* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11, most don't blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately," while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay "as long as they are needed."

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don't believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

"Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there," said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. "Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein." Just 24% said that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. "There appears to be confusion on this," Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

It is not surprising that liberal experts would favor withdrawal, since they viewed the invasion as a strategic error, but many conservative pundits, who initially favored the invasion, have now recognized it as a failure, with a trillion dollar cost, that is increasingly problematic for both Middle East stability and worldwide American credibility. The hostilities in Iraq are thought to greatly increase the risk of terror attacks elsewhere according to a BBC poll of 41,000 people in 35 countries.

There were differences in the Zogby poll among the service branches with the Reserves and National Guard overwhelming in favor of withdrawal (89% and 82%) this year compared to the Army and Marines (69% and 58% respectively). Even more impressively, three-quarters of the Guard and Reserves, and half of the Army, favored withdrawal within 6 months. Marines were more inclined to stay as long as needed (37%), but only a quarter of the Army, and 9% of the Guard and Reserves felt that way. Apparently Senator Russ Feingold and Rep. Jack Murtha knew what they were talking about when they proposed many months ago that the troops had done everything possible and should be leaving Iraq in 2006.

The view of the troops parallels the documented feeling of the Iraqi public; 80% want US forces out within months (and 50% feel that attacks on the US "occupiers" are justified). Similarly there is near unanimity among the Iraqi political leadership that US forces should withdraw as soon as tactically possible. At a meeting in Cairo last November these leaders proposed the US withdraw troops from Iraqi cities by May 2006.

Support for rapid withdrawal in the Zogby survey of troops, three-quarters of whom had served two or more tours of duty, was even higher than among the U.S. public. A majority of the US public (almost 60%) now believes that the troops should be withdrawn this year. Moreover, almost half of the public say that the US should never have invaded and troops should be withdrawn immediately. The view of the troops is more in accord with that of Democrat or progressive voters, 80% of whom favor rapid withdrawal. In contrast Republican voters (41%) are less inclined for withdrawal. Support for the administrations' performance in Iraq is waning among military officers as well.

Troops and the public disagree on the reasons for the war, but both groups now eschew the egregious propaganda about Saddam's WMD. At the same time the troops ascribe their mission in Iraq to the administration line that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda (77%) and was involved in the 9/11 attacks (85%); over half the public no longer believes these obvious administration falsehoods. While the troops have been misled to accept lies they also have been misled to reject truths about their mission. Only 11% see securing strategic oil supplies as a reason for the occupation, and only 6% recognize the mission as providing long-term US military bases. In fact the latter two items have been the dominating concerns of US policy in the Middle East for half a century. The Bush administration, with support of both parties in Congress, has established 14 long-term bases in Iraq to accommodate 50-100,000 troops for the next several decades.

The majority of the troops view the insurgency as largely homegrown; only 20% say this was not true, and only 25% think that elimination of non-Iraqi fighters would inhibit the insurgent forces. Leading experts agree that the ongoing presence of US troops is itself the major factor exacerbating hostilities, with both factions of the insurgency (nationalists and Jihadists) united against foreign occupation. In 2003 the insurgency was small, and poorly organized, and could only mount 50 attacks weekly. In 2004 the attack rate went to 150 to 200 per week and in 2005 to 750 attacks weekly. Perhaps because of the increased level of insurgent activities 53% of the troops opine that a doubling of troop strength and bombing activity would necessary to control the insurgency. In spite of the difficult situation over 80% of the troops maintain good feelings toward the Iraq civilian population. The recent upsurge of violence in Iraq may make it less politically possible to have the troop withdrawal that the troops, the Iraqis, and the American public all desire.

One hopeful factor is that the Iraqi resistance offered a ceasefire in December 2005 to allow occupation forces to peacefully withdraw from the cities to defined military bases, as suggested by the Iraqi government a month earlier.

Offsetting this, however, is a complete lack of response by the Bush administration.

Dick Mazess rbmazess@wisc.edu is Professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

That's one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don't buy into it ? and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.

So what would it take to win in Iraq? Maybe that was the single most depressing finding in this poll.

By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable.

This first systematic look at the views of the U.S. troops on the ground suggests that our present strategy in Iraq is failing badly. The troops overwhelmingly don't want to "stay the course," and they don't seem to think the American strategy can succeed.

It's tempting, but not very helpful, to repeat that the fatal mistake was invading Iraq three years ago and leave it at that. That's easy for a columnist to say; the harder thing for a policy maker is to figure out what we do next, now that we're already there.

