Hmmm. Several questions here. First, the article relates that the rates measured in all areas had dropped from levels reported in previous surveys.
It seemed to me that the report sounded a lot like bureaucrats attempting to justify their jobs/budgets. Read it, and see what you think.
[...] The report said 54 percent of soldiers rated their units' morale as low or very low. The comparable figure in a year-earlier Army survey was 72 percent. [...]
Now don't get me wrong... I'm firmly in support of monitoring the mental health of our troops, and applying appropriate programs to lessen risks. They are in a very stressful situation, and it would take a total mental disconnect to avoid being affected.
Secondly, the article (and the report) determined that one of the main concerns amongst the troops was the length of deployment, or rather variations of deployment lengths.
That kind of makes it sound like it's all that wimpy Rumsfelds fault. Might be, but I'd wager that many other factors are also involved.
What the article does not do is explain what, if any, effect the constant negative reporting on the home front of the progress of the Iraqi Campaign has on the deployed troops. They are content to let the impression stand that our boys and girls are doing poorly over there.
And they failed to make any assessment or comment about the age-old military tradition of griping. Since the surveys were anonymous, I'd say that normal griping probably played a role in the answers received.
Tagged as United States, Military, Iraq, National Guard