What do you guys make of this? If anything.

In 2004, contributions to the presidential and congressional campaigns from active duty military members totalled $1.2 million. To this point -- admittedly early -- in the current campaign, active duty military personnel have made campaign contributions of $27,000 to Barak Obama, $19,300 to Ron Paul (a former Air Force flight surgeon), and $18,500 to John McCain. The other candidates trail far behind. Not a lot of money, certainly, but still, an interesting early trend that bears watching. Why the early financial support for Sen. Obama from military members?

Republicans in 2004 received almost 80% of active duty military contributions. So far this year, though, it's 59-41 GOP.

Is the military becoming a more of a microcosm of all America, politically? Do these early numbers suggest a greater proportion of military members want change in Washington than we might normally expect? Or not? I dunno.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Is the military becoming a more of a microcosm of all America, politically? Do these early numbers suggest a greater proportion of military members want change in Washington than we might normally expect? Or not? I dunno.

No and no. You will see these numbers drastically change during the national election. Probably not as high as 80% though.

I suspect a lot of hopeful self-preservation! If I was a kid in the military, I'd want to at least believe I might have a prayer of going home soon even in the face of overwhelming evidence that a rapid retreat would quickly descend the country into MORE chaos.

Perhaps it is due to the realization that "victory" is a ship long sailed given that the civilian death toll in Iraq stands at 85,000 and counting. Active duty military personnel are starting to reach the same conclusion most people with half a brain have, that the expected benefits of further US occupancy are not worth the risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeebus:
Perhaps it is due to the realization that "victory" is a ship long sailed given that the civilian death toll in Iraq stands at 85,000 and counting.

Please explain to me what this has to do with "victory"? When in the history of warfare has civilian deaths defined victory?

quote:

Originally posted by Jeebus:
Active duty military personnel are starting to reach the same conclusion most people with half a brain have

Could you explain this too? I'm feeling as though you think that military members don't have half a brain. Is this how you feel about them/us?

quote:

Please explain to me what this has to do with "victory"? When in the history of warfare has civilian deaths defined victory?

KKL, you're right, they haven't. But the Iraq war isn't like any other and success has to be measured differently, I think. Iraqi Freedom achieved military victory long ago, no question. But in this case, "victory" has to be defined as the achievement of the administrations original goals for the war and our subsequent occupation of the country. In this case, a stable, secular U.S.-style democracy in an Iraq fully able to defend itself, to maintain its own internal security and the safety of its citizens, to prevent itself from being a safe haven for terrorists, to maintain justice, to maintain its own infrastructure and to keep the oil safe and flowing. And once achieved, if they are achieved, these things have to be maintained without the continued presence of 150,000 U.S. solidiers there.

If you accept that definition of victory, it doesn't seem to be at hand, in my opinion. The sheer number of troops in the country now is unsustainable and the result is an overall weakening of our military capability elsewhere.

There is an honest difference of opinion among Americans and political leaders as to how much longer we should be willing to let the process take, and on the advisability of a timed withdrawal starting as soon as possible. But many more Americans, including those who backed the administration's Iraq invasion inititally, nonetheless think the war was planned and pursued badly, and that ill-advised decisions were made by the administration that led directly to an unnecessarily high American casualty rate. All of which give the impression of Bush 43 as a poor leader, and the effect of that is declining support for all Republicans, fairly or unfairly.

quote:

Originally posted by MeanWillieGreen:
I suspect a lot of hopeful self-preservation! If I was a kid in the military, I'd want to at least believe I might have a prayer of going home soon even in the face of overwhelming evidence that a rapid retreat would quickly descend the country into MORE chaos.

Do you really think whoever wins in November will be bringing the troops home anytime soon? I certainly don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Toasted Coastie:

quote:

Originally posted by Jeebus:
Active duty military personnel are starting to reach the same conclusion most people with half a brain have

Could you explain this too? I'm feeling as though you think that military members don't have half a brain. Is this how you feel about them/us?

I agree with Toasted - do you think we in the military are a bunch of mindless robots? What kind of ignorant comment is that?

quote:

Do you really think whoever wins in November will be bringing the troops home anytime soon? I certainly don't.

Sooner than "a hundred years", we can hope.

The Democrats campaign pledge is to begin the process of a phased withdrawal within a year of taking office. We'll see.

By the way, I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure Jeebus didn't intend that comment to mean he thought military personnel had only half a brain. It was just an expression that was written in a way that could be taken that way.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Is the military becoming a more of a microcosm of all America, politically? Do these early numbers suggest a greater proportion of military members want change in Washington than we might normally expect? Or not? I dunno.

No and no. You will see these numbers drastically change during the national election. Probably not as high as 80% though.

