PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Military Times poll: Wary about Obama



Geezah
01-02-2009, 11:51 AM
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.”

Link (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/)


..............................

timetraveller
01-02-2009, 02:09 PM
There is no need for this article to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo

Mr.Flint
01-02-2009, 02:18 PM
There is no need for this articel to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo
Why?
Only pieces about how Obama is the new Jesus are allowed?

Chulo
01-02-2009, 03:43 PM
There is no need for this article to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo
Yes, Rule 111!!1: Only good stories of the Great Obama must be printed on all the internets. For he is good

ingsoc75
01-02-2009, 06:54 PM
It's not like Obama is the first president to take office without any military experience.

Hollis
01-02-2009, 07:09 PM
I can see the uneasiness. In many areas he is unproven. To express concern is not condemning Obama at all. The Military under Clinton, was hammered. That would be a cause of concern. Now If Obama lives up to what he had said, I don't think He will be as bad as some of his critics have predicted. So far Obama seems to be making some really good choices.

As with all presidents it is when they have left office, we will know what they will and will not do.

LineDoggie
01-02-2009, 07:19 PM
There is no need for this article to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo

1- I dont see why you would think that, The US Military will still follow the lawfull orders of it's Commander in Chief whomever he is(we always have), we are not some Banana Republic ready to storm the White House.

2- Frankly I dont trust polls, I fail to see how asking 1,900 G.I.'s is indicative of 450,000 of them. But since polls are used to feel out opinions, its as valid as any other poll article.

LineDoggie
01-02-2009, 07:20 PM
It's not like Obama is the first president to take office without any military experience.

FDR & Wilson probably being the 2 most famous Wartime leaders who never served

achilles
01-02-2009, 07:23 PM
IMO political competence and military leadership are two different things. The lack of the latter does not imply the lack of the former. A leader is a leader, in uniform or not. Those fears based on those premises are not very logical i think.

Bush is supposed to have had some sort of military experience and the whole world witnessed his utter incompetence. We have yet to see the extent to which Obama is capable of transforming persuasive words into....politics.

LineDoggie
01-02-2009, 07:25 PM
There's no supposed about it, He was Fully Qualified as a Pilot in the USAF

deagle
01-02-2009, 07:29 PM
well, bush/cheney didn't have too much military experience, and look at where they send our servicemen/women too.

obama is an intellectual, if he's not sound on a subject, ie in this case military capabilities, he'd read up on it or work with those who are more knowledgable to make the best decision.

the military personnel aren't wary of obama, but weary of war that the previous administration set upon them to go, and the country they'll return to, where economic times are tough.

LineDoggie
01-02-2009, 07:33 PM
well, bush/cheney didn't have too much military experience, and look at where they send our servicemen/women too.

obama is an intellectual, if he's not sound on a subject, ie in this case military capabilities, he'd read up on it or work with those who are more knowledgable to make the best decision.

the military personnel aren't wary of obama, but weary of war that the previous administration set upon them to go, and the country they'll return to, where economic times are tough.

Really? I'm US Military Personnel, and I am Wary of Obama, by the way Cheney has NO Military experience at all (Same 5 Deferments that incoming VP Biden had).

Lethal Lou
01-02-2009, 09:14 PM
The amazing thing is that the troops were willing to say as much as they did. There are so many sanctions on being "political" in any way/shape/form in the service. You can't post political signs, etc. Not sure what current policy is but we were discouraged from going to rallies or writing letters to the editor, etc. Certainly not permitted to participate in phone banks, hand out flyers, or do any active campaigning for a candidate. Understand the principle involved and agree that military needs to be "above" politics. Just one of the privileges surrendered when you swear that oath. One nice thing is that no matter how good (or bad) the CINC is, they are only going to be there 4 - 8 years so whether you agree / disagree, "this too will pass."

budgie
01-02-2009, 09:31 PM
There is no need for this article to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo

No the article is fair game. But it's also no surprise. The military is largely a Republican constituency and traditionally views Dems in general as suspicious because they are not thought to be such big spenders on equipment and training. The military are also suspicious of political leaders who haven't served themselves - especially in a nation where names like George Washington and Eisenhower were successful military commanders before taking office, and such recent presidents as Bush Sr and JFK were essentially war heroes.

AC434
01-02-2009, 09:54 PM
FDR & Wilson probably being the 2 most famous Wartime leaders who never served


FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WWI, I actually thought he served as Secreatary. So I can infer that he was familiar with the military bureaucracy, but not the art.

Geezah
01-02-2009, 09:58 PM
No the article is fair game. But it's also no surprise. The military is largely a Republican constituency and traditionally views Dems in general as suspicious because they are not thought to be such big spenders on equipment and training. The military are also suspicious of political leaders who haven't served themselves - especially in a nation where names like George Washington and Eisenhower were successful military commanders before taking office, and such recent presidents as Bush Sr and JFK were essentially war heroes.

