According to this article, there are a small number of troops that voiced their discontent with still being in Iraq, and with the current administrations handling of this war.
We have approx. 146,000 troops in Iraq. Just as a hypethetical, say that 25% of them, (just as a random percentage) were to become disillusioned by this war, and become vocal about it.
A couple of questions…
How could this affect the next election, having 35,000 servicemen voice their disapproval of the war, both through their vote and through their communicating these feelings to others?
If this scenario were to play out, especially with more significant numbers of disillusioned soldiers, would it be in the best interest of the administration to ensure that they remain in Iraq until the elections are still over. I believe that they would still be able to vote from Iraq and that wouldn’t be good for Bush. But, they wouldn’t be able to have as much of an impact as they could have by being in the US and making TV appearances and such.
Are their any repercussions that a soldier could face for voicing their discontent with the situation, while on active duty. I wouldn’t think that there could be but others such as Monty are much more knowledgable in this area than I.
Re: your third question. The military has pretty specific articles under the Uniform Code of Military Justice regarding treason and disrespect for the Commander in Chief, regardless of how big an idiot he is. When you join the military service, many of the freedoms and rights you enjoy as a civilian are out the window, and in time of war, they can be suspended completely. Actively protesting against the war or submitting a petition, for instance, could land a soldier in a courts martial.
Just a WAG, but I imagine that before the war, the typical Joe was told:
They would be in Iraq for only a year, at most.
They were going to war to stop Saddam Hussein from using his evil WMDs.
The repressed people of Iraq would greet them with open arms and love them.
(1) is too early to tell, but given the recent statements from the Pentagon about projected deployment, doesn’t seem bloody likely.
(2) is a demoralizing fact – it should be fairly obvious to the troops by now that there are no major Iraqi WMD caches anywhere (CENTCOM would be trumpeting any such finds), and Iraq’s pre-war threat level to the United States was grossly overexaggerated.
(3) is probably half-true, depending on who you ask and where they are. Daily reports of American troops getting attacked by Iraqis can’t be good for morale.
I’m sure that a lot of the demoralized feelings have to do with wanting to go home, but I wouldn’t buy the notion that this is the only reason they’re grousing. The soldiers aren’t stupid, and they can compare what they were told about Iraq before the war with what they’re seeing for themselves firsthand.
College money? That does seem to be the primary grabber when it comes to recruiting commercials.
With regards to the OP, even if all military personnel in Iraq voted against Bush and convinced their immediate families to do so, that isn’t a very large percentage of the voting population. Keeping them deployed in Iraq wouldn’t seem to me be a wise move to minimize any effect they’d have on the election. I’d imagine that come elections, the more troops still in Iraq, the worse it will be for Bush since presumably they’ll still be getting shot at and killed. If opposition ends, the troops won’t be needed in large numbers.
True enough. I’m thinking more about the impact that the more vocal ones might have by television appearances and such. I can imagine that the democrats woudn’t mind making some appearances with some of these folks.
Interesting that William F. Buckley discusses this in his column today.