Difference between Media and Marines

[wacki]

I went out with a bunch of Marines last weekend to the bars. They had just arrived home from Iraq. These were no ordinary Marines, they had been in Baghdad, Fallujah, Afghanistan, and just about anywhere else that had been the center of attention with the Media. They strongly support the effort in Iraq and are all voting for Bush. Also, I happen to know people who are serving in higher up positions in the military and they all share similar opinions. The only military personnel that I have met that don't support the effort are the people that are removed from the main parts of the effort, or are involved in logistics.

It is a well known fact that military personnel support Bush and the effort in Iraq by 4:1 (some say 3:1) and re-enlistment rates are sky high.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm


My question is, if the people over there think the situation is improving, they are making great progress, and strongly believe in the effort, why are the opinions/views of these soldiers not being reported in mainstream media? Also, why do you think there is such a huge difference in opinion? The people who are over there and are putting their lives on the line believe in the cause, but the people who are safe and are not over there don't believe in the cause. I find that extremely ironic.

My main question:
I was wondering if anyone had any theories on why there is such a strong difference in opinions between the people who are over there risking their lives and the people who aren't risking anything.

FYI:
I do not mean this as a debate if the war is going well or not, we have had plenty of those. I was simply wondering why there is such a huge difference between opinions there and opinions here.

[dmk]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is, if the people over there think the situation is improving, they are making great progress, and strongly believe in the effort, why are the opinions/views of these soldiers not being reported in mainstream media? Also, why do you think there is such a huge difference in opinion? The people who are over there and are putting their lives on the line believe in the cause, but the people who are safe and are not over there don't believe in the cause. I find that extremely ironic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the media is way too liberal.

I agree, my cousin is a marine and currently in Iraq. He sees things improving there (we got a chance to talk when he was given a weekend off to come to my wedding a month ago). He is completely for the cause/war and is voting for Bush.

[GWB]

My question is:

Why are people who say they support our troops so determined to vote against those troops' judgement of what leadership they need to wrap this war up?

[wacki]

GWB,

Good question, I'd like to know that too.

[tolbiny]

I have never been in the military so my musing are pretty baseless, but here is just a thought that passed by me-

An important part of a military action is to keep the moral of the troops high, and i would imagine that efforts towards doing so would include highlighting successes and downgrading failures and difficulites (to a point). On the other hand the media is a for profit industry that probably gets better ratings for bad news.

[wacki]

That is a good response, I hadn't thought of that. I don't think that alone can account for the massive difference in opinions, but you do have a very good point. I wonder what Vulturesrow would have to say about your theory since he served.

Do you have any theories about on GWB's question of why the people who chant "support our troops" the most seem to ignore the troops opinions as well?

[tolbiny]

There are probably a plethora (me use big words to sound smart, but don't know how to spell them) of reasons for the difference- I am sure they have done studies to see if a person is more likely to be a democrat or repulican or independant when they decide to join the military, i would venture a guess to say that republicans are more likely to enlist/reinlist which would cause some natural bias.
I also had another thought- initially it is likely very stressfull to go into a combat situatin, however after time you would become accustomed to the streess better and would percive that the situation is getting better simply because you are used to it.

"Do you have any theories about on GWB's question of why the people who chant "support our troops" the most seem to ignore the troops opinions as well?"

I don't know who you mean- if you mean the media you basically have to take what they give you with a grain of salt since they rely on ratings. If you mean individuals- the most hardcore "support your troop" screamers that i know are all republican and were for the war/voting for a second term.

[wacki]

You must be in a much different area than I am.

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/yellowribbon_graphics/billboard_390.jpg

[tolbiny]

Nope, haven't seen any of those, but i don't pay much attention to signs advertisments or other such nonsense.

BTW- I was not trying to state that the troops are wrong in their opinions, just musing over some possibilities.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is:

Why are people who say they support our troops so determined to vote against those troops' judgement of what leadership they need to wrap this war up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Troops job- keep us safe and follow orders
Politicians job- Keep troops safe.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think part of it is that the troops think that what they are doing is right and just, and for them to do the job correctly they should think that. That probably also carries over into the voting booth as well.

I don't doubt there is progress being made there, but there is also an enormous amount of violence as well. The media will focus on that violence over good news because violence sells more commercials.

