September 28, 2014 11:11 pm -

[su_right_ad]An NBC/WSJ poll reveals that 45% of Americans want to use ground troops in the Middle East and 72% believe it will happen.

Per NBC News, “45 percent are in favor of using [combat troops] if military commanders think they’re the best way to defeat the ISIS army, while 37 percent are opposed.” (It could have something to do with the fact that 72% told NBC they believe we’re going to send Americans into combat one way or the other.)

That’s quite a turnaround from a nation so recently wearied from two protracted military engagements and that balked at a limited incursion into Syria last year. Even three weeks ago a similar poll found 40% wanted military action against ISIS kept to airstrikes, while 34% supported boots on the ground.

What’s changed since then? Weeks of histrionic warnings of ISIS’ imminent threat to the U.S. homeland, featuring everything from tales that “Quran books” had been found along the U.S.-Mexico border, to concerns, never quite backed up, that U.S. fighters who joined ISIS could use their passports for reentry to the states, to Lindsey Graham’s warning that the regional terrorist group was actively planning something worse than 9/11.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

41 responses to Hawks Win! Plurality Want Ground Troops As Fearmongering Works

  1. tiredoftea September 28th, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    We are an easily misled country.

    • tracey marie September 28th, 2014 at 11:16 pm

      We certainly are, we need to let/demand the M.E. take a stand and fight back at the terrorists who are destroying their part of the world.

      • fahvel September 29th, 2014 at 3:00 am

        they are no more terrorists than any other people seeking thie rown justice –

    • granpa.usthai September 29th, 2014 at 1:27 am

      NBC Poles? – seems like someone was saying how skewed the main stream media was in their Polling? – but I guess this is one of those times when they’re on the mark?

    • fahvel September 29th, 2014 at 2:59 am

      you are absolutely right – folks outside the usa a just either shaking their heads or laughing at what once was a place to aspire to.

  2. juicyfruityyy September 28th, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    Until, the President, himself says so. I wouldn’t be making things sound like a done deal. No boots on the ground!! They don’t and won’t make the decision.

  3. Obewon September 28th, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    The 45% aren’t thinking of the obvious. Iraq has plenty of ground troops already deployed in theater supported by armed drones, surveillance and air cover from the US 40 NATO nation coalition. Good luck Iraq in delivering your own security successes, assisted by your neighbors.

  4. granpa.usthai September 29th, 2014 at 1:25 am

    any stats on the number of aye votes that are holding offshore bank accounts whose deposits will be greatly enhanced with high US Military casualties?

  5. fahvel September 29th, 2014 at 2:57 am

    every one of the supporters must go and put thier feet or the feet of their children on the ground and dig the graves at home with their bare hands – sick, sick, sick and never ending.

  6. rg9rts September 29th, 2014 at 4:48 am

    They are in favor because they are not the ones going

  7. jasperjava September 29th, 2014 at 6:27 am

    “Hawks win”
    Hawks haven’t won anything yet. Public opinion is not set in stone. The fact that we’re seeing wildly divergent polling on this issue shows that minds haven’t been made up.

    I am convinced that a lot of people favor “boots on the ground” for the simple reason that President Obama has ruled out “boots on the ground”. Their hatred of the President trumps any policy consideration. If he’s for something, they’re against it, and vice versa.

    The President should come out against drinking bleach, just so we can see how many right-wingers drink a jug of Javex just to spite him.

  8. Abby Normal September 29th, 2014 at 7:14 am

    Stop the world. I want to get off.

    • greenfloyd September 29th, 2014 at 7:31 am

      Meanwhile on the flight to hell… “Ladies and gentlemen we are currently experiencing some mild turbulence and ask that you remain seated and enjoy your complimentary bag of peanut (not a misprint) while you enjoy our feature presentation of “Kitty in a Bathtub.”

  9. mrbigstuff September 29th, 2014 at 7:17 am

    Bring back the draft,no deferments allowed,see how many war hawks want there relatives boots on the ground.

    • Abby Normal September 29th, 2014 at 9:32 am

      I must respectfully disagree. No draft. Ever. A draft will do nothing more than provide an unlimited supply of young Americans to die and be maimed in the next Vietnam. There’s nothing the military-industrial complex and their right-wing supporters would like more than an unlimited supply of young Americans to draft into the armed forces. More than 50,000 young Americans died in Vietnam – most of them drafted.

      Please, do not feed the war machine with an unlimited supply of young people.

      • mea_mark September 29th, 2014 at 9:46 am

        Well then, I guess we shouldn’t go to war then if the people that want to go to war aren’t going to put some flesh in the game.

