President Barack Obama is working hard to shore up his liberal political base, but military voters may be less likely to lend support for his re-election. According to the 2011 Military Times Poll of active-duty subscribers, confidence in the overall job performance of the Commander-in-Chief has plummeted from 70% to 25%. The steep decline was illustrated with a multi-color bar graph on a page 10 of the September 19, 2011, Navy Times print edition, and in asecondary link in the web-posted article available to non-subscribers, titled “A Souring Mood.”
The 2011 annual poll published in different service versions of the Gannet-owned Military Times indicated that weariness with the current long war is a major reason for slumping morale. Ten years after the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan began, many troops are losing confidence in the mission there. Approval of the president’s handling of Afghanistan has slipped from 47% to 26%.
Military Times polls in previous years have generally found evidence of fairly high morale. But in 2011, several indicators showed a hard turn downward. For example, the percentage of active-duty troops who would recommend a military career to others was 76%, but that number is 9 points lower than it was only one year ago. (Army Timeseditorial, Sept. 19, 2011)
The Times further noted, “Slightly less than half of readers said the U.S. is ‘very likely’ or ’somewhat likely’ to succeed in Afghanistan.” Support is even lower among troops who have deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom−significantly less than the 75% level in 2007, four years ago.
If a person has an open mind, the more we learn about Obama, the less we trust him as president or Commander-in-Chief.
I really miss GWB~
Reaping the benefits of a dipstick community organizer, in charge of our magnificent military. Or perhaps this is his way of slashing the military budget… driving away any potential future volunteers, and stirring the pot of frustration with those currently active.
Ditto to you, Fed Up
The scale of the graph is misleading. Bush had an overall job approval among the military of less than 50% and it was dropping in Afghanistan. Then Obama took over and sent a whole lot more troops to Afghanistan and the death and maiming rate went way up. At the same time, deployment fatigue continued to mount relentlessly. At a certain point in time, people stop seeing the point of staying in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems to be no clear mission for either one. The only clear mission in Iraq was ousting Saddam and getting rid of his WMD. Mission accomplished on that score, many years ago. The difference between Obama’s approval and Bush’s approval on Iraq is within margin of polling error. Afghanistan is where it’s going down in the toilet and it was going there (look at slope of curve) while Bush was still in office. It’s entirely understandable that it would continue to tank, with major increased troop deployments and major increase casualties.
Just for some mental exercise, how would Bush have dealt with Afghanistan in a fashion to avoid the fall in troop approval?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@MataHarley: His messing with military benefits like health care, the GI Bill (according an article in the VFW magazine they cut benefits by almost a billion dollars over the next ten years and that came right out of the mouth of an administration official who called it ‘savings’), and the pension system is probably a big factor as well. Bush was for the most part well liked. Not this CiC. Everyone I’ve spoken to who is still in, both Active and Reserve, has little use for him. A senior NCO I know down at Bragg said that all the black Soldiers he works with that voted for him are very disappointed saying that he goes against everything they believe in. I’d venture to say that if wasn’t for the economy, there would be an exodus of good people who otherwise would have stayed. The troops know who has a genuine concern for them and who does not.
CURT,
Very good POST, NOW the AMERICANS know that if the TROOPS give their thought to this NATION WHICH THEY LOVE so much, mean that they are telling the PEOPLE TO LISTEN, AND LISTEN WELL.
those BRAVEST, DONT PLAY GAME, THEY ARE VERY SERIOUS WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THEIR BELOVED AMERICA,
THEY are on a stage of life and death and away from their family, so they have concern that the LOCALS PERSON DON’T HAVE, THIS MAKE THE MILITARY POINT OF VIEW VERY IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO.
BYE
@openid.aol.com/runnswim, #4:
Yep. The entire chart is suspect, IMHO.
Not only is the topmost rung on the chart 50 percent, distracting from the fact that less than half approved of Bush’s overall job performance; the chart arbitrarily begins with 2007, concealing any significant decline in approval that may have occurred from 2001 to 2007.
Data for 2009 is left out. This is written off with the comment that no poll was published that year. Well and good. However, when you drop the year out on the graph by simply jumping ahead 2 years with your labeling of the next equidistant horizontal axis point, you totally distort the meaning of the line you’re plotting. The effect is to make any decline appear far steeper than it actually was.
On top of all of that, there’s no indication at what point during each year the data was collected. Obviously this is relevant. What would it mean, for example, if the 2008 plot point represents data collected in the early months of that year?