[vulturesrow]

I cant say much about ground zero in Iraq since I fly off of a boat and come back to a boat. But I do have friends that are there and they echo the story that the Marines told Wacki. Of course we have already had people in here say that Marines / Soldiers are misinformed and dont really know whats going on. My friends are there are very intelligent and observant men.

As to what tolbiny said, I think there is some merit to it. People that join the service tend to be from solidly conservative areas, namely the South and Midwest. Let me throw my story at you real quick since I am actually the exception. I grew up in the South raised by mother, a very liberal woman. I grew up holding those views and in fact my first presidential vote was for Clinton. /images/graemlins/frown.gif To make a long story short, you can see that my views have changed radically. Some of it was due to being in the military but mostly because I found that my personal views about the world had a lot more in common with the right than the left. Sorry for the digression. So I think there is some merit in saying Conservative individuals probably tend to join in greater numbers. Another factor is quite simply self-interest. Republicans tend to be stronger on defense issues than Democrats.

Now in regards to the current situation in Iraq and the presidential campaign. I can give you two major reasons why Kerry is not popular with the troops. One, people in the military tend to respect leadership. Kerry doenst have the aura that Bush has. Im sure Ill take some flack but its true. Secondly, many many service members strongly disagree with Kerry's actions after the Vietnam war. I think Kerry's service would have pulled a lot of miltary voters his way if he hadnt acted so irresponsibly after the war.

Now, my last point. Every person in the military has the right to complain and its usually exercised on a daily basis. The fact that most people are so enthusiastic about what they are doing that even though there are some that are disillusioned, without much bitching, speaks volumes to me. People are proud of what they are doing there and if they werent, trust me, it would show.

Hope this shed a little light, even if I did ramble.

Check six /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

There have been studies and there have been accounts. (Notable, among others, is that book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1885119380/qid=1098834514/sr=1-18/ref=sr_1_2_18/026-7258851-6189268) by Rudyard Kipling, detailing the Irish Regiment's WWI tour in France. Already recommended.)

Young men go to fight for an idea but are ready to endanger their lives not for that idea but for their comrades-in-arms. The men in uniform who are at the front line are exposed to danger most of all men in uniform.

Doubting the war's justification (any war's) and its righteousness when in the front line, or when having served in the front line (or anywhere dangerous enough) is akin to a betrayal of one's comrades-in-arms.

Hence, those young men will unfailingly tend to justify the war they fought. In actuality, they justify their war experience and the fidelity to their comrades. Their pro-war position (about any war, incl. Iraq) is resting not on logical nor factual arguments but rather on strongly sentimental ones.

It takes an exceptionally brave mind and soul for a soldier to both take part in active combat duty in an unjust war AND realize (and subsequently publicly denounce) the unjust nature of that war. One of the two current presidential candidates has managed that feat.

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

Thank you for pointing out the comrades-in-arm factor. Well said, and it is a very powerful force. Of course you give too much weight to it in my opinion. That being said, the fact that I even agree with you to a point makes me think there is something right in the world after all /images/graemlins/wink.gif Buenos noches, vaya con Dios.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the two current presidential candidates has managed that feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will not respond to this sentence because I do not want to get sidetracked. Please no trolls here.

As for your "betrayal of one's comrades-in-arms" I have to wonder. The re-enlistment rates are sky high and with supporters going 4:1 for Bush I doubt this hypothesis is correct in this case. But Cyrus I think that it may play a part. Hopefully we can find statistics for other wars to compare, but I'm not buying this theory yet. With a select few, maybe, but not at 4:1 across the whole military.

[Utah]

Wow. That is incredible. Men in combat are incapable of thinking rationally so we should discount what they say?

Heck, I am sure you would agree that we shouldn't even let them vote because their thinking is impaired.

Wait....I have a better idea.....why don't we take what people say at face value?

btw - where is the clever title? There should be at least some value to your post

[Cyrus]

Utah, my man, my post was one of the simplest I ever put up. Why did you miss the point?

"Men in combat are incapable of thinking rationally so we should discount what they say?"

Never implied that.

All out thinking is "biased". Of course we believe we are "objective", each and every one of us, but the truth is- we are not. Not totally objective. (Such absoluteness is probably utopia.)

