The Spc said: "If they (the American people) don't think we're doing a good job, everything we've done here is in vain." Reminds me of a current quasi-propaganda radio campaign by the pentagon; it changes its name , but last i heard, it was SupportOurTroops.mil, and the voice (of an airman, i think, says: "...(your letters) fill me with a sense of pride, and i never would have felt it (Pride), if it hadn't been for all of you." WHAT THE F???? If there's no more esprit de corps in the non-marines than what they can glom onto from Outside, from Anywhere, we're worse off than I thought. When I was in, we had a (mild, humourous) DISDAIN for civilians. Now they pout about some Joe Blow they don't know????" Not that they ALL think this, but it must be the "Army of One" philosophy coming home to roost. ("One" NOT meaning unit cohesion, but plainly ,by the ads, ego development/ self-realization). Sorry, we can't hold hands in combat. Once again, these complainers are being put forward as representative of a disillusioned military. I would say not being allowed to WIN the war is the reason, but they would get Court Martialed for saying so. Meanwhile this cynical psy-ops media campaign grinds on. Operation Allaboutbush.

"People are dying here. You know what I'm saying? You may support the troops, but you're not supporting what they do. But that's what we're sweatin' for, what believe for, what we're dyin' for. It just don't make sense to me." --Spc. Johnson.

It doesn't make sense to a lot of Americans, Spc. Johnson. Just don't let those bastards drag you down, Specialist.

"One thing I don't like is when people say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Staff Srg. Shagan (pardon the spelling).

Damn straight, Sergeant. Keep up the good work despite them.

"I don't support the war, but I support the troops." It's the battle cry of the lukewarm. The jellyfish who wants it both ways. The invertebrate who is opposed to war, but doesn't have the cojones to be honest. You can't support a soldier who is mowing down 'insurgents' and be opposed to the war. There is no valid dissection of the troops from the war.

As Americans, we have the right to give voice to our opinions. So, please, don't kinda, sorta protest. Grow a spine, show those who support the war that you've got balls. Come out and say you're opposed to every part of the war...including the troops. At least you'd be respected. Or not.

Rummy, " I doubt the the conflict would last 6-months"!

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

bryan, I didn't know you had served. Thank you for your service.

Sorry, we can't hold hands in combat. Once again, these complainers are being put forward as representative of a disillusioned military.

Would that be comparable to a few retired generals coming forward to complain about Rumsfeld, and then being treated as represenative of the military?
It seems minority opinions are only treated as truth when you happen to agree with the opinion being espoused?

Rummy, " I doubt the the conflict would last 6-months"!

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

Barney:

The only persons responsible for loosing this war is the Bush administration.

What war was won through withdrawal?

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

You tell 'em Lorie!

Zogby = zero credibility.

heralder: the grunts' in the video and the retired generals' complaints are a symptom of a badly mis-managed war. If this war would have ended 2 1/2 years ago, those grunts would not have been dwelling on the chorus of complaints back home. We were firmly in the just-around-the-corner mindset then. The generals were more in-the-loop and had to implement a variety of strategic objectives that were not militarily sound. They had to retire before going public. Rumsfeld was notoriously prickly, moody, and thin-skinned, and was no help in the chain of command. There has been and still is a dual-track policy, and one of the tracks is war with Iran, and needs to be stopped.

Also from the same Zogby poll:

Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don't believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

Further on:

A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

Curiously absent from the Zogby poll is the failure to ask the troops if they'd like to leave within the year knowing their mission has been accomplished or leave before the mission is complete. Hmmm, now why wouldn't Zogby ask a question directly related and give context to the 72% figure? Hmmm, I can't imagine...

Barney is another typical liberal who is trying to make excuse for the traitorous and despicable behavior of the liberal left in this war. The biggest mistake of Bush in this war was not to plan for the betrayal of the liberals against America. He lacked a plan to deal with the propaganda war the liberal left has been willing to wage against him and the US military on behalf of the terrorists.

