your "question" is just a push-poll. The pew question only needs to be amended to eliminate the bias you're seeing in it. Word it more like "The US should... ( ) keep troops in, ( ) bring troops home immediately."
I'm not saying it's out of bounds, but it's clearly worded to yield a certain response. I mean if you want dishonest opinions that's cool. If you want a meaningful poll then you have to be more careful with you're wording.
I'm not saying it's out of bounds, but it's clearly worded to yield a certain response.
Incorrect. There may be only one reasonable answer, but some questions are like that. Wording it to give equal weight to both options results in "dishonest" (more likely, misunderstood) responses.
I'm backing up zach here. It's a leading question.
And no, the military does not wholly determine troop levels to the extent they reflect strategic military engagement in lieu of civilian leadership. Military control of troop levels committed to an engagement stop at the water's edge of overall policy.
As dumb as it would be, if a Democrat President decides the policy is quick withdrawal, that would necessarily dictate troop levels.
If you want to formulate a question, I'd say it would be something like: "Do you think the US is making progress in Iraq or not?" With a conditional follow-up about whether troops should be kept in to maintain the effort, removed immediately or phased withdrawal.
A slightly tweaked version of the question might even work, something about troop levels tied to assessments of events onn the ground, vs. the current formulation of waging a popularity contest between politicians and military officers.
It's a foregone conclusion where that question goes, which really doesn't tell you who wants to ditch the policy.
It's not a leading question. It's a question that puts things into the proper context.
Look, if Democrats want to tell Petraeus how many troops they think he should be allowed to have, fine. But let's ask the American people who they think should be making that call, and publish that in the front pages of the major media.
I mean, really, you guys are acting as though politicians-vs-military is not the issue on the table here. It very much is. Dems in Congress have repeatedly attempted to override the military's judgement.
Asking people what they think the troop levels should be is like asking them what they think the tariff on Canadian caribou should be: they have no freakin' clue. It's a waste of time, they are not subject matter experts and their opinions are mostly irrelevant to the decision-making process anyway.
What the people do have relevant opinions on and can influence is who makes those decisions. That's how representative democracy works. If the people say overwhelmingly that "Hey, Congress really shouldn't override commanders on the ground" then Congress must respect their wishes or risk voters' wrath.
Look, if Democrats want to tell Petraeus how many troops they think he should be allowed to have, fine.
Assuming appropriate authority, they are allowed to tell him what his mission is, which may dictate how many troops he has.
"Hey, Congress really shouldn't override commanders on the ground"
I'm not sure what you mean. If it conjures up Harry Reid standing in front of huge strategic maps dictating the disposition of forces, I understand. If it means General Petreaus has the ability write a blank check as to how long the US maintains military involvement in Iraq, and at what levels, I don't understand it. What am I missing here?
(and btw, if I'm missing your point via the poll question, I'm not sure it's properly constructed)
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works, for better or ill in individual examples.
The Pew Research Center has released the results of its latest poll on Americans' views on Iraq and the state of the nation. The dramatically improved view of the situation in Iraq has attracted a great deal of attention--and rightly so. But Pew soft-pedals the good news in its summary, and you only get a sense of the depth of the change in opinion when you consult the full result.
Similarly, support for a timetable for withdrawal has fallen dramatically--from 19 percent support in January to just 11 percent today. Remember that the next time a Democrat claims that the American people support their approach.
Another interesting finding: Americans increasingly believe that we are succeeding in preventing Iraq from being used as a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. In November 2006, respondents said by a margin of 39 to 49 that we were not: today, 51 percent say that we are--against just 36 percent who are skeptical. That's a 25 point swing in favor!
On preventing a civil war and defeating the insurgents, there are similarly huge shifts. Across the board, the data show a significant growth in confidence about how the war is being waged.
Aside from the lack of clarity in the question on wanting the troops home, seems there is a lot of detail, and much of it is positive for the policy.
Sorry for too many comments in a row, but i just had a "duh" moment. The first graph in the excerpt above shows much of the detail you need to know:
Similarly, support for a timetable for withdrawal has fallen dramatically--from 19 percent support in January to just 11 percent today. Remember that the next time a Democrat claims that the American people support their approach.