What I said is that soldiers in the front line (intelligent, brave people) become inherently biased towards supporting the war they are helping to wage, rather than the other way around. Support for the war provides both a justification for the soldier's participation in it, and, more prominently, shows solidarity with the soldier's comrades-in-arms.

This is not some wild idea I had yesterday after reading wacki's question. This comradely loyalty is something that has been already established as a motivation factor and affects judgement about war's affairs, in general. I would humbly recommend that you read (if you care at all for military history) the Rudyard Kipling book I posted about in this thread. It's meticulous, very readable - and extremely powerful.

(Kipling's son joined the British Armed Forces as an officer and proudly went with them to France sometime in 1914. He was killed on their first day there, from a stray enemy bullet. His father, the author of "Kim", etc, went to France and later wrote his son's regiment's history in WWI. You will learn there how and why young men went to their deaths by the hundreds, how they supported and felt about each other, and how they felt about the war. A war, which we all now know, was among the most senseless, most brutal and most devastating in human history.)

Take care.

[Cyrus]

"The re-enlistment rates are sky high and with supporters going 4:1 for Bush I doubt this hypothesis is correct in this case."

That bit of data would be helpful if the discussion was about the Iraqi war's popularity inthe Us. However, this is about the seeming discrepancy between what the general populace in the US thinks about the war and what the front line soldiers think about it.

If, in fact, a lot of soldiers re-enlist, as you say, this would show that those soldiers do in fact support the war. The question, however, is WHY.

(By the way, I have some contrary data here:
843 ex-soldiers called up are no-shows, Army says (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-army24.html). This doesn't answer the question "Why" either of course.)

[W00lygimp]

So it's wonderful I now know what your opinion of the two World Wars are. What isn't wonderful is your blatant disregard for the sacrifices of the military forces of the English, American, French, and other allied countries. Honestly how are you going to call World War I senseless? Maybe we should have let the Kaiser's troops stormroll
through Europe unnoposed?

"You will learn there how and why young men went to their deaths by the hundreds, how they supported and felt about each other, and how they felt about the war. A war, which we all now know, was among the most senseless, most brutal and most devastating in human history."

They were fighting for their freedom, if you can call that senseless so-be-it. We have another John Kerry on our hands, I take it you think our involvement in WW II wasn't justified even though people were being slaughtered by the millions?
War is a means to an end; Yes war is brutal and should be avoided at all cost, but sometimes there are no other alternatives.
Without the "senseless" sacrifices that you labeled upon our defenders of previous generations, you and I wouldn't exist.

As for :
"Men in combat are incapable of thinking rationally so we should discount what they say?"

Never implied that.

Sure as hell seemed like you implied it to me. The human mind is way beyond our comprehension and its funny you label the brave actions of a few like this. They are protecting your freedom and the only thing you can do is call them biased? You read a book by Rudyard Kipling and suddenly your a master of the human psyche?? Right but I don't remember psychology being one of Mr. Kiplings strongpoints, I mean his other works include The Jungle Book.

[W00lygimp]

A better example of raw emotion on the battlefield is the "Battle of Belleau Wood". Now i really dislike country music... but heres the Garth Brooks version.

"Belleau Wood"

Oh, the snowflakes fell in silence
Over Belleau Wood that night
For a Christmas truce had been declared
By both sides of the fight
As we lay there in our trenches
The silence broke in two
By a German soldier singing
A song that we all knew

Though I did not know the language
The song was "Silent Night"

Then I heard my buddy whisper,
"All is calm and all is bright"
Then the fear and doubt surrounded me
'Cause I'd die if I was wrong
But I stood up in my trench
And I began to sing along

Then across the frozen battlefield
Another's voice joined in
Until one by one each man became
A singer of the hymn

Then I thought that I was dreaming
For right there in my sight
Stood the German soldier
'Neath the falling flakes of white
And he raised his hand and smiled at me
As if he seemed to say
Here's hoping we both live
To see us find a better way

Then the devil's clock struck midnight
And the skies lit up again
And the battlefield where heaven stood
Was blown to hell again

But for just one fleeting moment
The answer seemed so clear
Heaven's not beyond the clouds
It's just beyond the fear

No, heaven's not beyond the clouds
It's for us to find it here

[nicky g]

" What isn't wonderful is your blatant disregard for the sacrifices of the military forces of the English, American, French, and other allied countries. Honestly how are you going to call World War I senseless? Maybe we should have let the Kaiser's troops stormroll
through Europe unnoposed?