Again, liberals are not honest enough to admit who they are and their responsibilities. They never apologized for the genocide in Indochina due to their policies. They will never accept their responsibility in the GWOT. I expect the liberals would behave as Barney would. They are simply in a moral sewage and they know it. So they have to lie/distort to cover up their despicable stand.

Oops, I meant to add this, also from Zogby:

...29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately," while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay "as long as they are needed....Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows."

Um, I'm no pollster, but is thiswhere Zogby plucked the 72% number from? Because, frankly, that looks like a mixed bag of opinion from mixed branches. Just curious.

Oh, and one last thing: Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies helped sponsor the poll. Certainly there's no bias on their part asking in framing questions in a way that supports their viewpoint. Nah, couldn't be.

When it comes to this poll, I believe the phrase I'm looking for is "inherently flawed."

Cant wait to see the lib reaction when san fran or berkeley or their dope stash is bombed.

Will they grow a set then?

"Will they grow a set then?"

Those Cowards? Never! Those losers will just smoke Oregano and put on a fake stoned face.

"The biggest mistake of Bush in this war was not to plan for the betrayal of the liberals against America. " posted by LAI

I agree, that would have been sooo much easier than running the war competently, but since he did neither, we are sh*t out of luck

I support the troops and oppose the civilian leadership that has led us into disaster in Iraq.

It wasn't the troops who disbanded the Iraqi military and police throwing half a million angry Iraqi men into the streets with no way to put food on the table. It wasn't the troops who conducted a sweeping deBaathification program that crippled the Iraqi government and threw more thousands out of work. It wasn't the troops who decided only 150,000 of them should take on this war. It wasn't the troops who promoted the (first) Iraqi election that the Sunnis boycotted. It wasn't the troops who forced a Constitution on the Sunni population that they overwhelmingly opposed. It wasn't the troops who put Shiite extremists closely allied with Iran into the Iraqi government. It wasn't the troops who failed to understand the depth of the Sunni-Shiite schism in the Islamic world.

The troops have done their job in Iraq (brilliantly I might add). It's the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and White House that has failed to do theirs. It's the incompetence of people like Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld that has denied our troops the convincing victory they would otherwise have been able to achieve with different leadership.

If my local police force sets up a field sobriety checkpoint that clogs up traffic for miles and doesn't catch any drunk drivers can I oppose it or would opposing it mean I don't support my local police force?

Um, I'm no pollster, but is thiswhere Zogby plucked the 72% number from? Because, frankly, that looks like a mixed bag of opinion from mixed branches. Just curious.
Peter F.

29% said out immediately
+22% said out in 0-6 months
+21% said out in 6-12 months

= 72% out in 12 months or less

of course, it is not specific if these numbers overlap and I'm not familiar with how the poll was done. If they do overlap, then clearly you're boosting the number by counting the same people more than once.

To add to Larkin's list.
Bush has made two recent changes in the rules of engagement:
1) Iraqi officials can no longer abort an active mission involving US forces.

2) Iran agents are now legitimate target.

What I want to know is, why did it take the Bush administration nearly four years to figure out that:
A) Command and control powers of US forces by a foreign government was a bad thing.

B) Releasing Iranian agents back into the population was coddling terrorists.

one troop talked about "abandoning the mission"
As we all know "the mission" has morphed. What is our "mission" now? (by the way I can tell you from experience is that a troop's main mission is keep his/her buddies alive and stay alive themselves..)

We can and do support the warrior without supporting the Commander-in-Chief who hasn't been right yet.

This piece gives the valid opinions of a few...I respect that..but to think that all troops on their 2nd or third deployment share that viewpoint is naive....(that is why it wrong to compare this to Viet Nam...in Viet Nam we served one combat tour unless we volunteered..of course the draft provided plenty of replacements)

Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...
Where is the RESPECT there? Where are your demands that Bush allow this?

For all the lib trolls here:

Can you name any of the original lib ideas??