The only question that remains is what portion of the 89% mean that they shun timetables because withdrawal should be based on events (advice of commanders) on the ground vs. what portion of the 89% means "remove everybody NOW!"
Sure, of course they're allowed to, the question is whether the American people think they or the military should be making that call, and whether that opinion is promulgated through the media or quietly ignored.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean the bills Dems keep introducing trying to restrict troops levels in Iraq.
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works
That's exactly how our democracy works: we elect politicians as much for the things they agree NOT to do as for the things they do.
The poll does get close with the timetable question (albeit again with the confusion you noted), but it still avoids the core issue of who Americans want to make the troop level decisions.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems blatently obvious that the answer to your question is, "Of course, elected officials should have the ultimate control over troop actions and levels." Did everyone here forget that a civilian controlled military (the system we currently have in America, thanks to the Constitution) is one of the cornerstones of the security and longevity of our democratic system? Lets all imagine what the alternative would be if we had a military that was not answerable to the people. IF you need help, there are countless disasterous examples throughout history to look to. The current situation in Pakistan comes to mind for starters.
Like the war in Iraq, things like stock market prices, miniature golf scores, post-drugged semen levels, and chronic back pain and flatulence can fluctuate naturally and may regress towards the mean and uncalled for. The logical flaw is to make predictions that expect exceptional results to continue as if they were the average, a representativeness heuristic if I ever saw one! People are most likely to take action when dissent, like morning wood, is at its peak. Then after results become more normal or less turgid, they believe that their action was the cause of the change when in fact it was not causal, wherein cohesion between objects of similar silly appearance is assumed. While often very useful in everyday life, it can also result in neglect of relevant base rates and volumes, an inability to play funk, and other errors. Another snag you may encounter involves describing some occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem. Please get reliable info and state the facts without the GOP kneepad spin!
Yes, you are missing something. The question is not whether the U.S. should become a military dictatorship. The question is Congress should defer to the judgement of military commanders on the ground in Iraq regarding the question of what the proper troop levels are for that country.
Our military men and women are trained to believe they can accomplish anything given the right amount of planning (and resources). Their job is to raise hell, wreak havoc and remove the opponents will to continue. THEY WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE THEY CAN SUCCEED! That's another reason we have civilians determine the actions of the military. Sometimes what it takes to succeed is counterproductive to the operation as a whole. Sometimes success is impossible within civilized terms. Sometimes success is a mirage. These are truths the military is not constructed for and are incapable of fitting into their mindset. Let the services do what they do, only with civilian supervision.
In fact this is not true, they have the same debates over this that go on over on the civilian side. History is replete with examples, from the parade of Northern generals who thought the Civil War was unwinnable (McClellan actually ran against Lincoln on that platform) to Ridgway and Eisenhower, who had to systematically purge the overly cautious from their ranks in order to find commanders who could win.
the military is not "this general or that general," it is a dynamic monolith with a purpose. what happens to generals who don't think they can win? they are replaced (then unseccessfully run for office) by generals who beleive they can/will win. we don't train them to believe they can't win, period. everytime you hear a general say 'we can't win' an angel gets it... no, that's not right. oh yeah, you've heard a career end with a resounding thud!
OK Dave, but that is not what the question was asking, which is why it was highly misleading. Beyond that nitpickery, what is a Congress to do when the administration systematically purged the military of any and all (highly qualified) generals who disagreed with their (civilian) strategy. Then, when they finally found one that was willing to go along with them, they paraded him around like the second coming of Doug MacArthur, wailing "you must listen to the generals on the ground." So forgive me if I do not buy into the premise of the argument when it applies to Iraq.
In general, however, I don't think anybody, including Dems in Congress, would disagree that the tactical and strategic observations and opinions of the commanding generals should be considered when making war policy. But, with that last sentence, I have to come back to the fact that, contrary to the original question, the elected officials should make war policy, not military leaders.
Speaking of revisionism, wasn't the purpose of the "Surge" to have a stable central government in Iraq that existed outside the Green Zone?
Or are Conservatives not allowed to acknowledge that the Bush Team has lowered teh bar for themselves, once again?
11.29.2007 9:26am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
your "question" is just a push-poll. The pew question only needs to be amended to eliminate the bias you're seeing in it. Word it more like "The US should... ( ) keep troops in, ( ) bring troops home immediately."