First I’d like to point out to everyone that this is a poll among the subscribers of Military Times. Granted, they cater their news and publications to service members and families. However anyone can subscribe to the four publications… whether an active service member, retired, or green civilian who’s never served a day in his/her life, but has interest in military news.
Therefore it’s not necessarily representative of the troops themselves. But it is representative of those who are military oriented in their focus. My first guess is that neither Larry or Greg would even consider subscribing, but it’s quite likely that former military (as well as current) and their families would. Also journalists and new media pundits who specialize in military blogging or writing.
As far as the observations by a couple here… excuses excuses for the temporary denizen in the WH.
So you are saying two things here, if I read you right:
1: That Bush’s approval rating was *not* higher than Obama’s (since the decline *is* the subject of the Reader Post and poll…)and
2: You apparently believe that our warriors approve or disapprove of a CiC, based on the amount of casualties and injuries sustained in combat.
Both are observations of one who must have had little contact with military life in their past, not to mention math problems.
1: It’s obvious that the disapproval rating of Obama is higher than Bush’s. I might also add that Bush was CiC of armed forces, engaged in combat virtually from the beginning of his first term. For that duration, his ratings drop didn’t plummet at the rate of speed that Obama’s has in just three years.
2: Our military enlisted personnel.. especially those that did so knowing that war was impending post Sept 11th, and those who enlisted after we were in both Iraq and Afghanistan… do so knowing full well their lives can be on the line and long deployments were possible. War isn’t a vacation where you show up, use your timeshare time, then head on home for a desk job.
I might also add that the casualty and injury rates were high during the Bush years, and apparently that did not affect their views substantially of the CiC… unlike this temporary denizen. His approval ratings have been dropping like a rock in both military and civilian circles in a very short time. All deserved, I might add. And even more amusing, all despite the media’s desperate attempts to prop up “da one”. Bush obviously did not enjoy that support of the 4th rail, and neither did our troops.
Our warriors are not your run of the mill “people”, Larry. And those in that battleground know far more than you’ll ever be capable of imagining what the mission is. It is the pictures of our soldiers in the field – playing with kids, rescuing the citizens of those nations, passing out food, teaching them even the simple things like playing baseball, helping them learn to farm – that you should be taking a closer look at. They see the conditions these people live under daily. Therefore I would resist imposing your unimaginative and somewhat callus opinion on to others who are among these people daily…. merely to justify why the love for Obama just ain’t all that. As I said above… excuses, excuses. And pretty poor ones at that.
Now I don’t know where you’ve been, but the Iraq mission has been stated and restated from the beginning of OIF back in 2003. That you choose not to hear it is no one’s fault but your own. Or perhaps just reading all the wrong publications’ headlines.
It was, and has never been, just about WMDs. The “whereas” in the Congressional AUMF disproves that. Also contrary to that erroneous belief is the fact that deposing Saddam began as a Clinton policy, and was accomplished under Bush. Once Saddam was removed, it was to aid the Iraqis in security while they form a representative government, and then get out. That mission has been accomplished… and all under Bush’s policies. And all with the usual steps forward and steps back that comes with war and changing conditions.
Afghanistan’s goal was the same, but not as easy in a tribal nation where they have little need or regard for a central government that doesn’t provide them with infrastructure or business incentives. The gap of sophistication and advancement of respective civilizations between these two countries would span light years.
If one assumes the logic that midway between 2008 and 2010 is the year of 2009:
Bush overall: 37%
Obama overall today: 25:
Spread: 12%
Bush Iraq: 42%
Obama Iraq: 40%
Spread: 2%
Fact: Obama merely adhered to Bush’s SOFA withdrawal plans. In other words, he didn’t screw up what Bush had already done. So the Bush withdrawal plan – implemented by honoring that contract – lost 2% over all this time.
Bush Afghanistan: 38%
Obama Afghanistan: 26%
Spread: 12%
Two points about Afghanistan. The decline in the stability and security of Afghanistan began precisely in the months following NATO assuming all security responsibility over the entire country in the summer of 2006. In case you aren’t aware of this, NATO ROEs differ wholly from US ROEs…. and the nanny warfare that is allowed to be conducted under NATO takes it’s toll in the loss of control and increased instability and violence.
Obama campaigned that he’d get NATO countries to commit more resources – tho more under those ROEs is somewhat a joke anyway – instead of the US carrying the burden.
He failed.
