’08 Military Times poll: Wary feelings about Obama

[CommunityEditor]

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

“Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.

For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command, as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and values.

Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to survey responses and interviews.

“How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?”

When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a decline from 69 percent in 2004.

Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.

Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief.

“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.”

The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes.

In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats.

Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has written extensively about civil-military relations, said a degree of uncertainty among service members toward Obama is appropriate, given their questions about how he will govern as commander in chief.

“Those numbers don’t convince me he has got a big problem on his hands because what he is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office,” Feaver said. “It’s sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him.

“They respect the office of the commander in chief,” Feaver said. “As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem.”

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said respondents’ optimism toward Obama can be partially attributed to confidence in his military advisers, including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy, and retired Gen. James Jones Jr., former commandant of the Marine Corps and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

On Dec. 1, the day the survey was released, Obama announced his national security team, including Jones as national security adviser and Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, as defense secretary.

“There is an understanding that the president doesn’t do all his own paperwork,” Segal said. “The quality of any president is going to depend on the quality of the people he has around him.”

When to leave Iraq
While nearly half of the respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s proposal to withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, a slightly higher percentage said they support the Status of Forces Agreement calling for U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011.

Army Spc. Robbie Blackford, an infantryman with C Troop, 1-71st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, who returned from a 14-month tour in Iraq in late October, said Obama should gradually reduce the number of U.S. service members in Iraq.

“In my mind, things were changing to the point where we could get out of there and the Iraqis could take over their own country,” Blackford said. “I think that he should just pull out a little at a time.”

Although realistic about the challenges ahead, troops overwhelmingly support the mission in Afghanistan.

Eight out of 10 respondents said the U.S. should have gone to war in Afghanistan. Nearly the same amount support plans to boost the number of troops there by more than 20,000, for a total of more than 50,000.

“We just don’t have enough manpower to be out there doing what we need to do, winning the hearts and minds and so forth,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4 Jay Brewer, a meteorological and oceanographic officer with Marine Forces Pacific who has twice deployed to Iraq. “In Iraq, when we increased the number of troops, we were able to increase our presence full-time in certain areas.”

While the majority of respondents expressed some degree of optimism the U.S. will succeed in Afghanistan, 30 percent said troops will need to stay for more than a decade to achieve its goals.

The survey results also suggest that despite the military’s efforts to address mental-health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, stigma associated with the conditions lingers.

About 15 percent of active-duty respondents said they are suffering from or have suffered from PTSD, TBI or other mental health issues.

Most of those respondents said they sought help with the treatment. But four out of 10 said they believed seeking care for such disabilities would negatively affect their career.

Navy Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class William Rioseco, an instructor at Center for Security Forces, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, said mandatory post-deployment screening across all services would help to reduce stigma associated with mental health disorders.

“Like PT, it should be mandatory. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in action, or you’re doing support,” he said. “If you’re in a combat zone, you’re subject for mandatory psychoanalysis because people can get affected by different things.”


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...l_main_122908/

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Although realistic about the challenges ahead, troops overwhelmingly support the mission in Afghanistan.

Eight out of 10 respondents said the U.S. should have gone to war in Afghanistan. Nearly the same amount support plans to boost the number of troops there by more than 20,000, for a total of more than 50,000.

“We just don’t have enough manpower to be out there doing what we need to do, winning the hearts and minds and so forth,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4 Jay Brewer, a meteorological and oceanographic officer with Marine Forces Pacific who has twice deployed to Iraq. “In Iraq, when we increased the number of troops, we were able to increase our presence full-time in certain areas.”

While the majority of respondents expressed some degree of optimism the U.S. will succeed in Afghanistan, 30 percent said troops will need to stay for more than a decade to achieve its goals.

Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...l_main_122908/

I find this interesting. It's been about 2.5 years since I was last in Afghanistan. I vividly remember a conversation I had with several of our Afghan translators. They were extremely grateful to the US for the toppling of the Taliban. One called it a debt that can never be repaid. However, when it came to the subject of a post-US Afghanistan, their statements were unanimously and overwhelmingly negative. They said as soon as we left, Afghanistan would slip back into tribalism; the central government will never survive on its own. They said that unless the US plans on staying forever, everything we're building is ultimately for naught.

That was quite an eye-opener. I would like to see some questions answered:
- What is America's long-term plan for that region?
- Are we going to be there "forever"? If so, the very important question of "WHY?" needs to be asked.
- We've spent billions building up the ANA and ANP. Are we doing nothing more than heavily arming future warlord factions? (My translators said that that is exactly what we're doing.)
- Why do we think we can, in just a few years, build a national identity when the people themselves don't want one, preferring their tribal or regional heritage to a nationalistically derived one?
- 10 years and 100,000 Russian troops couldn't tame the region. Why do we think we can?