      • searambler September 29th, 2014 at 4:58 pm

        And I must respectfully disagree. Mandatory two year military service for every 18 year old, no college or religious deferments, no exceptions, except for disabilities. The idea being, the war hawks in charge of making the decision to put ‘boots on the ground’ will be a lot less willing to do so if their kids or their relative’s kids or their neighbor’s kids are wearing those boots. They’ll be much more likely to seek diplomatic or other solutions.

        • fancypants September 29th, 2014 at 5:36 pm

          problem is once you kick in the draft and declare war there is no turning back until the objective is achieved.
          the powers to be have no idea how to handle the carnival ride that’s gone haywire

          • searambler September 29th, 2014 at 6:41 pm

            I’m not referring to a draft. I’m saying mandatory service for everyone. Different animal altogether.

          • fancypants September 29th, 2014 at 6:45 pm

            so we should be like china and let our gov choose who serves the country ?

          • searambler September 29th, 2014 at 7:08 pm

            China? No, the PRC doesn’t have mandatory military service. More like Switzerland or Norway or Denmark or Sweden. And the government isn’t ‘choosing’ who serves. EVERYONE serves.

          • fancypants September 29th, 2014 at 7:44 pm

            serve in the china military or live in borderline poverty. You might want to check out whats going on in hong kong and their opinions on elections

          • searambler September 29th, 2014 at 8:58 pm

            Whatever. Doesn’t change my contention that mandatory military service for everyone as they enter adulthood would act as a deterent to chickenhawk politicians getting us involved in wars around the world that we really don’t need to be involved in.

          • fancypants September 30th, 2014 at 11:26 am

            on the other side of this, try and tell a senator or a congressman his or her son or daughter is going to be on the front lines of a sand battle. Then see how many votes you get for this to reach the presidents desk.
            You will have a beard longer then rip Van winkle before this becomes reality

          • Abby Normal September 30th, 2014 at 7:04 am

            You called it “mandatory two year military service” in your post. Read your own post. That is a draft. Now you’re dropping the word “military” and saying it’s a “different animal altogether.”

            That’s absurd.

            “Mandatory two-year military service,” as you called it in your reply to my post, IS a draft. Either way, the government would own those young people for two years and send them wherever they want to suffer and die and more unnecessary, stupid, pointless wars.

          • burqa September 30th, 2014 at 9:35 pm

            I have seen firsthand what the French do with the same sort of 2-year draft. As I noted above, a 2-year enlistment isn’t much good. The French used these people to do things like fight fires and build infrastructure, but when it came to combat they employ troops with more training and capabilities.

          • Bunya September 30th, 2014 at 11:12 pm

            I agree wholeheartedly, Abby. My brother served two years in Viet Nam after he was drafted. He thought it would be a cakewalk; cleaning latrines, washing dishes, etc.. After all, he only had basic training and thought he wouldn’t be required to serve in combat, and he didn’t – until they ran out of marines. Then came the real cool stuff, collecting body parts, planting mines, killing.

            Now, I have great admiration for people who can stomach this type of carnage, but I can’t and I suspect many men today suffering from PTSD, couldn’t either. To this day, even after 40 years, I hear of men who still suffer flashbacks.

        • Abby Normal September 30th, 2014 at 6:56 am

          So your reason for mandatory military service is to dissuade chicken hawks from putting boots on the ground in stupid, unnecessary wars? That’s a bad reason – and it won’t work. Did the draft stop LBJ and Nixon from sending 50,000 young Americans to their deaths? Those 50,000 young people died for absolutely nothing.

          Women have been saying for decades that no one has the right to tell them what they must do with their bodies – and they are correct. It should be the same with people of both genders. Every human being’s life belongs to that individual – and no person, no government, should have the right to tell that person what he or she must do.

          For any government to tell an 18 year-old that he or she owes the next two years of his or her life to the state is an outrage.

          “Sorry, put your life on hold for two years, you belong to us. Say goodbye to your family, your plans, your life – because you belong to us the next two years. We may send you to suffer and die in some idiotic war or whatever we choose. You belong to us and we’ll do what we want with you – get over it.”

          Bad idea. Really bad idea. America must have higher ideals.

          • burqa September 30th, 2014 at 9:32 pm

            One ideal that was taught for many years was civic responsibility.