Then when he attempted a “surge”, he “scrooge ‘d” on the needed and requested troops from his commanders on the ground…. hoping he’d see the same results as the Iraq surge that he vehemently opposed as a part time Senator.
On all accounts, Obama has failed in Afghanistan. He’s tied the hands of the military, he’s angered Pakistan, which is integral to the Af/PAK fight. And he’s made the Bush “swagger” look like a light, happy skip with his treatment of our allies. Small wonder no NATO nations wanted to contribute more to Afghanistan… Obama walked in to the WH, filled with the baggage of his brief Congressional past as a guy who screams “failure” at every turn.
And the last time I looked, Larry, 12% was not any poll’s “margin of error”. The only war in the 2% of error margins is Iraq… and as I’ve already pointed out, that’s not even Obama’s policy or strategy. It was merely honoring a contract made in Dec 2008 between Bush and Iraq.
Probably would have listened to the commanders on the ground, and sent them what they needed. If the most experience you have is inciting discontent as a community organizer, one would think such a newbie might give professional soldiers the time of day for their opinions and strategy. But not this one… Why do you think the Iraq surge worked? Bush listened. Obama listens only to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.
As I pointed out, the casualties and injuries were high under Bush, but he continually put faith in the troops, and fought those – like Sen. Obama – for what the generals needed.
As for opinions and approval ratings, you might also want to consider that, for all the media’s best attempts to discourage US troops under Bush with the rhetoric about Iraq, they remained pretty consistent. Now, under this inept CiC, the media remains relatively silent about his Afghanistan failures, and touts up Bush’s achievements in Iraq’s as Obama’s… and still his approval plummets.
Soldiers evidently are brighter than some people give them credit for.
If you can’t figure out the years, or you don’t like the fact that it doesn’t go to “100” (is this a Spinal Tap moment for you, Greg? LOL), then I apologize. I don’t have a problem seeing the divide in the middle, nor the trajectory line that still shows the movement over two years.
Data 2009 is not left out. What do you think it did, Greg? Spike up to 100% the moment Obama took time out from his inaugural parties and the poll tried to hide it? LOL
It may be that those numbers reflected indiscernible.. or consistent.. enough movement during that year not to warrant such a dedicated field. After all, Obama was busy doing nothing on the foreign front in 2009, save traveling around giving grand speeches about a new era of chit chat over the negotiations table, and love the one you’re with type BS.
There is a link from the original Most Wanted post, had you chose to exhibit a bit of curiosity before letting lose your cannons filled with blanks, Greg. The Navy Times has an article about it, which is available to non subscribers to the Military Times.
The reality is this… Obama, in three short years… has managed to tank his approval amongst the Military Times readers. Bush didn’t even fall that far in eight, with lots more casualties. Any attempt to spin this another way just appears desperate….
… and offensive.
BTW… I was traveling over the weekend, and while in the SLC airport, some of our warriors landed. The whole wing of the terminal erupted in applause… something that warmed my heart. I knew that would never happen in PDX, so I relished the moment of being surrounded by those who have genuine appreciation for our military.
After all these years, I recently discovered that Clinton ordered the CIA to instigate at least two coups to overthrow Saddam. One in 1995 where he backed out on the Iraqis at the last minute and again in 1996 where Saddam’s Intelligence penetrated to plot and it failed. Then there was another one that involved the Brits and UNSCOM.
Can’t find the article that informed us that Congress was informed, that they agreed with the overthrow of Saddam and it wasn’t related to WMD, I believe it was a WaPo article. Which leads me to believe that when Congress voted for the AUMF, WMD was included, but not the entire reason for authorizing force, we knew that, and, we also knew WMD was eventually used as a convenient lie. They had been after Hussein for years.
After reading Cheney, by Stephen Hayes, I learned that it was Colin Powell that decided to go….only….with WMD and he spent four days with the CIA preparing for the UN speech. Scooter Libby’s team had a presentation prepared that would cover the entire scope, all UN Resolutions included in the AUMF that was to last a few days presenting it to the UN, but, Powell, and his speech won out in the long run. I’m remembering Powell becoming quite angry with the information he worked so hard having cleared through the CIA for his speech, never once was it mentioned that it was all his decision.
Bay of Pigs Redux
Exclusive: How the CIA’s secret war in Iraq turned into a fiasco
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/newsweek032398.htm
Little different take:
CIA Secret War
http://www.defencejournal.com/oct98/cia_secretwar.htm