We know they hate walmart, big business and Big Oil, love the environment, prefer cheap gas and energy, love abortions, hate self-reliance, hate Fox, love the alphabet media, hate small govt, defends rights of child molestors, hate free speech if you dont agree with them, and support the parole of people like Tookie.

Larkin:

All fine and dandy. But it doesn't quite explain how one gets around the moral paradox of supporting the troops while simultaneously opposing the mission they've been sent to do. Answer how the two might be mutually exclusive and unrelated.

Larkin,

You posted the same simplistic comments before. I would attempt to explain, but since the answer is complex, I do not think you or any other liberal can grasp it. Oh, you forgot to blame the drug companies, insurance companies and Halliburton. YOu must be slipping. Same old song. You liberals bore me. Oh, but the way, I have noticed liberals posting that we have lost the war. Present tense. Wow. Their dream come true. ww

"Clay" here are some "jellyfish" websites
Iraq Veterans Against The War
http://www.ivaw.org

Military Families Against the War
http://www.mfaw.org

Veterans for Peace
http://www.veteransforpeace.org

Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...

nogo, as someone of military background you of all people should know that not showing flag-draped coffins has been official Pentagon/SD for some 30+ years now. It didn't happen in GW1, Grenada, Panama, Somalia or any other time. Show the families respect and not splash their grief all the front pages of every newspaper in the country. That shows respect, honor and dignity to the living and the dead.

sean:

If they do overlap, then clearly you're boosting the number by counting the same people more than once.

Is that the collective/general "you're" or is that more of a personal address?

I apologize for my error concerning Military Families against the War...that is a british organization..
Here in the Homeland is Military Families Speak Out..

http://www.mfso.org

..please tell these folks that they cannot be for the warrior without being for the war..
See ya tomorrow

..please tell these folks that they cannot be for the warrior without being for the war..

Happy to do it. In the meantime, would you deliver your message to my brother in Iraq and my cousin in Afghanistan? I double-dog dare you.

Bush Sr. was the first to do it (ya want a link)..even Reagan allowed it.. it still is not right...we had slavery here for over 200 years before it was abolished but that did not make it right
"Splash" They might want their loved one recognized for their sacrifice..Their names are not on the outside of the flag draped coffin...These brave men and women and their family and friends deserve more than "Seven Killed in Iraq Today" ...papers are not going to put every coffin, every day in their paper...

Is that the collective/general "you're" or is that more of a personal address?
Peter F.

Collective. I meant whoever is conducting the poll and presented the 72% amount for the first time.

Clay...I will be happy to send them a message that I pray they and their buddies come home safe..as I am sure everyone here desires..if you could post a mailing address I am sure folks would respond in a positive manner
....Knowing that you have family in combat explains your emotional attachment to this issue...I disagree with you but I do understand the fear anyone has when a family member is in combat...

nogo:

I stand corrected. You are right, I was wrong; Pre-GHWB, coffins were shown. In 1991, the Pentagon disallowed cameras returning to Dover and, later on, as an across the board policy. I agree with that policy as they are images far too often exploited, for better or worse, by politicians and anti-war activists. Let the families welcome their loved ones home in peace and privacy.

Larkin:

(I agree with you on many of the mistakes that the Bush administration made, I don't think that you understand the demographics and history.)

RE: It wasn't the troops who promoted the (first) Iraqi election that the Sunnis boycotted.
Free elections are a good idea, don't you agree? The Sunnis boycotted the first election because they want a return to the status quo: mainly Sunnis control. They didn't get it, and they shouldn't. It is a decision that they regretted and corrected the second time around. Sooner or later Constitutional government must happen, and minority (Sunni) rule isn't going to be the result.

RE: It wasn't the troops who forced a Constitution on the Sunni population that they overwhelmingly opposed.
No, and it wasn't the Bush administration, either. The Iraqi Constitution was approved by the majority of Iraqis.

RE: It wasn't the troops who put Shiite extremists closely allied with Iran into the Iraqi government.
No, but that's the way the majority voted.

RE: It wasn't the troops who failed to understand the depth of the Sunni-Shiite schism in the Islamic world.
And, apparently, neither do you.