[Gunny_2862]

Although I understand the feelings associated with being unsure of a newly elected president, I do not know why or how some people draw the conclusions that a president who hasn't served a day in the military is any worse than one who has, or use it as a point of worry on how he will deal with us (remember, Pres. Bush served in the Guard and never flew in combat during Vietnam). No president is required to have served, and even if he had, would have no significant bearing on the majority of civic responsibilities that the president will deal with. This has become a new trend that I find quite disturbing. I do understand the reasoning behind being concerned about our military futures, will it result in troop reductions and pay cuts...only time will tell, but nothing that every new president doesn't get questioned on.

Abe Lincoln was a young president with relatively no experience when he became elected. He took over in rough time and led the country through it's darkest hours, which in the end, re-unified the states back into one nation. He still is defined as a great leader who rallied the support of the states to fight (against popular opinion, especially as the war dragged on past the 1st year, most northerners thought it would be done by the first winter and did not want to continue to fight), irregardless that most thought (and were correct according to the constitution) that those seceded states could remain independent, legally. He however, had the foresight to realize that if the Confederacy, if left to break away unchecked, would continue anytime states disagreed with the union and we would eventually be a broken and weak continent of individual states, without a central government, ready to be taken back over by Europe whenever they deemed fit. So youth and perceived inexperience does not necessitate a panic mode reaction, let's see who he surrounds himself with and how he deals with the future before worrying too much over milk that hasn't even spilled yet.

As for the 1st Lt (Air Force) questioning how it's going to happen (without dire consequences), let the generals brief to him (Obama) the plan and if it's not possible due to putting us at an unnecessary risk, I'm sure it won't happen all at once, or maybe not at all in the originally proposed 16 months. We have been working on allowing the Iraqi's to govern themselves and when the time is near, we say they can't handle it and that we must stay longer. Let's ensure we give the Iraqi's the training and knowledge they need to do this themselves and then let them do it. This is their country....no need to come back if it doesn't work out, but a valid question that will drive how long and to what capacity we stay here. Remember, he wanted to get elected and a vast majority of voters hinged their votes on him getting us out of here, right or wrong.

Our true fight is, and always was Afghanistan, and I'm glad we are finally getting over there, to do what should have been done so long ago. We'll probably never catch Bin Laden now, but we still can crush the Taliban where they are the strongest, which is better then being here in Iraq. Realistically, the U.N. should have sanctioned this war in Iraq before we did since Iraq violated almost every tenant of it's surrender following the 1991 U.N. invasion. However, since the current U.N. is now a bunch of windbags who do nothing like the League of Nations did prior to WWI, this is of no huge surprise. The U.N. has outlasted it's usefulness and needs to re-evaluate how it interacts with the world, especially countries in need, you know, the things it was designed to do following WWII.

Regardless, I'm optimistic that things will be ok, and will continue to be this way until given a reason to change my views. It can't be much worse than having a two front conflict, basic liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Patriot Act (or shall we call it the Fascist Act), and followed by an economic collapse, all under the same administration. Let's hope the next administration paid attention to what took place over the past 8+ years to make some headway both at war and on the home front so as not to repeat the same mistakes again.

re previous poster

How were your basic liberties and freedoms supressed? Aside from it being a pain in the posterior going through airports.

Cite some personal examples and maybe your last paragraph may hold more water.

[Variable Wind]

Abe Lincoln was a young president with relatively no experience when he became elected. He took over in rough time and led the country through it's darkest hours, which in the end, re-unified the states back into one nation. He still is defined as a great leader who rallied the support of the states to fight (against popular opinion, especially as the war dragged on past the 1st year, most northerners thought it would be done by the first winter and did not want to continue to fight), irregardless that most thought (and were correct according to the constitution) that those seceded states could remain independent, legally. He however, had the foresight to realize that if the Confederacy, if left to break away unchecked, would continue anytime states disagreed with the union and we would eventually be a broken and weak continent of individual states, without a central government, ready to be taken back over by Europe whenever they deemed fit. So youth and perceived inexperience does not necessitate a panic mode reaction, let's see who he surrounds himself with and how he deals with the future before worrying too much over milk that hasn't even spilled yet.

