72% of US troops want war to end in 2006

[Jim]

Not surprising, part of the Bravado. You know, give 110%.

 

Or, perhaps, some of them believe in their mission and think they can succeed?

[Pangloss]

IMO one of the ugliest tactics that shows up in the current debate environment these days is the idea that if someone disagrees with your position then they must have been "indoctrinated" or coerced into that point of view somehow. I mean they couldn't have come by that opinion naturally, right, because if they'd given it an ounce of intelligent thought then surely they would agree with you. Ugh.

 

It also perpetuates the stereotype that soldiers are of lower intelligence and motivation.

 

If you ask me that's an awfully condescending point of view.

[gcol]

Not sure if I have been guilty of codescension, but as I am also unsure whether we are considering the accuracy of the poll, possible skewing of the questions, interpretation of the results, or motivation of the respondents, then it is possible.

 

Soldiers of lower intelligence and motivation? Another poll, perhaps?

[Sisyphus]

When you find a poll that says all that, you let me know.

 

That's exactly the point, and why it's so surprising. If you listen to the troops themselves, that IS what this one says. Why do people want the war to end? According to half of the troops themselves, they're unpatriotic or don't understand the war. (That's also what the President would have you believe.) Hence, to those troops who think that, leaving would be giving up in defeat, no? And so yes, it's surprising that the number is that high.

[Jim]

Hence, to those troops who think that, leaving would be giving up in defeat, no?

 

Maybe, also, they believe in the cause and think they can succeed. Maybe this belief derives not from a simple desire to prevail in the fight but from witnessing events on the ground and the application of a superior knowledge about military tactics than that possessed by the average Washington pundit.

[Sisyphus]

I thought the poll was about whether we should leave in a certain timespan, not whether we will win in that timespan. If it's the latter, then those who said they'd stay indefinitely certainly have a low opinion of their own military!

[bascule]

It is not ad hominem to consider the credibility of a purported expert source.

 

It's certainly an ad hominem to argue the results of a poll are biased solely on the basis of who conducted the poll and how he was funded.

 

The bias in this case is evident in the questions asked.

 

Congratulations, you found something beyond an argument against the person conducting the poll as a basis for bias.

[SorceressPol]

It's certainly an ad hominem to argue the results of a poll are biased solely on the basis of who conducted the poll and how he was funded.

 

 

Isn't that more like common sense? For example, are you gonna take a poll on gays at face value done by a Baptist group funded by Fred Phelps?

[Jim]

It's certainly an ad hominem to argue the results of a poll are biased solely on the basis of who conducted the poll and how he was funded.

 

Ummmm.. no.

 

Bias can be logically relevant.

 

If a salesman comes to my office and claims that his product will improve my secretaries' efficiency by 100%, it would be logical for me to consider his profit motive to puff the sale. The bias of the salesman does not mean that I automatically reject the claim but it does mean that I am wise to skeptically examine the details. If I sense something fishy in the claim, and certainly if he makes inconsistent statements, that is all the more reason to view the claims more skeptically than a similar claim made by a disinterested party.

 

On the other hand, if the salesman claims that the product comes in the color red, and brings a sample of the red item for me to examine, it would be illogical for me disbelieve the salesman's statements merely because of bias.

 

In this case, the claim of Zogby is very murky and their bias is relevant to a logical analysis. I gave two arguments to buttress the bias issue: 1. The question asked is slanted in that the only non-open ended answer a soldier could give is that he wants to stay indefinitely and 2. the results seem inconsistent in that it is hard to square with so many who would view a rapid withdrawal as unpatriotic. The devil in this kind of expert testimony is in the details of which very few are given. Further evidence of bias is the way the 72% claim is trumpeted and other, significant, information favorable to the Bush position is relegated to the bottom half of the article.

 

You do not respond to any of my substantive arguments.

 

 

Congratulations, you found something beyond an argument against the person conducting the poll as a basis for bias.

 

Ummm.... no again.

 

I "found" this and other arguments in my previous posts.

[Jim]

I thought the poll was about whether we should leave in a certain timespan, not whether we will win in that timespan. If it's the latter, then those who said they'd stay indefinitely certainly have a low opinion of their own military!

 

I think the question was whether they would stay however long it took which does ask for a much more open ended commitment.

[bascule]

Ummmm.. no.

 

Bias can be logically relevant.

 

This is a scientific poll. You should be looking for problems with his methodology, not with his character.

 

It's no different from me saying that Jim Hansen is wrong because he's a global warming alarmist.

 

He's biased, therefore that bias should be evident in his research, right?

 

No, ad hominem.

[Jim]

This is a scientific poll. You should be looking for problems with his methodology' date=' not with his character.

 

It's no different from me saying that Jim Hansen is wrong because he's a global warming alarmist.

 

He's biased, therefore that bias should be evident in his research, right?

 

No, ad hominem.[/quote']

 

First, we aren't talking about "character." You make it sound like I"m attacking zogby for being a bunch of dirty fornicators.

 

Second, any expert witnesses' credibility, including those purportedly using scientific methods, is entirely fair game. If the RNC or DNC commissioned a survey, you would view that more skeptically than one done independently. This is why on talk shows they usually disclose the party affiliation of pollsters.

 

I've confronted many experts over the years and, trust me on this, there is a real correlation between the result of the expert's opinion and who pays the bill.