I don't think it is a case of not being thought of as big spenders, they are not(please correct me on this if I am wrong).
After all, according to a few of the Democrats, the military go air raiding villages, reminiscent of Genghis Khan!

LineDoggie
01-02-2009, 10:30 PM
I don't think it is a case of not being thought of as big spenders, they are not(please correct me on this if I am wrong).
After all, according to a few of the Democrats, the military go air raiding villages, reminiscent of Genghis Khan!



Ahh, Yes I seem to remember that comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY&feature=channel_page

Well now he gets to sit in the catbird seat and figure it out

Chulo
01-02-2009, 11:53 PM
Ahh, Yes I seem to remember that comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY&feature=channel_page

Well now he gets to sit in the catbird seat and figure it out

eh.. he has flipped and flopped all over the military issues. From withdrawal, to weaponizing space. He can rave, rant and promise all he wants, but now that he has the information and has to make the decisions, its not going to vary as dramatically as he said it would from what Bush has done. <dramatically being the key word>

budgie
01-03-2009, 01:52 AM
I don't think it is a case of not being thought of as big spenders, they are not(please correct me on this if I am wrong).



Of course Republican administrations in recent years have been known to spend more (an unnecessary war in Iraq isn't cheap), but let's be honest, under either Democrat or GOP stewardship, the USA spends far more than any other country. So it's more of a perception that the military is getting short-changed by the dems when it comes to spending.

egg taco
01-03-2009, 02:52 AM
I spent hrs in McCain phone rooms. Donated a significant (to me) amount of money to his campaign. He was 'imho', the most qualified candidate since Ike or better.

Ok. Obama won fair n' square. He's my Pres and I have great confidence in his political acumen. He is taking pains to prove to us plebes that he respects our soldiers. Ok boys. Give him a minute. He's smart and capable and wants to win. Back him.

philbob
01-03-2009, 03:01 AM
Link (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/12/military_poll_main_122908/)


..............................

That is what happens when you spend the past two years criticizing the troops and all they have done....

philbob
01-03-2009, 03:04 AM
No the article is fair game. But it's also no surprise. The military is largely a Republican constituency and traditionally views Dems in general as suspicious because they are not thought to be such big spenders on equipment and training. The military are also suspicious of political leaders who haven't served themselves - especially in a nation where names like George Washington and Eisenhower were successful military commanders before taking office, and such recent presidents as Bush Sr and JFK were essentially war heroes.



Thank you:)

Geezah
01-03-2009, 10:14 AM
Of course Republican administrations in recent years have been known to spend more

Recent years going back to WWII?
After all, WWII was necessary, but as much as they do't liek to spend on themilitary, the Dems sure like to use them.


(an unnecessary war in Iraq isn't cheap),

Was it really unnecessary, the UN had impossed so many sanctions Saddam ignore all of them, constantly thumbing his nose at the West. To Saddam(and to a majority of people), the UN was a Paper Tiger, Sabre Rattling, but nothing more. Saddam was given a chance to leave his country but he chose to leave, and I forsee Iraq becoming a decent country in years to come, it's just the Dems have ahard time seeing past their nose especially when they tried to turn Iraq into a quagmire.



but let's be honest, under either Democrat or GOP stewardship, the USA spends far more than any other country. So it's more of a perception that the military is getting short-changed by the dems when it comes to spending.

What we spend cpmpared to others countries cannot factor into it, the Dems spend less, it's that simple.

budgie
01-03-2009, 09:09 PM
So, the Dems spend less so the military vote is more likely to go to the GOP. It is that simple.

All this baloney about 'manufacturing a quagmire' and 'not supporting the troops' came straight from Bill O'Reilly's ass. But back to the OP there is no great revelation here that the troops are sceptical of the new Commander in Chief. He's a Dem and he hasn't served. It's a no-brainer. The military and their families are a small electorate though and remember, they don't vote 100% GOP. Obama managed to get enough support in and out of the military to win the election, so the troops will just have to do without the more popular McCain. The good news is he'll still serve in the senate, where he usually has the troops' backs.

Geezah
01-03-2009, 11:04 PM
So, the Dems spend less so the military vote is more likely to go to the GOP. It is that simple.

Dems for the most part(apart from Lieberman, who paid a price for his support of the troops), do not support the military, but they sure do like using them.



All this baloney about 'manufacturing a quagmire' and 'not supporting the troops' came straight from Bill O'Reilly's ass.

No, it came from Chappaquid**** Ted's arse!


Kennedy called Iraq a "quagmire" and drew repeated comparisons to Vietnam, a tactic that Democrats are likely to repeat in the coming months.