Thus began the era of Big Government. Its sprialed out of control since FDR decided it was the solution to all of our country's problems. How wrong he was. I dont see Obama as another Lincoln, I see him as another FDR. A president who will exasterbate the economic crisis rather than remedy it.

Our true fight is, and always was Afghanistan, and I'm glad we are finally getting over there, to do what should have been done so long ago. We'll probably never catch Bin Laden now, but we still can crush the Taliban where they are the strongest, which is better then being here in Iraq. Realistically, the U.N. should have sanctioned this war in Iraq before we did since Iraq violated almost every tenant of it's surrender following the 1991 U.N. invasion. However, since the current U.N. is now a bunch of windbags who do nothing like the League of Nations did prior to WWI, this is of no huge surprise. The U.N. has outlasted it's usefulness and needs to re-evaluate how it interacts with the world, especially countries in need, you know, the things it was designed to do following WWII.

Obama wants to increase our involvement with the UN. Im sure youll agree that the UN is the most corrupt political coalition in existance today. As much as I disagree with Obama on so many issues, if he stood up and said that he would leave the UN and allow the US to stand independent, I would have cast my vote for him for almost that alone. 45% of the UNs funding comes from us, I would rather see that in the taxpayers hands. Im sure we could use that money right now.

Regardless, I'm optimistic that things will be ok, and will continue to be this way until given a reason to change my views. It can't be much worse than having a two front conflict, basic liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Patriot Act (or shall we call it the Fascist Act), and followed by an economic collapse, all under the same administration. Let's hope the next administration paid attention to what took place over the past 8+ years to make some headway both at war and on the home front so as not to repeat the same mistakes again.

Correction, the fairness doctrine is the Facist Act. And blame cannot rest solely on a presidential administration. I dont know how much real change you expect when most of Obama's cabinet is full of the same old politicians Obama promised he was different than. Its SSDD and when people realize this youll see a LOT of incumbents losing their seats. Honestly I think need term limits of maybe 3 terms MAX. Theres a reason Mr Smith wont go to washington now.

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

Thus began the era of Big Government. Its sprialed out of control since FDR decided it was the solution to all of our country's problems. How wrong he was. I dont see Obama as another Lincoln, I see him as another FDR. A president who will exasterbate the economic crisis rather than remedy it.



Obama wants to increase our involvement with the UN. Im sure youll agree that the UN is the most corrupt political coalition in existance today. As much as I disagree with Obama on so many issues, if he stood up and said that he would leave the UN and allow the US to stand independent, I would have cast my vote for him for almost that alone. 45% of the UNs funding comes from us, I would rather see that in the taxpayers hands. Im sure we could use that money right now.


Correction, the fairness doctrine is the Facist Act. And blame cannot rest solely on a presidential administration. I dont know how much real change you expect when most of Obama's cabinet is full of the same old politicians Obama promised he was different than. Its SSDD and when people realize this youll see a LOT of incumbents losing their seats. Honestly I think need term limits of maybe 3 terms MAX. Theres a reason Mr Smith wont go to washington now.

Correction: the UN is not the most corrupt political coalition in existence (not existance), but the Bush White House certainly deserves that honour.

[Pueblo]

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

Correction, the fairness doctrine is the Facist Act.

It's a stupid policy kid, but get ahold of yourself. The Fairness Doctrine isn't 1 for 1 equal time, it does require a balance of voice, but that voice can be once a week at 4 AM. It's certainly a misuse of government power, but it barely cracks the top 1,000 on anyone's priority list.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Gunny_2862

Although I understand the feelings associated with being unsure of a newly elected president, I do not know why or how some people draw the conclusions that a president who hasn't served a day in the military is any worse than one who has, or use it as a point of worry on how he will deal with us (remember, Pres. Bush served in the Guard and never flew in combat during Vietnam). No president is required to have served, and even if he had, would have no significant bearing on the majority of civic responsibilities that the president will deal with. This has become a new trend that I find quite disturbing. I do understand the reasoning behind being concerned about our military futures, will it result in troop reductions and pay cuts...only time will tell, but nothing that every new president doesn't get questioned on.

Abe Lincoln was a young president with relatively no experience when he became elected. He took over in rough time and led the country through it's darkest hours, which in the end, re-unified the states back into one nation. He still is defined as a great leader who rallied the support of the states to fight (against popular opinion, especially as the war dragged on past the 1st year, most northerners thought it would be done by the first winter and did not want to continue to fight), irregardless that most thought (and were correct according to the constitution) that those seceded states could remain independent, legally. He however, had the foresight to realize that if the Confederacy, if left to break away unchecked, would continue anytime states disagreed with the union and we would eventually be a broken and weak continent of individual states, without a central government, ready to be taken back over by Europe whenever they deemed fit. So youth and perceived inexperience does not necessitate a panic mode reaction, let's see who he surrounds himself with and how he deals with the future before worrying too much over milk that hasn't even spilled yet.

