 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! March 5, 2006 Did Zogby Get Punked?By GreyhawkThe recent Zogby Poll is very much in the news these days. Until now I haven't weighed in on this myself - I've been awaiting additional details. But I think we've learned all we are likely to on this topic, and unfortunately that ain't much. I don't want to dispute the poll, I want to understand it. I can't dispute or support the results without some minimum undestanding of them. And honestly I don't get it. Some details on that Zogby poll - actual questions asked, along with the number of responses for each answer. Here are a couple with odd results. 4. Is this your first, second, or third tour of Iraq ? First 244 5. How many months have you served in Iraq? Less than 6 240 The Army spends 12 month (or longer) tours in Iraq - therefore anyone on their second or third tour would have at least 12 (or even 24) months in country. But while 700 respondents to the poll claim to be on their second or third tour, only 295 say they've spent more than a year there. Of the 944 people polled, 240 were Marines - they serve shorter tours - but this doesn't account for the odd result. (And apparently Navy and Air Force members weren't polled at all.) Has the Bush administration be lying about tour lengths? Could the poll be flawed - say by people filing out answers at random? Did they simply not understand the questions? Or am I missing something? Likewise this result - only 22% say U.S. troops should stay in Iraq as long as they are needed. But when asked why they think some Americans favor rapid withdrawal, 37% say "because they are unpatriotic". So some percentage of the troops who want to withdraw before the mission is complete also think Americans who favor withdrawal are "unpatriotic". This isnt nitpicking; responses to other questions are also incomprehensible. These results defy analysis. And the only explanation I can offer for this is that a large percentage of respondents answered randomly - perhaps without even reading the question. (Or perhaps they couldn't read English?) I repeat, I don't want to dispute the poll, I want to understand it. I can't dispute or support the results without some minimum undestanding of them. And I'm not saying these results can't be explained - I'm asking if anyone can explain them? Anybody? Bueller? Update: Ignoring for a moment the questions about the validity of the Zogby Poll, purely for argument's sake lets assume that the responses to the question "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" accurately reflect the opinions of GIs there. I believe they might - but I also recognize that without further clarification those responses serve no useful purpose beyond headlines for newspapers, sound bites for political candidates, and bumper stickers for the anti-war crowd. But my concerns about the mission in Iraq are actually about the mission in Iraq - not its impact on domestic issues. And in my mind the question begs additional questions, and they certainly could have been asked. Using the same format Zogby used, I think answers to these extra questions I've come up with could yield some useful results... Please rate the following statements as reasons for your response to the "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq" question using the following scale: 1 - Not a reason The goal is no longer worth the effort or cost, time to cut our losses 1 2 3 4 5. Not sure The presence of US troops is now causing more problems then it solves 1 2 3 4 5. Not sure By that point in time Iraqi forces will be capable of handling the mission on their own 1 2 3 4 5. Not sure Iraqi forces will never assume responsibility on their own until we depart 1 2 3 4 5. Not sure Victory over the insurgency would require a more aggressive response from US forces. Current rules of engagement place too many limitations on our ability to fight back, and public opinion will not support the actions we should take to win. There's no sense in staying under those conditions. 1 2 3 4 5. Not sure I'd welcome the answers to these, whatever they may be - but again, my concerns about the mission in Iraq are actually about the mission in Iraq, not its impact on domestic issues. But I think the sponsor of the Zogby Poll (a "wealthy anti-war activist") might be surprised at the number of GIs who believe the US should be more aggressive in Iraq, per my last question above. I can offer anecdotal evidence from personal experience, although I don't hold that opinion myself. But this is reflected in responses to questions that were asked - over half agree that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." But don't worry about whether that aggression is misplaced - when asked if ongoing attacks on US troops had made them "more negative about the Iraqi people" 80% said no. Posted by Greyhawk / March 5, 2006 4:28 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacks14 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Greyhawk,
The inconsistacis you note dovetail with the fact that no one seems to be able to find anyone in Iraq who either answered or refused to answer these poll questions. It something of a cliché to say this, but the mystery deepens!
Radio blogger had the survey up, and the servicemembers didn't read it, the people taking the survey read it to them.
The Center for Peace and Global studies funded and approved the questions for the poll, though Zogby claims they aren't "anti-war" the questions didn't look designed to come up with a "nice picture" of the soldiers feelings either.
At the beginning of the war the rotations were only 6 months long.
>>...the servicemembers didn't read it, the people taking the survey read it to them.>>
How? do they have telemarketer access to soldiers' phone numbers? did the soldiers volunteer their numbers? did members of Zogby's team go over to Iraq? did interviewers have tables in mess halls? I'm curious as to just exactly _how_ Zogby is supposed to have taken this poll - from a totally practical point of view...the nuts and bolts.
Greg
That may account for it, but if I recall correctly most tours were extended to the full year.
It surprises me such a small percentage report more than 12 months in Iraq. I thought that number would be higher.
The goal is no longer worth the effort or cost, time to cut our losses
ANSWER: 5 - "Not sure"
The presence of US troops is now causing more problems then it solves
ANSWER: 5 - "Not sure"
By that point in time Iraqi forces will be capable of handling the mission on their own
ANSWER: 5 - "Not sure"
Iraqi forces will never assume responsibility on their own until we depart
ANSWER: 5 - "Not sure"
Victory over the insurgency would require a more aggressive response from US forces. Current rules of engagement place too many limitations on our ability to fight back, and public opinion will not support the actions we should take to win. There's no sense in staying under those conditions.