This strangely sounds like wishful thinking.

I dunno, I'm not American and all that, but why would a military person necessarily be a Republican?

And what's with this unhealthy polarisation of liberals and conservatives? I mean they are both necessary in a democracy?

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:
I dunno, I'm not American and all that, but why would a military person necessarily be a Republican?

The majority of military personnel are conservative. It's not wishful thinking, it's a fact.

quote:

The majority of military personnel are conservative.

To varying degrees, of course, but nonetheless true. Not all, but most.

quote:

You will see these numbers drastically change during the national election.

Very possibly. But why this early support for Barack Obama, do you think? And Ron Paul, the only Republican who favors an Iraq withdrawal? Why wouldn't that money have gone to Sen. McCain?

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Sooner than "a hundred years", we can hope.

The Democrats campaign pledge is to begin the process of a phased withdrawal within a year of taking office. We'll see.

My prediction (FWIW) is that if McCain is the Republican candidate and wins, the war will continue to be prosecuted pretty much as it is currently.

But if either Clinton or Obama get into office, they may make changes to the original administrations goals for "victory" and withdrawal, and may withdraw some troops as a gesture, but I also believe that they will foresee the chaos that will inevitably result from a massive withdrawal and avoid this as a reflection of their own tenure in office.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SubChop,

This should be pretty easily explained. I would imagine that the predominance of money donated to Barack Obama which comes from the military members is coming from minorities as well as younger voters. I can tell you from what I see here that no one in the Air Force that I know supports Obama but many are deathly scared of Hillary Clinton. Both because her documented disdain for the military as well as the cut-backs her husband made in the 90's, many lost their jobs/RIF'd (Reduction In Force) on active duty and were forced out early with reduced retirement or none at all at 10 years or more of service. A contribution for Obama is a contribution against Hillary. What the Clintons did to the military led us to be short on people when we took care of business in the aftermath of 9/11.
Trust me, those figures will change drastically in the coming months, especially with McCain, who many military folks see as one of our own. While I do not agree with all his policies, he truly is a hero.
Interesting fact about the 2004 election. I knew Bush's support was high among the military but did not know it was that high.
Jeebus, once again making friends I see. Everyone, you have to forgive jeebus, he has no idea that if you look at the figure and compare the active duty military to the civilian population in the U.S., the military is more highly educated by a large percentage.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
But why this early support for Barack Obama, do you think? And Ron Paul, the only Republican who favors an Iraq withdrawal? Why wouldn't that money have gone to Sen. McCain?

It is too early to draw a conclusion from this. Plus, like you said, the amount of money is not significant yet. Wait until the election and the rhetoric heats up.

quote:

Originally posted by SubChop:
But if either Clinton or Obama get into office, they may make changes to the original administrations goals for "victory" and withdrawal, and may withdraw some troops as a gesture, but I also believe that they will foresee the chaos that will inevitably result from a massive withdrawal and avoid this as a reflection of their own tenure in office.

Good points. There is no way either Democrat will be able to sit and watch a blood bath take by place pulling our troops out. And if they don't leave a significant force in country, they run the risk of increasing the danger to our own troops.

My prediction, if Hillary or Obama wins, they will pull out the 30,000 surge troops and leave the remaining 120K in country. Their excuse for not pulling most or all of the troops out will be dictated by the "situation on the ground". If you are voting for a certain candidate to end this war, you better start voting for Cindy Sheehan.

quote:

It is too early to draw a conclusion from this.

Of course it is, but it's still interesting to speculate. If Obama's been receiving early contributions from younger minority military members, that's understandable (though they're the ones with less money available to contribute). But Ron Paul?

quote:

My prediction, if Hillary or Obama wins, they will pull out the 30,000 surge troops

Is it possible W will do that himself between now and election day? Just to deny the new president the chance? Or not?

quote:

Of course it is, but it's still interesting to speculate. If Obama's been receiving early contributions from younger minority military members, that's understandable (though they're the ones with less money available to contribute). But Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is the only other candidate other than Obama that has really seemed to "catch fire" around grassroots areas in Ohio, that I have witnessed. I see his flyers/posters everywhere in local communities.
I think the fact that he has recieved a lot of contributions is a testimony to how little has been given by military members at this time. Plus, we don't even know where the money is coming from. Plus, how do they know if someone is active duty? When I contribute to an organization, I often do not disclose that I am active duty. Contrary to popular belief, we do not wake up or go to bed in our uniforms.

quote:

Plus, how do they know if someone is active duty? When I contribute to an organization, I often do not disclose that I am active duty.

Interesting question ... I dunno the answer. I suppose the figures could be derived from those contributors who do choose to identify themselves, but that's just a guess. Does the military have regulations covering contributions to political campaigns from its members?