More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptable

[HoreTore]

Anyone surprised? Shocked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

Relevant qoutes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.

About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

Note: this survey is done by the pentagon itself, so no need to cry "liberal media whiners"...

[Mooks]

The survey, by an army mental health advisory team, sampled more than 1,700 soldiers and marines between August and October 2006.



I hardly call that 1/3 the troops in iraq.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bandit:

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology. Survey data gets influenced by lots of things -- the specific word choices used, the appearance of the person asking the questions, the venue in which those questions were asked.

However, in statistical terms, IF the sampling frame was constructed properly and the sample was an essentially random group from the appropriate population and IF the methodology of the questioning process was more or less "neutral" in its potential to influence the responses, then 1700 "data points" can be used to generate a statistically useful sample with a relatively low degree of error.

The key issue isn't the number of people sampled -- that was sufficient -- but the other research design issues that have to be controlled effectively in order to generate VALID data.

[Tribesman]

It's hard to assess the validity of the study without a better sense of the sampling frame and methodology.

Well you can get all the information you want here
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...iv/mhat-iv.cfm

It appears that the army comes out worse than the marines . Perhaps that is due to length of deployments .
One thing that struck me was the 17% who view all non-combatants as insurgents . Not a good sign , but then again its a dodgy situation they are stuck in .

[Xiahou]

More than 1/3 of the US troops in Iraq says torture is acceptable

I'm assuming that would probably mirror the views of the US populace at large as well. In fact, I remember seeing that the 1/3 value pretty much extends to the entire world.

Oh look! A chart.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Views on torturing prisoners
Country Against all torture * Some degree permissible * Neither/Don't Know
Australia 75% 22% 3%
Brazil 61% 32% 8%
Canada 74% 22% 4%
Chile 62% 22% 16%
China 49% 37% 13%
Egypt 65% 25% 9%
France 75% 19% 6%
Germany 71% 21% 7%
Gt Britain 72% 24% 4%
India 23% 32% 45%
Indonesia 51% 40% 8%
Iraq 55% 42% 1%
Israel 48% 43% 9%
Italy 81% 14% 6%
Kenya 53% 38% 9%
Mexico 50% 24% 27%
Nigeria 49% 39% 12%
Philippines 56% 40% 5%
Poland 62% 27% 12%
Russia 43% 37% 19%
S Korea 66% 31% 3%
Spain 65% 16% 19%
Turkey 62% 24% 14%
Ukraine 54% 29% 18%
US 58% 36% 7%
Average 59% 29% 12%

[Rodion Romanovich]

This is shocking! Perhaps it's time to reconsider the idea of standing armies, as it seems to in this case have attracted a way too high percentage with obviously bad mental health. Especially the 10% who beat Iraqis without any reason are extremely dangerous, and should probably be kept under supervision in special homes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well you can get all the information you want here
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...iv/mhat-iv.cfm

It appears that the army comes out worse than the marines . Perhaps that is due to length of deployments .
One thing that struck me was the 17% who view all non-combatants as insurgents . Not a good sign , but then again its a dodgy situation they are stuck in .

Thanks for the link.

They've provided some excellent summary material and the surveys themselves for review.

I did not find a clearly delineated methodology section covering the administration process of the surveys. "given to" soldier and marine groups is less specific than I would like.

The surveys seem to be quite long and I wonder how much respondent fatigue impacted the data generated. Thoughtful consideration on all of these responses would mean excellent data...rushing to "get this fpos done" so I can have some down time would not. The study should talk very specifically about the administration process.

I'd have liked to see the framework for how the focus groups were conducted as well. The summary suggests they were using peerp groups -- good call in a strongly hierarchic organization -- and that a good deal of discussion was generated. I suspect there was a good bit of useful data here.

[Husar]

The survey, by an army mental health advisory team, sampled more than 1,700 soldiers and marines between August and October 2006.

I hardly call that 1/3 the troops in iraq.

Just curious, but are you implying that the pentagon/army is unable to make a representative study?

[Adrian II]

Just curious, but are you implying that the pentagon/army is unable to make a representative study?

Meh, everybody knows the Pentagon are a bunch of pinko wuzzies.

[Fragony]

This is all hardly surprising when you are attacked everyday and see little or no improvement. Seems to me like the troops are mentally at their ends. But what kind of torture, the Abu Graib variety or the hardcore stuff? If it is the first, well that's not that bad imho, more like intimidation, interrogation+ deluxe.

[Del Arroyo]

The views on torture are not surprising and not worrying. In fact, if you look at the stats that were posted for the civilian populations of various countries around the world, I think you will agree that this is a non-issue.

The issue of soldiers respecting and empathizing with individuals within the Iraqi populace is a serious one which leaders have been trying to improve for some time now-- and they have made some progress, perhaps not enough. Very few Americans speak Arabic and Arab culture gets very little exposure in America. Most Americans are barely aware of the American cultural variations which exist outside their immediate geographic region-- joining the Army usually broadens their horizons in this respect, but they are still often unprepared to psychologically process a culture which has many striking, superficial differences from their own.

That said, there are alot of good eggs. Time spent working alongside the locals tends to produce positive effects.

[Agent Smith]

Anyone surprised? Shocked?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6627055.stm

Relevant qoutes:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Pentagon survey found that less than half the troops in Iraq thought Iraqi civilians should be treated with dignity and respect.

More than a third believed that torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier or if it helped get information about the insurgents.

About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so.

Note: this survey is done by the pentagon itself, so no need to cry "liberal media whiners"...

Good lord.

The survey was done by the military, yes. However, your article, was written by a media outlet. And, because of that, there is always information left out, intentionally or otherwise. Which is why you have to take polls with a grain of salt, with the most important question to ask yourself being "What questions were asked and what answers were the respondents allowed to give?"

Read the report yourself:

http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/new...rt_17NOV06.pdf

First, look at how the questions were asked, which are provided for on page 34. Let's look at the first one, which states "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect," followed by the ability to give one of five answers: Strongly Agree (5), Somewhat Agree (4), Neither Agree or Disagree (3), Somewhat Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1).

Now it is true that 47% of Soldiers and 38% of Marines said "All non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect." But what does that qualitatively mean? Is that 47% of soldiers answered (5) to the question? Did they discount all other answers when coming up with the percentage? What is the percentage of respondents that said they should NEVER be treated with dignity and respect? A breakdown of each answer isn't provided for, and I would hardly call a (4) or even a (3) to be a negative response.

That analysis applies to all of their questions.

On a side note, the line "About 10% of those surveyed said they had actually mistreated Iraqi civilians by hitting or kicking them, or had damaged their property when it was not necessary to do so" is a poor explanation, and a large misrepresentation, of the actual statistics (which is party the fault of the person who wrote the conclusion of the survey). The fact is, damaging property and mistreating civilians with violence are two separate questions. Yes, 12% of Marines and 9% of Soldiers said they damaged property. HOWEVER, only 7% of Marines and 4% of soldiers said they mistreated civilians by hitting or kicking them. Lumping the two figures together is just poor statistical analysis if you are asking the questions separately. Assuming that there were equal number of Marines and Soldiers given the test, than only 5.5% of respondents said they had violently treated a civilian, as compared to 10.5% of respondents saying they damaged property. That's a big difference. They are two separate subjects that were asked in two separate questions. Why lump them together is a conclusion?

In any event, I HATE when polls and statistics are reported on in the media, because you can make them say whatever you want.

[Tribesman]

You should also read very carefully the questions asked.

Someone still hasn't read it
Generally speaking Tex when you put these things "" round words it implies something

[BigTex]

Someone still hasn't read it
Gener'ally sp''eaking Tex when you put these "things "" rou''nd w'ords it im''pli'e's someth''ing

Maybe your onto something here Pinky, with more " we could take over the world!