Link (http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=2781742&page=1)

You really need to pay more attention to the news.



But back to the OP there is no great revelation here that the troops are sceptical of the new Commander in Chief. He's a Dem and he hasn't served. It's a no-brainer.

And according to him, the troops are air raiding villages and killing civilains, so what do you expect the troops to think, he does not support them, and unfortunetely, they have to support him once in!

http://www.youtube.com/v/YLlyjGjeZIY




The military and their families are a small electorate though and remember, they don't vote 100% GOP. Obama managed to get enough support in and out of the military to win the election, so the troops will just have to do without the more popular McCain. The good news is he'll still serve in the senate, where he usually has the troops' backs.

I fully understand they do not vote across the board GOP, but I would say that for the most part, they vote GOP.

philbob
01-03-2009, 11:15 PM
like i said earlier he reaped what he sowed with that electorate. He did nothing but talk **** for two-three years and disrespct the flag and their accomplishments....

Dominique
01-03-2009, 11:35 PM
There is no need for this article to even be printed ,, or even posted on this forum imo

X2 it really doesn't matter what anyone, and that includes me, thinks about the President Elect. The simple fact is that in a few weeks, he'll be the CinC of the US military and we'll any lawful orders he issues. Personal opinions don't have damn thing to do with it, period.

Limeyfellow
01-03-2009, 11:43 PM
So, the Dems spend less so the military vote is more likely to go to the GOP. It is that simple.

All this baloney about 'manufacturing a quagmire' and 'not supporting the troops' came straight from Bill O'Reilly's ass. But back to the OP there is no great revelation here that the troops are sceptical of the new Commander in Chief. He's a Dem and he hasn't served. It's a no-brainer. The military and their families are a small electorate though and remember, they don't vote 100% GOP. Obama managed to get enough support in and out of the military to win the election, so the troops will just have to do without the more popular McCain. The good news is he'll still serve in the senate, where he usually has the troops' backs.

What is weird, is that the Republicans cut just as much. It was only that we were caught up in Afghanistan and Iraq that stopped Rumsfeld slashing military personal numbers to level that makes the cuts under the previous administration pale in comparison. Even as late of 2005 the budget was wanting to be cut by 10% in a time of fighting two wars, by laying of tens of thousands of personal including 1/5th of Army personal, slashing 16 air squadrons and two aircraft carriers for a start. It was even harsher through 2000 to 2001.

Just because an administration has a certain party attached to it, doesn't really mean much, especially when they don't have the budget to afford anything but a decrease or massive borrowing.

Chulo
01-04-2009, 12:20 AM
X2 it really doesn't matter what anyone, and that includes me, thinks about the President Elect. The simple fact is that in a few weeks, he'll be the CinC of the US military and we'll any lawful orders he issues. Personal opinions don't have damn thing to do with it, period.confidence and trust in your CinC seems would be a very important thing i think

Gat0r
01-04-2009, 12:21 AM
Relax, Obama wont cut the military from its rediculously large trough. Mr. Change won't dismantle the empire or actually pull the troops out of Iraq, he's going to escelate Afganistan further, not to mention he has stuffed his cabinate full of Democratic interventionalist hawks.

Reality will hit soon because we're flat broke from policing the world and running a socialistic government, Japan and China wont buy our debt forever knowing we have absolutely no way of paying it back. The troops will have to come home not because the rulers reject empire but because there isn't any money.

LineDoggie
01-04-2009, 12:28 AM
Ron Paul running again already?

now for an Aimee Allen tune


Screeeeeeech, Shrieeeeeek :roll:

California Joe
01-04-2009, 12:44 AM
The way I look at it is, the troops are bitching. Gee that's a surprise.

Traditionally, Repubs spend more on the Defense budget than the Dems. How much of that goes to contractors with high ranking and former Joint Chiefs on their boards of directors for bullsh*t, as opposed to improved body armor for joes is up for debate. More money doesn't always equate to better equipment for guys getting shot at. I defy anyone to show me where veterans benefits or the care of our wounded has dramatically improved during the last 8 years. That to me is the true test. John McCain had a sh*tty record with vets if I remember correctly.

Obama has made a lot of centrist moves with appointments, that are pissing off the leftist types already. He's got a Marine advising him on the war. That I see as a good thing. Maybe we should let him get in office before we start trying to cut him off at the knees based on party affiliation.

Dominique
01-04-2009, 12:45 AM
confidence and trust in your CinC seems would be a very important thing i think

As I've already stated, the opinions of members of the military don't matter. If people have a problem taking orders from him, then they need to get out, period. It's that simple. And before any of you go flying off the handle about how much I must "love" Obama, you'd be wrong, I didn't vote for him, and was less than thrilled when he won, but with that said, Jan. 20, I'll STFU, quit my whining, and Charlie Mike while he's in office.