only made his first real policy change regards the DoD when the gay issue raised its head. The guy's a buffoon that rose to power because of symbolism and popularism which does not interest the average grunt. When measured by the things they care about the Obama’s and Clinton's are failures. Think about this- the DoD dishonorably discharges folks for adultery, they put people in prison for perjury, and you have a President (Commander in Chief - the ultimate boss) that lied under oath and committed adultery like Clinton? There too the MSM couldn't understand why the DoD didn't like him. lol
http://www.charmaineyoest.com/archives/hillary_soldier_finger_duress.PNG (That's what they think)
If you think our commanders are trying to defeat Islam, you need to reevaluate bigtime!
“Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with a Muslim building a nuclear bomb in Iran.”
Burt Prelutsky, Columnist
Exit polls indicated 95% of blacks voted for Obama, does this represent buyers remorse or is it because most service members vote by mail? I know our service members are more conservative in general but is the same true across all demographics? Could it be that people are starting to see the man for his policies instead of his race?
They’ll soon find even more nefarious ways to stifle that absentee vote.
Isn’t that because the US Military like the “Tea Party” is mainly made up of white homophobic racists?
Exactly why RATs don't want miltary absentee ballots counted.
Most young troops are not politically affiliated yet.
“Islam has not yet been defeated.”
How can they be defeated when we are not allowed to fight them?
We don’t name them as the enemy.
We don’t declare war.
We don’t seek to stir up motivational emotions to vanquish them.
We don’t define defeat strategically as unconditional surrender or annihilation, nor tactically as vanquishing them.
We send troops into harms way with seal-defeating Rules of Engagement, inadequate troop levels, inadequate supplies, and prohibition from using our most effective weapons.
We repeatedly go into a “conflict” without the force and will necessary to bring about swift victory, instead favoring a familiar pattern of becoming bogged down in a lengthy quagmire of “nation building,” “police actions,” and then training and arming and funding the very enemy we just supposedly fought against.
For this hopeless and pathetic parade of historical blunders and defeats, we pay a dear price in taxes and loved ones lost, while the country’s and international power brokers and weapons merchants enrich themselves, playing on our fears and national pride and stupidity to get away with it, keeping the game going ad nauseum.
I saw a small amount of action during the fall of Cambodia and the fall of Saigon. I was too young and stupid to know what I was doing there, and I was glad as hell to get out of there when we left, and out of the military a few years later.
No one ever thanked me for my service until many years later at a 9/11 rally, and it felt pretty odd: What “service” had I performed for the everyday people there at that rally. What “service” had I performed for my country or it’s people in general? I went somewhere and did some stuff and felt scared as hell for a while for no real benefit to my country or her people. Thanks for what? For being too stupid to know any better? For volunteering to go through all that so some politicians, power brokers and weapons merchants could benefit? What the hell “service” did I do for my country or her people?
And the fine men and women - hopelessly and endlessly bogged down in Afghanistan - what the hell “service” are they providing us? I feel sorry if they signed up thinking they might make a difference in eternal hellholes like that, and thinking they’d really be allowed to do their job in any meaningful way.
I am not bitter, personally, but I have grown increasingly cynical as I study the history of armed conflicts since WWII and the formation of the UN. I’d never sign up again unless there was a declared war, a mission to vanquish the enemy and obtain an unconditional surrender, and a warrior-minded chain of command who really meant to get the job done in the most expedient, war-like way possible.
Declare war, name the enemy, destroy them quickly and totally, and then come home. Let them rebuild their own hellhole homeland if they want to. Make them wish they never messed with us, and make them incapable of ever doing it again for many generations.
Excellent Rant at post #18!
Water is still wet.
The bears still use the woods...
The Pope is still Catholic.
The implication being, that when the totalitarians in DC give the order to fire on civilians...
All bets are off.
By the stupid and the insane and the incompetent perhaps.
Mentally healthy people are aware that "Change you can believe in" is meaningless...
Read the academic books by Victor Davis Hanson, about the "Western Way of War," and what made it unique and effective. for milennia.
Wishy-washy-PC-crap it never was.
Islam sure as hell is out to defeat us.
It’s a reasonable rant. And while I do appreciate your service, I understand your ambivalence about it, and completely agree with the idea of getting back to the “American way of war” that we seem to have lost in the post-WWII era.
Bush did us no favors with his “it’s a religion of peace” crap.
There is no such thing as the “American way of war.”
Low-intensity conflict is defined by the US Army as: ... a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states.
It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications."