I'm interesting in hearing people's opinions on what % of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq would favor a withdrawal. There are no right answers, just looking for opinions. I think this is important, because if anyone should have say in the US withdrawing, it's the men and women on the front line first and foremost, not people living in the country that have no connection to (and sometimes lack understanding of) the conflict. Also, could you please state whether or not you are serving / have served or if you have family / friends that are serving / have served. And as always with my questions, keep the name calling to a minimum or you will NOT receive a best answer.
2007-03-23 07:19:00 · 12 answers · asked by Pfo 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Honest answer around 15% from my experience. There is a lot more going on over there than just what the media portrays here at home. Yes I have served, have friends in Iraq now that dont mind being over there.
2007-03-23 07:27:51 · answer #1 · answered by Kenneth W 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would say that every single soldier wants to come home. Soldiers would always rather NOT be in a war.
However, they also want to finish the job, succeed in their mission. That's why the re-enlistment rate of deployed units is so high, because they know first hand the good they are doing and the worthiness of the mission.
I served, USAF '84-'89.
Father - Marine '57-'61 + reserves.
Brother - Army '83-'06.
Two uncles.
Both grandfathers.
2007-03-23 07:30:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
My experience is that about 90% of the troops support what we are doing over there.
In fact military morale did not start dropping until after the Democrats took control of Congress.
The big problem is that most people have been brainwashed by the news media's negative and misleading portrayal of the war.
And if you think about soldiers not getting a vote: we vote every time we re-enlist. We also vote every time we advance into fire. And the military leaders vote every time they order troops into harms way.
The easiest thing in the world is for the military leadership to lose faith in the American people - and simply decide that you are not worth risking the life of a soldier.
2007-03-23 09:08:13 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I suspect alot of soldiers don't want to be away from home, but any soldier with a sense of duty understands doing what they're told. It's just going to work for them. SO in all fairness, probably 98% of them want to withdraw, simply because they want to be back home. Everyone wants to be home when they're away. But your average soldier, (not spineless scumbags like Ehren Watada) understand their duty to the Commander in Chief, (and the bi-partisan congress that voted for the war) so I don't see many soldiers having, or even offering opinions of the political decisions about the war.
2007-03-23 07:30:32 · answer #4 · answered by koepnick012787 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they may not want to withdraw but we are spending money to keep them over there and its costing us a lot of money. The War on Terror can't be won how many times do we need to stress this to his idiotic moron of a president. As long as we are in IRAQ our troops will always be in danger. We can't stay forever over there. These young soldiers have a life here at home yes they made the sacrafice but they are fighting a war you can't win.
2007-03-23 07:29:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Heh, i've got been waiting for this type of question. permit's study, we ought to? Hitler, Stalin, and the eastern: all international places with large skills to mobilize, having large numbers of militia at their disposal and basically scaring the international around them. Now we could see the Iranians. a u . s . that has under no circumstances made any style of militia gesture in the direction of us and is conscious o.k. that conflict with the U.S. could be quite detrimental to them. That not sufficient? permit's proceed. WWII is likewise what's generic as a international conflict. meaning a lot of human beings are in touch, on the two aspects. this occasion includes quite a few distinctive international places that artwork independently and have, in many circumstances, fought among themselves. The threat is hardly ever comparable. WWII additionally started so badly for the allies because of the fact they have been unprepared. meanwhile, we've outprepared our meant enemies already. militia is already stationed interior the section, and we've the entirety of the ecu international places in the back of us in case of an attack on our troops. there is likewise the leverage of nukes in this difficulty, and if those center eastern international places take place to have them, then jointly certain destruction is a prevention to conflict. taking flight the troops motives them to return back abode, meaning we've extra, not much less, risk-free practices. And to boot, there remains a lot garrisoned over there whether there replaced right into a pull out. i ought to flow on and on with motives that they wont funds in on our "2nd of weak spot." hardship is, that's not a 2nd of weak spot. we are treating those international places as equals as quickly as we flow to talk with them, showing we admire them as we'd admire our allies. If we proceed to threaten them with troop movements, then they have an hazard to sense cornered and attempt to do some thing drastic. If we talk with them in this point, we threat not something with of challenge to income each little thing - a superb peace settlement that should final for some years. one extra ingredient. the assumption of pulling out is on the inspiration of bringing some stability to a u . s . (Iraq) the place there is at the instant none. there is historic foundation for a fashion pulling out stabilizes international places (ex: Egypt, India) that have been destabilized via occupation. And that way, we'd income slightly political leverage with Iran and Syria, via showing we are actually not there just to regulate them.
2016-10-19 10:50:06 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any soldier likes the fact of being caught up in a civil war. Who are they supposed to be fighting? They can't be seen to take sides.
2007-03-23 07:23:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The military doesn't get a vote. Except during elections.
And no active duty soldier worth his salt is going to speak out against the orders he's been given.
2007-03-23 07:21:44 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
That is an unknown number and anyone that claims to know is just trying to mislead the community.
2007-03-23 07:22:27 · answer #9 · answered by cheri b 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
they all would rather be in the desert fighting noone eating reheated crap waiting to be blown up and forgotten rather than being back home in bed with their loved ones watching tv and farting out loud the american way with a cold beer and a happy meal
2007-03-23 07:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