The Dallas Morning News January 09, 2007
Military backing of Bush war policies takes a hit
Survey points to troop frustration, experts say, but status quo expected
By David McLemore
As President Bush prepares to announce his plans to add troops in Iraq, more active-duty troops now disapprove of the president's war policies than support them, according to a year-end survey by Military Times newspapers.
Experts say the results, drawn from some of the more conservative career-track military, reflect a growing weariness and frustration over lack of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, according to Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the result could be increased problems with retention and recruitment.
"What's not reflected in the poll is the sense of exhaustion and stress placed on the troops and their families," Mr. Rieckhoff said. "We've seen tremendous sacrifices by soldiers and their families with two or more deployments, a lot of dead and wounded, and for what?"
On Wednesday, Mr. Bush is expected to announce his plan for Iraq and call for a surge in troops of at least 20,000. Democrats and Republicans alike have assailed the surge as too little, too late.
The survey, mailed to 6,000 active-duty subscribers to Military Times' four newspapers aimed at the military services, showed that 42 percent of those surveyed disapprove of Mr. Bush's handling of the war, compared with 35 percent who support it.
It marks the first time that the president's Iraq war policies failed to gain majority support since the Military Times began its annual survey four years ago.
A spokesman for the Defense Department declined to comment, noting that the survey was not a representative sampling of the entire military.
Michele Flournoy, senior adviser for international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the results are significant in that they demonstrate the growing divide between the military and the Bush administration.
"The military is a consistently conservative swath of the population that is now showing significant decline in support of the war," she said. "However, I don't see it influencing the administration's views on the conduct of the war. The White House is aware there is significant debate nationally that reflects a deep divide over Iraq, but they've just named new commanders who will salute smartly and go forward."
This year's survey also showed a 15 percentage point decline in those who believe the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq – to 41 percent from 56 percent reported last year.
The "findings are consistent with what we hear from our membership – and it results from a growing sense of frustration over the lack of progress in Iraq," said Mr. Rieckhoff.
Not surprised
John Pike, executive director of the defense startegy think tank GlobalSecurity.org, does not find the results so surprising.
"I'd be more concerned if the results didn't reflect a similarity with the general public," Mr. Pike said. "It's not good news for President Bush, though I don't see this as a problem for continuing his Iraq policy. It doesn't reflect anything like the disaffection in the ranks we saw in Vietnam, when some units declined combat towards the end of the war."
Phillip Carter, whose military analysis blog Intel Dump is popular with veterans and armchair generals alike, said the military's disillusionment stems, in part, from weariness from three years of repeated and lengthy deployments and an uncertain war plan. The president's proposal to "surge" an additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops into Iraq to better secure violence-racked Baghdad for a beleaguered Iraqi government hasn't made things better, he said.
"The military establishment is skeptical of the president's plan to surge more troops," said Mr. Carter, an attorney and Army Reserve captain who served in Iraq in 2004. "They may be more quick to ascribe political motives to a plan they are skeptical will actually work.
"What I don't see is a liberalizing of the military," he said. "The real gap is between the expectations of 2002 and the realities of 2007. ... The military has worked its butt off in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will accept the sacrifice of being in harm's way if it's going to work. If it's not going to work, they're going to ask if it's worth it."
It's not just the junior and midlevel officers and enlisted ranks that find little to like about the surge.
Gen. John Abizaid, soon to be replaced as commander of the Central Command, told Congress recently that bringing additional U.S. troops would not add to the ability to achieve success.
And syndicated columnist Oliver North, one of the president's staunchest allies on Iraq, wrote in a Jan. 5 column, "A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."
Morale implications
Mr. Pike of GlobalSecurity.org does not see a decline in military morale in the survey's findings.
"It's simply that this was not a well-planned nor well-executed war," he said. "There is a failure on the part of leadership to communicate to the military and to the nation why we're fighting in Iraq.
"Historians will find that war policy is not this administration's strong point. But the reasons to be in Iraq will withstand scrutiny," Mr. Pike said. "The policies in Iraq can be salvaged and must be salvaged. The alternative of just simply pulling out and leaving is hard to think about."
According to Robert Hodierne, senior managing editor at Army Times Publishing Co., the mail survey was conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22 of 6,000 subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The Military Times publications are independent of the military and its annual survey should not be read as representative of the military as a whole, he said. Nor should the survey be considered anti-Bush, since his overall performance as president surveyed at 52 percent, still significantly higher than the mid-30s polled among the general population.
"Our subscribers are older, averaging about 36, and are largely the more career-oriented senior enlisted and field-grade officers or above," Mr. Hodierne said. "This is the professional core of the military, and I hope that the Bush administration is paying attention to what the troops say.
"These are not some liberal, cut-and-run types. These are the people who stand and give the orders that put other lives at risk, and they're saying they don't have confidence in how the war is being conducted."
Disconnect shown
The findings also show a disconnect between the military and their civilian leadership.
Some 32 percent agreed that the civilian leadership has the military's best interest at heart, while 59 percent disagreed. And 72 percent believe the military is stretched too thin because of the war to be effective.
That tracks closely with sentiments expressed throughout the ranks of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, Mr. Rieckhoff said.
"The management of the war has been consistently problematic, and a lot of troops see the surge as just another [half-baked] policy to wage war on the cheap," Mr. Rieckhoff said. "There's a lot of concern that we just continue to sacrifice while everyone else goes shopping."
"What we're hearing military folks say is that the GOP got us in the mess and the Democrats don't have a plan to get us out," Mr. Rieckhoff said. "We're a people without a party."
Nor should anyone fear the military will slack off on its combat responsibilities, Mr. Rieckhoff said.
Over time, the military's disaffection with Bush administration war policies may translate into recruitment and retention problems, he said.
"We're working under an operational tempo that is grinding our people down," Mr. Rieckhoff said. "The military is stretched thin, equipment is worn out and needs replacing and a lot of people who truly love the military are opting out for civilian jobs. And we're losing a lot of excellent people we really can't afford to lose."
© Copyright 2007, The Dallas Morning News Co.