ANSWER: 4 - "Main reason"
-----------------
Just my own personal opinion on the subject. As much as I hate to admit it, the liberals have turned our conduct of foreign wars into a "lovefest" where ZERO collateral damage is acceptable in obtaining the objective, whatever it might actually BE in Iraq in the first place.
The reason for this has nothing to do with the liberals being "panzies" as much as it has to do with the fact that they just do not believe in this war. If China were to nuke Los Angeles, suddenly, LOAC, rules of engagement, collateral damage, and all of the rest of it would go out the window in a heartbeat as the liberals would stand side by side with the conservatives to satisfy the need for revenge and national security.
But with Iraq, who can blame the liberals for losing excitement for this war when we went there because of faulty intelligence (arguable of course)? If we're there to "liberate", they see a hypocrisy in liberating Iraqis and allowing the people of Sudan and Darfur to continue being victims of mass genocide.
But that got a little off-topic, sorry about that, but I think it does tie in.
As for the Zogby poll, wouldn't those numbers be about right with any war since WW-II (and maybe even that one, too) a few years into it when it's a Q&A of troops in the war zone? Sounds about right to me.
Great topic!
I think it's interesting that females are represented at so much higher a rate than their presence in Iraq.
As I recall in the RadioBlogger interview with Zogby(http://www.radioblogger.com/#001431), the polling partner in the ME was called "Information International" (http://www.information-international.com/), a Beirut based firm. I couldn't find anything on their site about the poll, which could be due to the arrangement with Zogby. The inference, of course, being they actually have locals to contact people directly, but who knows.
If they only had access to rear-echelon or support troops, that could explain the higher female ratio than the overall female servicement ratio in country, perhaps?
As to time served in Iraq - depending on how well (or badly) the geographic distribution is spread - perhaps the answer involves how recently they have come (back) to Iraq?
If we're there to "liberate", they see a hypocrisy in liberating Iraqis and allowing the people of Sudan and Darfur to continue being victims of mass genocide.
GTL ... where are the protests in SUPPORT of stopping the genocide? All I hear from the Leftists is "OUT OF IRAQ NOW!" -- I don't think that the Sudanese tragedy is even on their rhetorical radarscopes.
Not surprising, as they set their priorities based on who they view is the greatest enemy ... and between their traditional disdain for societies based upon the attributes of free-market capitalism and personal responsibility, and the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome among such as these, it is no wonder that the Main Enemy for these comrades is still, after all these years ... America.
Of course, our leadership has to set priorites based on the nature of the threats we face as well ... and since, in accordance with Leftist views of "peace", we were talked out of taking care of Saddam in 1991, and dissuaded from doing anything significant about Al Quada before 11 Sept 2001 ... we just don't have the time to deal with the Sudan right now, as they are not actively seeking to kill our citizens and other free people outside their borders.
Maybe we could ask the French and Germans to take this on ...
Army tours are indeed 12 months (give or take a month, depending rotation schedules) - and have been for some time. Yet I do not think there is any necessary discrepancy between the number of tours and length of time in Iraq. If you asked me those two questions, I would be inclined to interpret, and respond, to them independently. Thus if I were on my second tour and you asked how long I had been in Iraq an answer of 0 - 6 months or 6-12 months or longer than 12 months are all plausible; the previous tour is over and done with. If you want to know cumulative time in Iraq (for all tours served), rephrase the question.
Zogby's brother runs an Arab "anti-discrimination" organization of some sort, does he not?
Just asking.
Well, I've been in touch with several folks over there who still can't find anyone who has either taken the poll or even who has refused to take the poll.
Truth in advertising up front: I'm Mike Lawhorn, an Army public affairs officer currently on assignment at Fox News in New York City. I also blog at www.xanga.com/kosovodad. Right now I'm working on the "your world with Neil Cavuto" show and they're probably going to do a piece next week on why soldiers/marines might think that way..is it because they think things are going badly or because they actually see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've posted some stuff on this, but the bottom line is that seriouis pollsters have some concerns about (see www.mysterypollster.com) and you may want to also check out http://www.hughhewitt.com/ Mr. Hewitt interviewed Zogby, who hung up on Hewitt when he got ticked off. At that link, you have to scroll down quite a bit to find it, better to just search for "Zogby" on the page and let that take you to it.
I'd appreciate any information on anyone that actuallys finds someone involved in this poll...
Mike at kosovodad@yahoo.com or michael.lawhorn@foxnews.com
Rick hit it right on the nose. That same thought was formulating in my head as I was reading the comments. Many soldiers probably answered how long they had been on their current tour. The question is sufficiently vague to not really mean anything at all.
As for the rest of the poll, who knows? But I think it's fair to say that no matter how much troops might want to go home, they're darn good at getting the job done, even if they might not completely agree with it.
Rich:
"GTL ... where are the protests in SUPPORT of stopping the genocide? All I hear from the Leftists is "OUT OF IRAQ NOW!" -- I don't think that the Sudanese tragedy is even on their rhetorical radarscopes.
I dunno, Rich. Not to be a smartass here, but I'd like to point out to you that I am a Liberal with a capital "L". I couldn't even begin to explain where the "leftists" are coming from on this one. "Liberal" does not equal "leftist", contrary to what the MSM might try and convince you. To me, the "leftists" are my enemy every bit as much as they are yours.
Sorry if that didn't help clarify things for you... but I tried. This isn't a "war" between two ideologies, it is a "war" between four. Liberals, leftists, conservatives, and NoeCons are the players involved. Narrowing it down to two (libs and conservatives) is not only misleading, it's a fantastic way to lose a war.