Reality check:
1. The Shiite out-number the Sunnis 2-to-1.
2. The Sunnis were in power under Saddam.
3. Many Sunnis want to regain their former power and privileges.
4. That isn't going to happen.
5. In the event of full-scale civil war, the Shiites (with or without help from the Kurds) will exterminate the Sunni.
6. Constitutional government that protects the rights of all Iraqis will prevent this.
7. The Sunnis, more than any other group, appear to be undermining the process toward stable Constitutional government.
8. If the process fails, the people who are more likely to be ethnically cleansed are the Sunni.

What is the worst-case scenario?

If the Sunni and the Shiites absolutely insist on fighting each other to the death, the Middle East may errupt in ethnic violence that spreads throughout the region. However, the two groups will spend a lot of time and energy killing each other. They will be too busy fighting each other to stage many attacks against the West. A stable Iraqi government may emerge, built on the bleached bones of the Sunni. And the Iraqi Sunni will become the laughing stock of the region: they had the opportunity to seek a political settlement, they rejected it in favor of war, and they paid a terrible price for their lack of vision.

Hey Nogo, seven just died in my city alone. One of those deaths was thought to have been a smoldering fire. It was a smoldering corspe , body , dead person on the side of the road in broad daylight.

Did that sink in fool? The fire department was called to put out what was called a smoldering pile of trash. It was a fricken human being. Police are being shot at every day here , should they just give up too?

"Oh yeah...when will our government show respect to the fallen by allowing images their flag draped coffins coming into Dover...
"Where is the RESPECT there? Where are your demands that Bush allow this?"

You don't give a shit , you just want to use it as propaganda as a democrat tactic. You are basically saying that the Government is not showing any respect at all, You are pathetic , get a life. Oh ya , that is your life , Bashing Bush.

Amazeing how many lying lefties there are on this blog. They have to be lying as no one could be as stupid as they are. Frigging cowards.

Getting back to the original topic, I can certainly understand these soldiers' frustrations.

Not too long ago I was in a van from the airport to the hotel, and there was a couple behind me saying some pretty bad things about the war in Iraq. They didn't notice that the guy in the very back was not in uniform but was probably in the military. He was. In fact, he was on leave after his second tour, and he let them know how wrong they were.

It has got to be extremely hard living with danger every day, thousands of miles from home, with the memory of fallen friends and the horrors of combat. But then be told that the war, the hell that you have to live with every day, is a "fruitless war" (Senator Feingold, June 21, 2006).
I can't imagine what it's like to lose a close friend and have a political leader call the cause that they died for a "mistake" or a "failed policy"

Even worse, you find out that some (perhaps) many think that the cause that you are suffering for is actually making things worse:

"My colleagues, if we continue to be stuck in Iraq, we are facilitating al Qaeda's future. We are facilitating their recruitment. We are facilitating the growth of their operations in places like the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia. We are facilitating al Qaeda if we continue to make this mistake in Iraq over and over again." (Senator Feingold, June 21, 2006)

"Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, extends the time it will take Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant, and exposes more coalition forces to attack at a time when Iraqi security forces are increasingly available and capable." (General Casey)

"Sectarian violence is spreading throughout Iraq and the presence of our troops is fueling the insurgency." (Rep. Schakowsky)

"If we [the U.S. military] leave Iraq, then the insurgents will leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave Iraq." (Speaker Pelosi)

A friend of mine has a family member who is going to Iraq as part of the "surge". That's hard enough for the soldier and the family, but it is worse to hear that their child is expected to put it all on the line for "a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed (Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi).

Out soldiers are being asked to fight and die for this. I hope that more of them speak out about what is going on. If the country thinks that President Bush lied to get us into war, then impeach him. If the country thinks that he hasn't managed the war well enough, then they should impeach him. If the country wants to change the way that the war is being fought, then people should propose changes. But right now, the country is well on its way towward talking itself into defeat. And certain people need to be more careful about what they say when we have soldiers in harm's way.