 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
The 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
Second 424
Third or more 276
Refuse 0
Total 944
5. How many months have you served in Iraq?
Less than 6 240
6-12 409
More than one year 295
Refuse 0
Total 944
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
2 - Minor reason
3 - Major reason
4 - Main reason
5 - Not sure
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.