I still believe that while the war was a dreadful mistake, an immediate pullout would also be a misstep: anyone who says that Iraq can't get worse hasn't seen a country totally torn apart by chaos and civil war. Mr. Bush is right about the consequences of an immediate pullout ? to Iraq, and also to American influence around the world.

But while we shouldn't rush for the exits immediately, we should lay out a timetable for withdrawal that would remove all troops by the end of next year. And we should state clearly that we will not keep any military bases in Iraq ? that's a no-brainer, for it costs us nothing, but our hedging on bases antagonizes Iraqi nationalists and results in more dead Americans.

Such a timetable would force Iraqis to prepare ? politically and militarily ? to run their own country. The year or two of transition would galvanize Iraqi Shiites to find a modus vivendi with Sunnis while undermining the insurgents' arguments that they are nationalists protecting the motherland from Yankee crusaders.

True, a timetable is arbitrary and risky, for it could just encourage insurgents to hang tight for another couple of years. But we're being killed ? literally ? because of nationalist suspicions among Iraqis that we're just after their oil and bases and that we're going to stay forever. It's crucial that we defuse that nationalist rage.

For now, we've become the piñ¡´¡ of Iraqi politics, something for Iraqi demagogues to bash to boost their own legitimacy. Moktada al-Sadr, one of the scariest Iraqi leaders, has very shrewdly used his denunciations of the U.S. to boost his own political following and influence across Iraq; that's our gift to him, a consequence of our myopia. And many ordinary Iraqis are buying into this scapegoating of the U.S. Edward Wong, one of my intrepid Times colleagues in Baghdad, quoted a clothing merchant named Abdul-Qader Ali as saying: "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes ? it is America. Everything that is going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

Will a timetable work? I don't know, but it's a better bet than our present policy of whistling in the dark. And it's what the troops favor ? and they're the ones who have Iraq combat experience. It's time our commander in chief stopped stage-managing his troops and listened to them.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!

Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others - We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

We are calling on all citizens and governments in every country to stand with us. We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.; All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts; All Human Rights Advocates; All Soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed or are in fear of the dictators to join us in ending this reign of corporate terror in our government. The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity. We need all of you to save U.S. victims and global victims from their ongoing criminal activity. We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government. What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too? They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?


Location:
White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say. Ride Share and Room Share Plans can be made HERE
1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500

Contact:
Darrow Boggiano
admin@politicalcooperative.org

Sponsored By:
We are requesting participation from all members of the United Nations, PFAW, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Code Pink, police, soldiers, ACLU, CIA, NSA and International Courts of Justice/World Court. http://www.PoliticalCooperative.Org

For most of his life Mr. Sekzer was a patriot straight out of central casting. His view was always "If the bugle calls, you go." When he was 21 he was a gunner on a helicopter in Vietnam. He didn't question his country's motives. He was more than willing to place his trust in the leadership of the nation he loved.

"Why We Fight," a thoughtful, first-rate movie directed by Eugene Jarecki, is largely about how misplaced that trust has become. The central figure in the film is not Mr. Jarecki, but Dwight Eisenhower, the Republican president who had been the supreme Allied commander in Europe in World War II, and who famously warned us at the end of his second term about the profound danger inherent in the rise of the military-industrial complex.

Ike warned us, but we didn't listen. That's the theme the movie explores.

Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to a national television and radio audience in January 1961. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience," he said. He recognized that this development was essential to the defense of the nation. But he warned that "we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications."

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist," he said. "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." It was as if this president, who understood war as well or better than any American who ever lived, were somehow able to peer into the future and see the tail of the military-industrial complex wagging the dog of American life, with inevitably disastrous consequences.

The endless billions to be reaped from the horrors of war are a perennial incentive to invest in the war machine and to keep those wars a-coming. "His words have unfortunately come true," says Senator John McCain in the film. "He was worried that priorities are set by what benefits corporations as opposed to what benefits the country."

The way you keep the wars coming is to keep the populace in a state of perpetual fear. That allows you to continue the insane feeding of the military-industrial complex at the expense of the rest of the nation's needs. "Before long," said Mr. Jarecki in an interview, "the military ends up so overempowered that the rest of your national life has been allowed to atrophy."

In one of the great deceptive maneuvers in U.S. history, the military-industrial complex (with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as chairman and C.E.O., respectively) took its eye off the real enemy in Afghanistan and launched the pointless but far more remunerative war in Iraq.

If you want to get a chill, just consider the tragic chaos in present-day Iraq (seven G.I.'s were killed on the day I went to see "Why We Fight") and then listen to Susan Eisenhower in the film recalling a quotation attributed to her grandfather: "God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do."

