Do the Protests Affect Troop Morale?

Why should they be bothered or demoralized? That wasn't the aim of the protests at all - it was to get a message across to the people who put the soldiers out in the battlefield. Going by the signs and banners I saw, one of the main themes of the demonstrators was the pointlessness of risking American soldiers' lives on a hellbent-for-leather oil crusade. That's a long way from demonizing or trying to demoralize men and women in uniform.

 

Not counting this, what's the over-under for the first reply saying that people who protest against going to war are hurting the troops and/or are helping Iraq?

I say 8 posts.

 

People who protest against this war are helping Iraq. There, I said it. Although being (somewhat) opposed, I didn't protest against it.

I don't think they are hurting the troops, however, that is the job of the Iraqis - and sometimes the Americans,

 

To repeat a favorite theme:

Our soldiers are professionals. They are paid to fight for our country. They are not paid to let political issues affect them one bit. They should not whine, complain, or feel blue abot morale. Doing so makes them bad soldiers. They should want to go to war even if 95% of the people are against them. They are not paid to think or brood. Militaries that think and brood generally end up overthrowing governments.

 

It's not the troops' concern that protests are taking place, nor is it the protesters concern that morale might be affected by those protests. Everyone is doing their jobs, nothing to see here...

 

They shouldn't let the troops watch TV, especially European TV. Soliders are professionals, they are humans too. Most of them have at least one bachelor degree. It's hard to not to think and it's hard to be a soldier nowadays.

But there's nothing much there to watch in FOX and CNN anyway as far as the anti-war protests are concerned.

 

And for those who claim that they are "patriots" for not wanting a war so they can "save the lives of out troops" read above.

 

Most of them have at least one bachelors degree? Uh, where did that come from. I'll grant you that I've been out of the USAF since 1990, but when I was in I was an enlisted puke. I knew one other guy who was enlisted who had a degree. He tried to get selected for OCS but his grades weren't good enough for that.

All officers have at least one degree (they have to have one). 13 years ago, at least in the Air Force, hardly anyone who was enlisted had a degree. Keep in mind that the Air Force was typically the best-educated branch of the service. In fact, there are lots of people in the Army and Marine Corps who don't even have high school diplomas.

Did you ever see military recruiting ads on tv? They promise "money for college." Why would people who already had degrees need a recruitment bonus to use for college tuition?

 

US Military education levels

The 27th annual Department of Defense (DoD) report on social representation in the U.S. Military Services.

And just like I thought, active duty military members with any college is pretty low.

From Chapter Two of the DoD report

College Experience (defined as "those individuals with the following credentials: associate degree, professional nursing diploma, baccalaureate, master's, post master's, doctorate, first-professional, or completed one semester of college.")

Army - 7.4%
Navy - 4.9%
Marine Corps - 1.6%
Air Force - 14.3%

 

The people who protest tend to the the people who feel the most strongly. A lot of people really don't want us to go to war. However, in this country the silent majority carries the weight, and it is firmly intent on backing war in Iraq. You aren't going to see rallies from people supporting war... but I have a feeling that those people exist. Rallies in support of war are not civil. We have to leave it up to our leaders. You might cite Vietnam as an example to the contrary, but I don't remember anyone protesting when JFK began sending troops on France's behalf into Vietnam, before the declaration of war. Neither was there organized protest at the beginning of the war, when it seemed like it was going to be a tight little job compared to Korea.
There were a lot of protests to American involvement in WWII, right up until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. History suggests that the attack could have been averted, but was allowed to happen to shift public sentiment, which was decidedly isolationist after WWI. In that case, Jews were already being killed by the thousands, while the majority of our country sat by and twiddled their thumbs, willing to ignore atrocity for a false sense of peace. Obviously, as soon as we were attacked, public sentiment quickly shifted, and the president was able to declare war. Roosevelt had acquiesced to France and Italy in 1938, and look what happenned... we had to save their asses. They still owe us for that one, because if our comprehensive system of radar hadn't "mysteriously" failed to pick up a massive fleet of ships and planes, we would be trading with France in Apolphdollars, not the Euro
I do not dislike the people who are protesting, they have a right to their opinions. I disagree with a lot of things that happen in this country, and have participated in protests myself. In this case, however, the protestors are ignoring the actual issues of this conflict, and ignoring the people inside Iraq who want to be liberated, in general because of a dislike of George W. Bush. If Clinton was president it would be the conservatives demonstrating.