 

Third, I did both Bascule. I questioned the bias of Zogby (actually, the article I quoted did so initially and I"m just defending that article) and I showed that there was a problem with methodology. Bias + weak methodology results in less confidence in a result. That is pretty obvious.

 

Fourth, I'd have more confidence in Zogby's poll if I could find the real guts and details of what they did. Instead, all they published is a press release.

 

Fifth, your Jim Hansen anology is not apt. A better analogy would be a scientist funded by the coal industry whose research purports to debunk global warming or a doctor funded by Phillip Morris who thinks second hand smoke is harmless. I think you'd mention the bias if we were debating these subjects?

[pcs]

Indeed, but are not the troops among the first to be indoctrinated?

 

If by indoctrination you mean similar selection mechanisms to those in academic cultures, then possibly.

 

It matters not why they do it, as long as they follow orders.

 

I prefer not to think of a population that is by and large better educated than its civilian counterpart in such terms.

[pcs]

It also perpetuates the stereotype that soldiers are of lower intelligence and motivation.

 

If you ask me that's an awfully condescending point of view.

 

It's also by and large inaccurate.

[Tetrahedrite]

Apparantly the troops disagree with you.

I believe that was the point of the post.

 

The fact that 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks”, when he had absolutely no role in the 11/9 attacks, suggests to me widespread indoctrination, not just in the military, but in the population at large. I am certainly not implying that soldiers are any less intelligent than the general population, but 85% of the soldiers had to get this false idea from somewhere, they didn't just pull it out of thin air.

[pcs]

I believe that was the point of the post.

 

The fact that 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks”' date=' when he had absolutely no role in the 11/9 attacks, suggests to me widespread indoctrination, not just in the military, but in the population at large.[/quote']

 

How do I know you aren't the one succumbing to a false belief? Who to believe?

[Tetrahedrite]

How do I know you aren't the one succumbing to a false belief? Who to believe?

[sarcasm] My apologies, all the evidence points towards Saddam Hussein being integral in the 11/9 plots [/sarcasm]

[pcs]

[sarcasm'] My apologies, all the evidence points towards Saddam Hussein being integral in the 11/9 plots [/sarcasm]

 

Sarcasm aside, the uniformed serviceman has clearly made a judgement, based on some evidence, regarding the likelihood that a Middle Eastern dictator hostile to the west would have collaborated with al Qaeda. I don't know about you, but the judgement is prudent in my mind.

[Pangloss]

That's exactly the point, and why it's so surprising. If you listen to the troops themselves, that IS what this one says. Why do people want the war to end? According to half of the troops themselves, they're unpatriotic or don't understand the war. (That's also what the President would have you believe.) Hence, to those troops who think that, leaving would be giving up in defeat, no? And so yes, it's surprising that the number is that high.

 

I disagree, I think that's a hatfull of interpretation on your part. Of course you're welcome to read anything into that poll that you like, but that's all it is.

[Pangloss]

This is a scientific poll. You should be looking for problems with his methodology' date=' not with his character.

 

It's no different from me saying that Jim Hansen is wrong because he's a global warming alarmist.

 

He's biased, therefore that bias should be evident in his research, right?

 

No, ad hominem.[/quote']

 

I disagree, and I think Jim raised interesting (and not ad hominem) points.

[Tetrahedrite]

Sarcasm aside, the uniformed serviceman has clearly made a judgement, based on some evidence[/i'], regarding the likelihood that a Middle Eastern dictator hostile to the west would have collaborated with al Qaeda. I don't know about you, but the judgement is prudent in my mind.

To start with, this is a logical fallacy. Osama did not like the dictator, and in fact called him an infidel (1), so I don't think it is prudent to make this judgement at all.

 

Secondly, do you have any idea what this evidence may be? (I quite seriously didn't know that there was any, and I stand to be corrected). Or is it more likely that the 85% of soldiers are relying on statements by the Bush administration about the links between Iraq and the 11/9 attacks(2) (3) (4) etc etc?

[bascule]

I disagree, and I think Jim raised interesting (and not ad hominem) points.

 

Well, I'll admit Zogby has a rather spotty past in terms of his previous pollings, especially when he called the presidential race for Kerry from his exit polls...

[Jim]

Well, I'll admit Zogby has a rather spotty past in terms of his previous pollings, especially when he called the presidential race for Kerry from his exit polls...

 

Dang, wish I had remembered that!

[aguy2]

If this poll is a true indication of the attitude of 'people on the ground' I think it would be very significant. Striking hard and striking deep at your adversaries precieved center of gravity has a lot of validity as military doctrine, but the Bush administations extrapolation of this into the geo-political realm was at best a high risk operation. I felt as long as the people on the ground felt it was a 'doable' task to help turn Iraq into a stable, free market, democratic/republic it might be seen to be worth the risk, but if they are saying it can't be done, we should probably get them out.

aguy2

[pcs]

To start with, this is a logical fallacy.

 

You just can't call a potential error in fact a logical fallacy. It's just not...right or something like that.

 

Osama did not like the dictator, and in fact called him an infidel (1), so I don't think it is prudent to make this judgement at all.

 

Yeah, and Jay-Z and Nas went at it in 2002. Now they're cutting an album together. Point?

 

Secondly, do you have any idea what this evidence may be?

 

Probably not, seeing as I've been indoctrinated apparantly.

 

The moral of the story is this, if you think that the vast majority of uniformed servicemen are wrong on a point of fact, argue the point of fact. If you're not prepared to do so, then just say "well, I guess we agree to disagree."