Tuesday, February 28, 2006

No. No no no. No no no no NOOOOO.....!

Cannon here: Zogby's new poll of American soldiers serving in Iraq contains some positive news. But the soldiers also seem misinformed -- severely misinformed -- regarding the question of why they are there.
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."
In other words, roughly half the troops are "clear in their minds" about a falsification of history. Saddam Hussein had -- need I repeat it? -- no role in in 9/11. Al Qaeda, protected or unprotected, did not have a presence in Iraq (except, perhaps, for a few straggling members) until we showed up and turned the place into Jihad Central.

I respect the men and women of our armed forces -- I really do. But when I read these poll numbers, I cannot help asking myself: "Why bother to issue helmets? Their skulls are made of harder stuff." Do we have any hope of infiltrating some truth into those confused craniums?

Only 11% said that we were there to "secure" (translation: steal) oil, while 6% said we were there to establish bases. Those, of course, are the correct answers. But when truth is unpleasant, people turn to intoxicating fantasies.

Them good old boys have definitely been drinking too much whiskey and rye. If Rush Limbaugh told those poor, easily-hornswoggled kids (most of whom -- let's face it -- are southern) that we went to Iraq to protect the summer home of Santa Claus, would they believe that story?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

...Egh. This news is really...not the greatest thing I've read all week. It appears to me that the Pentagon's special effort to keep all meaningful news away from the troops has acheived its objectives.

Anonymous said...

I thought you might like to read my latest Letter to The Editor of our local Red State rag: the Jefferson City (Missouri) News Tribune.

+++++++++++++++++

Dear Editor,

I read a statistic from the latest Zogby poll today that should deeply disturb every American regardless of their politics. Of the 130,000 troops serving in Iraq, “85% said the U.S. mission is mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.”

Seeing as how no one in the U.S. still believes this old Bush/Cheney inspired fairy tale and even Bush and Blair have openly repudiated this falsehood, I wonder who gave them such a deadly piece of misinformation. I would ask those who have loved ones serving in Iraq to please write to them and ask how they came by such an idea. I hope their responses will be shared with the readers of the News Tribune.

Only 11% of the troops said we were there for the oil and 6% said we were there to establish permanent military bases – both real reasons. By the way, less than a quarter believed we were in Iraq to bring democracy.

The question then becomes, if they knew President Bush’s actual motivation for placing them in harms way, would they perhaps be as opposed to this war as the majority of American civilians are? This is a scary thought. I would expect that these findings would disturb the supporters of the war every bit as much as it does me. Even though I have always opposed Bush’s illegal war, I might feel a little less agony over these courageous warriors knowingly sacrificing for a cynical realpolitik, rather than a brainless myth more bizarre than a belief in the Easter Bunny. I think that is even more tragic than 2,300 American soldiers dying for nothing!

Robert Boldt
Jefferson City

Joseph Cannon said...

Robert, letters like that are the real reason why hundreds of bloggers and blog-readers keep trying to fight the good fight.

Anonymous said...

What's really new about this kind of statistic? Almost every soldier for the past five thousand years has been ignorant of the WHY of his service. In the first place, it's irrelevant, since his raison d'etre is to kill without thinking, when ordered to. In the second place, he's performing an act that is basically unnatural, so he needs a rationalization with which he can avoid any cognitive dissonance.

You might as well poll chickens on why they cross the road.