As for the 1st Lt (Air Force) questioning how it's going to happen (without dire consequences), let the generals brief to him (Obama) the plan and if it's not possible due to putting us at an unnecessary risk, I'm sure it won't happen all at once, or maybe not at all in the originally proposed 16 months. We have been working on allowing the Iraqi's to govern themselves and when the time is near, we say they can't handle it and that we must stay longer. Let's ensure we give the Iraqi's the training and knowledge they need to do this themselves and then let them do it. This is their country....no need to come back if it doesn't work out, but a valid question that will drive how long and to what capacity we stay here. Remember, he wanted to get elected and a vast majority of voters hinged their votes on him getting us out of here, right or wrong.

Our true fight is, and always was Afghanistan, and I'm glad we are finally getting over there, to do what should have been done so long ago. We'll probably never catch Bin Laden now, but we still can crush the Taliban where they are the strongest, which is better then being here in Iraq. Realistically, the U.N. should have sanctioned this war in Iraq before we did since Iraq violated almost every tenant of it's surrender following the 1991 U.N. invasion. However, since the current U.N. is now a bunch of windbags who do nothing like the League of Nations did prior to WWI, this is of no huge surprise. The U.N. has outlasted it's usefulness and needs to re-evaluate how it interacts with the world, especially countries in need, you know, the things it was designed to do following WWII.

Regardless, I'm optimistic that things will be ok, and will continue to be this way until given a reason to change my views. It can't be much worse than having a two front conflict, basic liberties and freedoms suppressed by the Patriot Act (or shall we call it the Fascist Act), and followed by an economic collapse, all under the same administration. Let's hope the next administration paid attention to what took place over the past 8+ years to make some headway both at war and on the home front so as not to repeat the same mistakes again.

Can you provide a list of "basic liberties and freedoms" you had prior to the Patriot Act and no longer have? Can you list specific instances where you were denied "basic liberties and freedoms"? What did the ACLU say when you contacted them about this denial of your "basic liberties and freedoms"?

[Variable Wind]

Originally Posted by Pueblo

It's a stupid policy kid, but get ahold of yourself. The Fairness Doctrine isn't 1 for 1 equal time, it does require a balance of voice, but that voice can be once a week at 4 AM. It's certainly a misuse of government power, but it barely cracks the top 1,000 on anyone's priority list.

There are just so many things you say that are wrong.

"Requires a balance of voice"? It forces a company to take away a perfectly legitimate and profitable program and replace it with something that has been proven to be UNprofitable. Noone listens to liberal talk radio.

Even if it is as you say (and its not), it shouldnt matter if its 4am or 12pm, the government shouldnt be controlling what we hear. We choose to listen to talk radio, there are plenty of other options.

And the doctrine is 1 for 1 equal time alternating. That means Rush for 3 hours then some liberal loser for 3 hours then Hannity for 3 hours then another liberal loser for 3 hours. In essence the radio stations could lose up to half of their advertising revenue in a time where advertising is dropping.

I never claimed that this was a top priority but the poster referred to the patriot act as the facist act. I merely corrected him on what that name should really be applied to. Washington doesnt like people like Rush or Beck who are constantly calling them out on the insanely long list of mistakes and screwups that go on. Think back this year, it less than 10 seconds I can count of 6 or 7 scandals that occured during this year. Blagovitch, Spitzer, Caroline Kennedy, Detroit Mayor, Rev Wright, Ted Stevens, Hillary Clinton and the sniper fire, Resko, Barney Frank/Freddie/Fannie Mae. Catching my drift yet? Wait I forgot youre slow.

[Pueblo]

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

Even if it is as you say (and its not)

Go read what the fairness doctrine was, then you can say what it is and is not.

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

it shouldnt matter if its 4am or 12pm, the government shouldnt be controlling what we hear. We choose to listen to talk radio, there are plenty of other options.

You're right, they shouldn't. However, this is your chance to enact payback on those dirty dogs in the liberal media

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

And the doctrine is 1 for 1 equal time alternating.

Seriously, go read it. You're thinking of equal time, not the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine never was 1:1. You're simply wrong. The potential for abuse from the Patriot Act is far more likely than any wave of facism from the Fairness Doctrine, even if it meant equal time.