The military-industrial complex has become so pervasive that it is now, as one of the figures in the movie notes, all but invisible. Its missions and priorities are poorly understood by most Americans, and frequently counter to their interests.

Near the end of the movie, Mr. Sekzer, the New York cop who lost his son on Sept. 11, describes his reaction to President Bush's belated acknowledgment that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"What the hell did we go in there for?" Mr. Sekzer asks.

Unable to hide his bitterness, he says: "The government exploited my feelings of patriotism, of a deep desire for revenge for what happened to my son. But I was so insane with wanting to get even, I was willing to believe anything."

© 2006 The New York Times

"The non-partisan polling firm Zogby International last month found that by a margin of 52 percent to 43 percent, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval," Erbe says. "Well, there's no "if" about it anymore. The president approved warrantless wiretaps in 2002. Two years later, during a campaign appearance in Buffalo, N.Y. he volunteered he'd done nothing of the kind. That's called breaking the law and lying about it."
It has taken a while but the American people are coming around to realize what some of us have been saying for some time: George Bush is a serious threat to the future of this country and represents a clear and present danger to the peace and security of the United States of America.

We're not talking about some Presidential horn toad nailing an intern in the oval office. We're not even talking about a paranoid, power-mad President tapping the phones of the opposition party. We're talking about a concentrated effort to undermine the Constitution of the United States, subvert the laws of the nation and destroy the very foundations of this country.

Bush is a power-mad megalomaniac hell-bent on undermining the freedoms and civil liberties that once characterized this nation, a crazed despot who cares nothing for the truth, human decency or law.

He is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and more corrupt than any President in modern history. He is, simply put, a threat who must be removed from office now by whatever legal means necessary to protect the safety of the nation.

Bonnie is a lady and her well-written, sanely-reasoned column should be read and heeded by all.

"Grassroots passion for impeachment prompted by this president's circumvention of Congress and the Constitution is what's driving growing public support," she says. "And America's transition from 'Bush fan' to 'Bush foe' is being ignored by the mainstream media."

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University and also sees Bush as a threat to Democracy.

"President George W. Bush has claimed the authority to violate federal statutes when he believes it is necessary for the nation's security," Turley says. "Such a claim of authority would upset the delicate balance of power in our tripartite system of government and convert the Chief Executive into a type of maximum leader; the very scourge that led our Framers to form this Republic"

I'm neither as polite as Bonnie Erbe or as scholarly as Jonathan Turley. But agree with both of them without reservation.

The son-of-a-bitch has to go.

"I'm pleased she's not coming," said Meyer, involved in a GOP primary with Tim Doyle for a chance to succeed state Rep. Jerry Kooiman, R-Grand Rapids. "She's a divisive figure, and anytime when you're talking about a Lincoln Day Dinner, especially in an election year, to have a divisive figure come in is not good for the party."

Party officials weren't quite as sanguine over Coulter's cancellation. They were ready to pay her $35,000 and were expecting to sell the maximum 1,500 tickets at $75 a pop for the downtown event at DeVos Place.

They lost her when one of Coulter's booking agents found that another booking agent -- one who books Coulter for her college speaking circuit -- scheduled her for a Florida State University event in Tallahassee the same night, said Brian Pierce, the Kent County GOP's executive director, who handled her arrangements here.

"You'd think they'd have a shared calendar, but they don't," he said of the Premiere Speaker's Bureau and the Young America's Foundation, the latter of which books her college appearances.

Although they are offering refunds for the cancellation, Kent County Republicans had not heard from anybody seeking one, Pierce said. They expect to name a replacement this week, possibly a presidential hopeful, a White House official, or somebody else from the conservative speaker's circuit.

Some didn't accept the explanation of Coulter's scheduling conflict. Lana Boldi, the former Democratic Party Chairwoman who criticized the choice of Coulter for the event, had her own theory.

"I suspect high-level candidates put the pressure on (party officials) to come up with a reason to pull her," Boldi said. "It would have been just too embarrassing for candidates. They were fearful it would affect their ability to fundraise and to get the votes because people would be so turned off."

She added: "Whatever reason they give, I'm simply pleased she's not coming to this area, because I think we're bigger than that."

John Van Fossen, the GOP's co-finance chairman, scoffed at the idea Coulter was edged out of her appearance in Grand Rapids because of her controversial style.

"There was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for Ann Coulter," Van Fossen said. "It was a scheduling issue we couldn't resolve. I don't think Ann Coulter has shied away from controversy. I'm pretty confident that wasn't the factor."

The party still is hopeful of landing Coulter for another of its upcoming fundraiser events -- possibly in May, the fall or for a holiday reception, Pierce said.