That's an interesting perspective. Or maybe you just don't like the answer.
"Should troop levels be determined on the basis of opinion polls or the judgement of our professional military?"
Then we can find out which of our polls is more meaningful.
I'm not saying it's out of bounds, but it's clearly worded to yield a certain response. I mean if you want dishonest opinions that's cool. If you want a meaningful poll then you have to be more careful with you're wording.
Incorrect. There may be only one reasonable answer, but some questions are like that. Wording it to give equal weight to both options results in "dishonest" (more likely, misunderstood) responses.
And no, the military does not wholly determine troop levels to the extent they reflect strategic military engagement in lieu of civilian leadership. Military control of troop levels committed to an engagement stop at the water's edge of overall policy.
As dumb as it would be, if a Democrat President decides the policy is quick withdrawal, that would necessarily dictate troop levels.
If you want to formulate a question, I'd say it would be something like: "Do you think the US is making progress in Iraq or not?" With a conditional follow-up about whether troops should be kept in to maintain the effort, removed immediately or phased withdrawal.
It's a foregone conclusion where that question goes, which really doesn't tell you who wants to ditch the policy.
Yes, it's clearly worded to determine whether people think the military or politicians should be deciding troop levels.
The fact that we know people are going to prefer the military does not make it an invalid question.
Look, if Democrats want to tell Petraeus how many troops they think he should be allowed to have, fine. But let's ask the American people who they think should be making that call, and publish that in the front pages of the major media.
Asking people what they think the troop levels should be is like asking them what they think the tariff on Canadian caribou should be: they have no freakin' clue. It's a waste of time, they are not subject matter experts and their opinions are mostly irrelevant to the decision-making process anyway.
What the people do have relevant opinions on and can influence is who makes those decisions. That's how representative democracy works. If the people say overwhelmingly that "Hey, Congress really shouldn't override commanders on the ground" then Congress must respect their wishes or risk voters' wrath.
Assuming appropriate authority, they are allowed to tell him what his mission is, which may dictate how many troops he has.
I'm not sure what you mean. If it conjures up Harry Reid standing in front of huge strategic maps dictating the disposition of forces, I understand. If it means General Petreaus has the ability write a blank check as to how long the US maintains military involvement in Iraq, and at what levels, I don't understand it. What am I missing here?
(and btw, if I'm missing your point via the poll question, I'm not sure it's properly constructed)
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works, for better or ill in individual examples.
BTW -
Aside from the lack of clarity in the question on wanting the troops home, seems there is a lot of detail, and much of it is positive for the policy.
The only question that remains is what portion of the 89% mean that they shun timetables because withdrawal should be based on events (advice of commanders) on the ground vs. what portion of the 89% means "remove everybody NOW!"
Sure, of course they're allowed to, the question is whether the American people think they or the military should be making that call, and whether that opinion is promulgated through the media or quietly ignored.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean the bills Dems keep introducing trying to restrict troops levels in Iraq.
I may agree that Petraeus's discretion is far superior, but that's not how our democracy works
That's exactly how our democracy works: we elect politicians as much for the things they agree NOT to do as for the things they do.
The poll does get close with the timetable question (albeit again with the confusion you noted), but it still avoids the core issue of who Americans want to make the troop level decisions.
Yes, you are missing something. The question is not whether the U.S. should become a military dictatorship. The question is Congress should defer to the judgement of military commanders on the ground in Iraq regarding the question of what the proper troop levels are for that country.
In fact this is not true, they have the same debates over this that go on over on the civilian side. History is replete with examples, from the parade of Northern generals who thought the Civil War was unwinnable (McClellan actually ran against Lincoln on that platform) to Ridgway and Eisenhower, who had to systematically purge the overly cautious from their ranks in order to find commanders who could win.
In general, however, I don't think anybody, including Dems in Congress, would disagree that the tactical and strategic observations and opinions of the commanding generals should be considered when making war policy. But, with that last sentence, I have to come back to the fact that, contrary to the original question, the elected officials should make war policy, not military leaders.
Or are Conservatives not allowed to acknowledge that the Bush Team has lowered teh bar for themselves, once again?
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.