Nobody likes, war, except maybe some of the troops. Regardless, they are not concerned with protests at this point. This is a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, and nothing more. Maybe Timothy McVeigh felt guilty about shooting Saddam's troops, but look at what kind of person he was. The US military has zero intention of harming any civilians at this stage of war. There will be no indiscriminate bombing. The sole intention is to oust Saddam, and to destroy the chemical and biological weapons, before they can be used against anyone, whomever that may be. The most likely civilian casualties are those from booby traps set by Saddam's fleeing troops.

I don't want to kill anyone, but sometimes it is necessary. In that case of an evil dictator, a coup will usually be bloody. We have to get Saddam out, or terrorists will have a haven to reside in where they can be trained and supplied weapons of mass destruction. If you have doubts that that has happenned, and will continue to do so you are totally ignorant. I have worries that this will cause an immediate increase in terrorism, but in the long run it is necessary. I would rather act early than sit idly by while terrorists scheme to take me down in complete safety.

 

Maybe a lot has changed since 1990. I'm currently active duty Army and I can't count the number of enlisted soldiers that I know of that have degrees or are in some stage of earning one. Obviously, almost all enlisted soldiers come into the Army without a college degree (how could they not if they're 18?) By the time they get up into the senior enlisted ranks a college degree is practically required for promotion.

That's news to me. I've never met one soldier that does not have a high school or equivalent diploma. The requirement has varied between a high school diploma or a GED. The Army pushes education very hard. Almost all posts have education centers that facilitate post-secondary education. I would assume the Air Force is at least on par with the Army. I guess 1990 was a long time ago.

 

What does this mean, exactly? Their families support them killing people? Or coming home in one piece, safe and mentally and physically sound?

If it's the latter, well hell, consider me family.

 

The post I was referring to said "most of them have at least one bachelor degree." Well the DoD's own data and my personal experience do not support that assertion.

I got out as an E4. I didn't need any kind of degree to get there. Usually, to make it to E7 or above, an associates degree or higher was desirable, but not required.

Read the link I posted earlier

Education

I didn't say a majority didn't have high school diplomas, I said "a lot."

According to the link, percentages of people who have graduated high school before enlisting:

Army - 86.2%
Navy - 90%
Marine Corps - 95.2%
Air Force - 99.2%

This link is as of 2000, and is data provided on a DOD.MIL website.

 

You're wrong. A high school diploma is NOT required to join the USAF.

A guy who worked for me when I was active duty did not finish high school. He got his GED while he was stationed with me at Andrews Air Force Base.

And according to the link I posted above, 99.2% of members of the USAF have a high school diploma. That implies that 0.8% do not.

You can select from a lot of different jobs in the army, air force, navy or marines without a high school diploma, as long as you score well enough on the ASVAB test.

 

Sorry. i was wrong on that bachelor thing.

 

The report I posted a link to was made in the year 2000. Unless something changed between then and now with Air Force recruitment, I don't see how a diploma is required. When I enlisted back in September, 1983, I was also told that you had to have a high school diploma, and when I met this guy at Andrews who didn't have that nor a GED I asked him how he got in. He said he got a waiver.

I'd be willing to bet that even today, someone without a high school diploma could get a waiver and join the USAF.

When I took the ASVAB, its exact purpose was to test common knowledge. It's designed to show which job a person would do best - jet engine mechanic, computer programmer, adminstrative clerk, infantry, tank driver, etc etc.

If I recall correctly, there were four different scores - mechanical, electronic, technical, clerical. Isn't it pretty much the same thing today?