"You will learn there how and why young men went to their deaths by the hundreds, how they supported and felt about each other, and how they felt about the war. A war, which we all now know, was among the most senseless, most brutal and most devastating in human history."

They were fighting for their freedom, if you can call that senseless so-be-it."

What a complete load of crap. It's utterly amazing to see that propaganda from 1914 is still rolling about 90 years later. WWI had absolutely nothing to do with fighting for freedom, it was about a bunch of imperialist morons whose rapid expansion and system of rigid alliances drove them into a pointless four year mass slaughter they were too proud or stupid to back out of. Not every war is WWII. All the particpants in WWI acted utterly senselessly and sent millions of innocent young men to horrific and meaningless deaths.

[W00lygimp]

World War I was a war of imperialism yet the reason the UK and the US joined the war was not to "gain" land or resources. They joined it to stop german expansion, how is that senseless?

[jakethebake]

I was a Marine Combat Correspondent in a former life. I was responsible for escorting civilian media in an actual combat zone once and it was quite an experience. The media always has a screwy view of things.

[nicky g]

The UK did not join the war to stop German expansion, and they'd have been a tad hypocritical if they had, given the British Empire covered about half the globe while the German Empire, as the writers of "Blackadder" put it, consisted of a small sausage factory in Tanganika. The war started because tensions between the European power were brewing and various disputes triggered the sytem of alliances. What specific act of expansion were the allies trying to counter? The trigger was the Austro Hungarian Empire's dispute with Serbia over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

[vulturesrow]

I hate to do it but I have to stand up for Cyrus a bit here. He is quite correct in stating that loyalty to fellow soldiers is a powerful motivating factor in combat. If you are trying to argue that point, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As I said in a previous post, I agree with him up to a point. The loyalty factor really comes into play when you are talking about heroic actions in battle such as jumping on a grenade or charging a machine gun nest. This might seem like an obvious point but for a long time people didnt make that connection. Now I would argue how much this factor affects your feelings toward the war. My opinion is that this probably is a stronger factor among your younger, less experienced troops, i.e., a large majority of your front line GIs. I would say it is less prevalent among the officer corps and NCOs. I also dont think you wouldnt have so many reports from the troops out front if there werent a lot of good news to report. They would however be more likely to just say nothing rather than speak out which goes back to Cyrus's point. To sum up, I believe the fact that there is so much positive reporting from the front outweighs the loyalty to comrades factor. Difficult to prove either way I think at this point. Now in Wacki's story, hanging out in a casual setting with those guys, they would be more inclined to bitch if they were against the war. Small sample size to be sure, but I think some what indicative of the general sentiment.

[Cyrus]

That avalanche of strong points has completely overwhelmed me.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Utah]

Hello Cyrus,

I will always be your man. However, you are completely agreeing with my interpetation of your post - "Men in combat are incapable of thinking rationally so we should discount what they say". That is exactly what you are implying whether you say so or not.

"(intelligent, brave people) become inherently biased towards supporting the war"

i.e., they are incapable of thinking rationally as they are too affected by their situation.

[tolbiny]

""(intelligent, brave people) become inherently biased towards supporting the war"

i.e., they are incapable of thinking rationally as they are too affected by their situation. "

I believe that Cyrus has stated that he feels every indivudual is biased in some way, and i agree with him. It is rare that aperson can look upon a subject with perfect objectivity since we all carry the baggage of previously formed opinions and a set of experiences unique in themselves. All Cyrus has said (in my interpretation) is that soliders on the front lines are more likely to be biased towards the war, than to be against it. This doesn't mean that they are incapable of rational thought, it would only mean that their stances on an issue should be taken with this in mind. Much like my stance on the death penalty should be considered knowing that i have never been directly effect (or known anyone who has) by a crime that warrented the penalty.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think Cyrus is actually making a very strong point as well.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a well known fact that military personnel support Bush and the effort in Iraq by 4:1 (some say 3:1) and re-enlistment rates are sky high.