            This was the sense that we are not all hermits, each on our own mountaintop, but members of a community whose lives intersected.
            People were taught to think beyond themselves and to have a sense of obligation to their community and country.
            Having a sense of civic responsibility and how to carry it out is subject to debate and can be expressed in many ways.
            Being mindful of more than self interest and having the opportunity to be less selfish was considered a higher ideal. There was some societal pressure that served to compel those who were not as willing as others to contribute their labor or other service to the local community or to the nation.

          • Bunya September 30th, 2014 at 10:41 pm

            Civic responsibility is one thing. Forcing someone to lay his life on the line fighting in wars orchestrated by politicians who’ve probably never experienced combat in their lives, is a wholly unreasonable request.

        • burqa September 30th, 2014 at 9:21 pm

          With basic training, advanced training and other things taking up most of the first year of an enlistment, it would hardly make sense to spend all that money training them to only get a year or so out of recruits before they leave the service.
          2 years may be a good term for VISTA, Americorps or Peace Corps, but not for the military.
          Back in the day I didn’t take my SATs until about a year and a half after I graduated high school. Though I did very well on the tests, my scores would have been much better, but for the time lag since I was in high school classrooms. I think delaying entrance to college by 2 years would not be good for students.

          In general, though, I like the idea of public service for teenagers. I have long thought they would be better off having summer school for the last 2 years of high school in which they would have classes in the morning and then be bused somewhere for 4 hours of public service work after lunch.
          If I were king, I’d require these public service hours be worked and a high school diploma would be requirements for getting a driver’s license. Those not doing the work and graduating would have to wait till they were 21 before they could get a driver’s license.

  10. greenfloyd September 29th, 2014 at 7:17 am

    I was afraid something like this would happen. Although it probably does not amount to a whole lot. In the end the only poll that really counts is the one taken on Election Day!

  11. Skydog2 September 29th, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Despite the promise of “no boots on the ground”, don’t we already have boots on the ground?

    • burqa September 30th, 2014 at 9:10 pm

      Yes, but the distinction is the term is being used to refer to troops occupying the country carrying out large battalion or brigade-sized combat operations.
      We can be so pedantic as to lose sight of the issue by pointing out that one American wearing boots over there would constitute “boots on the ground,” but we hardly base grand strategy on the movements of one of our soldiers.

      • Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 1:54 am

        “one American wearing boots over there would …….”
        There’s SIGNIFICANTLY more than one American over there.

  12. Abby Normal September 29th, 2014 at 9:14 am

    This poll proves just one thing. 45% of Americans are incredibly stupid. Breathtakingly stupid. Infinitely stupid.

  13. Robert M. Snyder September 30th, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    Obama says it is necessary to destroy ISIS. I interpret the poll results to mean that people want the mission to succeed.

    “Do or do not. There is no try.”

  14. burqa September 30th, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    After scanning through 35 posts, below, and replying to a few, I did not see anyone address the most important issue here.
    We must first determine if ISIS is a threat to us. I am not so sure they are. They may just be a group like Hamas that confines its operations locally. In that case, we don’t have much interest in intervening.
    But if ISIS is a group with greater ambitions that is not just blowing smoke (and hyperbole is common in Arab culture) and presents a real threat the way al Qaeda has and AQAP has, then we should indeed defend ourselves and forget all this nonsense about “boots on the ground.”

    If we’re going to go to war, then do it with overwhelming force and stop trying to dance around the fact that war is a bloody, horrible thing that is sometimes necessary. Never fight a war trying to be “fair” or pulling punches under some illusion of proportionality. If we are going to go to war we should do so with the intention of bringing the maximum amount of death, destruction, horror, confusion and pain upon the enemy to the end that they are compelled to do what we want them to do.
    Just as it would be foolish to go to war when it was not necessary, it would be equally as foolish to go to war trying to be delicate with surgical precision and imposing unrealistic limits on our military.
    If we fight, then we must fight ferociously.

    While our military may not carry out large conventional brigade-sized operations, we should not rule it out nor should we rule out the use of Special Forces. I am certain we already have SF in Syria already.
    Other than Clinton’s air campaign in Bosnia, I can’t recall another war won through air power alone. Someone has to go in and hold ground taken and make it so the enemy is unable to operate.

    • Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 2:10 am

      “If we’re going to go to war, then do it with ……”

      According to Obama, it’s not a war.

  15. Skydog2 October 1st, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said:

    – In 2005 Nancy Pelosi and top Democrat leaders in the House and Senate said to her face that if she helped them get elected they would end the wars completely, but now they have stopped supporting her even in light of President Barack Obama’s escalation of drone attacks.

    – The left anti war movement is being ignored by the democrats because they are “reverse racists” who are supporting Obama only because he is an African-American.