[/ QUOTE ]That's really a bad number for Bush.

Traditionally the military is 7:1 Republican:Democrat. This goes way back to when Peter Feaver was doing studies finding an 8:1 split (among officers).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/

Like it or not Bush has lost military votes because of this war.

[wacki]

Grey that wasn't a very good article. In fact it was almost worthless.


The article said 57 percent of the military considered themselves Republican. It never stated the % of people that vote for Bush in the last election, or any republican in any election for that matter.


Speaking of Faever the article states
Military personnel have put the president “on probation” says Peter Feaver, director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies at Duke University, and an expert in civilian-military relations.

But the only stats I found were from polling a sample set of veterans and military families in Pennsylvania that showed 54 percent to 31 percent opposition to the war. That's it!

Where is the information!?!?!?! If the military votes showed softening support for Bush you think they would have stats out the wazoo!

Considering the vast majority of the military votes are from the National Guard, I don't doubt National Guard(and military as a whole) support for Bush was softened. Those people are supposed to be at home. Any article that uses military support to show the declining supoort for Iraq would show stats of Active personel support for Bush before Iraq and now. Reserve and Guard support will fall no doubt, people don't like leaving their homes. But this article didn't even show stats of the front line Marines let alone the Guard. In fact the only stats they showed were of family in the state of Pennsylvania! WTF?!?! Talk about red flag alert.

That article did nothing for me.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"The re-enlistment rates are sky high and with supporters going 4:1 for Bush I doubt this hypothesis is correct in this case."

That bit of data would be helpful if the discussion was about the Iraqi war's popularity inthe Us. However, this is about the seeming discrepancy between what the general populace in the US thinks about the war and what the front line soldiers think about it.

If, in fact, a lot of soldiers re-enlist, as you say, this would show that those soldiers do in fact support the war. The question, however, is WHY.

(By the way, I have some contrary data here:
843 ex-soldiers called up are no-shows, Army says (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-army24.html). This doesn't answer the question "Why" either of course.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the article in my original post it says 73%.

But I agree, why is important, but the fact that they are willing to reenlist for this war is a very telling sign that they support it.

I'm having trouble finding reenlistment rates for past wars, if anyone has them please post.

[Utah]

Why dont we simply take people at their word? Why do we need to analyze what they say to determine if it is valid?

Cyrus' arguments:
1) People at the front favor the war
2) People at the front are too heavily biased

Cryus' Conclusion:
1) Their statements shouln't be taken into account

that is such pure crap. Should we go through this type of analysis everytime someone someone states an opinion? For example, democrats are overwelmingly against the war. However, they are heavily biased by their party leaders and there is a pack mentality. Therefore, we can't really be sure they are against the war and we shouldnt take their opnions into account?

[Cyrus]

Intelligent, brave people become inherently biased towards supporting the war --> i.e., they are incapable of thinking rationally as they are too affected by their situation.

No.

Bias is not indicative of lack of rational thinking, per se. It is not even a sign of lack of education! (As to whether we are "affected by our situation", we all of course are. How could it be otherwise?)

I might post up some studies done by economists/psychologists whereby other economists (presumably experts) were tested on matters of Rational Choice, and their responses varied greatly from the normatively ascribed choices!

The front-line soldiers have this strong pro-war sentiment using criteria not used by other people. This does not make them less intelligent or less "objective" (or more sentimental).

[Cyrus]

For a different perspective of how the current American administration is handling the news coming out of Iraq, here's a little something. It trumps Marine Combat correspondents and civilian media hacks alike.

[ QUOTE ]
A government contractor named Kroll Security International issues daily factual reports on developments in Iraq. Obviously, Kroll has had to deliver lots of bad news, including reports detailing the spreading attacks by insurgents. So, in September [2004], the government simply stopped sending the Kroll reports to members of Congress and other "outsiders."

[/ QUOTE ]

Good News on Iraq (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20326/)

<font color="white"> . </font>

[nicky g]

You can subscribe directly to Kroll reports on Iraq and the Middle East. Thye ar epretty good. This week's Middle East one just came in before you posted this.

[jakethebake]

...if you like reading news from over there that's closer to the source.

[nicky g]

or indeed Mossad propaganda.