The Combat Arms Survey - 29 Palms 1994

My first reaction would be that it wasn't a terribly well designed survey (the questions are not worded neutrally enough).

My second reaction would be that the choices of responses DID give sufficient latitude to prevent totally unreliable results from being obtained.

My third reaction is that the "sample size" is roughly half as large as would be required in order to obtain statistically meaningful data.

My fourth reaction is that the "sample population" [probably] isn't sufficiently normalized/randomized to enable the results to be used with any confidence that the results obtained are applicable to the whole "population" (USMC) and certainly isn't normalized/randomized enough to enable the results to be used with any confidence that the results obtained are applicable to the whole US military.

As a "Master's Thesis" project the survey is (barely) acceptable [provided that the Master's degree is NOT in statistics and/or statistical analysis - in which case it should be a fail]. As a "Doctoral Thesis" the project would be unacceptable and the PhD candidate would be ripped to shreds on his oral examination.

On a personal note, I much prefer to see the options presented as (using the options from the survey) "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "No Opinion", "Disagree", and "Strongly Disagree" rather than "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Disagree", "Strongly Disagree", and "No Opinion" as the first arrangement represents the continuum of responses more accurately. (When doing this sort of survey people have a tendency to pick the first option that comes closest to their actual opinion and if someone doesn't "agree" then they will pick "disagree" even though they may have "no opinion" if "disagree" is presented first.. It's also a good idea to have two versions of the survey with one going from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" and the other going from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree".

The survey is not that alarming, or the situations even unheard of, until you get past question 30. Many of those questions are interesting but the precedent for American units was set by Pershing during WWI in which French and British generals wanted American troops to fill in depleted foreign units. Pershing said that American units would not be broken down and used to fill out the ranks of those units. Instead he did allow units (I believe regimental or brigade and higher) to be under the command of French and British generals for certain battles.

Now, when it starts getting into the UN as a global government with armies provided by all member states it starts to get tricky. First, let me say, if anyone is actually scared or worried about the UN that is just silly because they have no real power without their member states permission or armies, the UN is really more of a means to organize military powers together for specific needs than anything else. But once you start asking people if they are willing to join some kind of UN global army and swear allegiance to it over their own country things get interesting. Who is controlling and funding this new army? How was it authorized by the Security Council? What is the purpose of this army? World Peace? And finally, it has been discussed on this site before but most personnel claim they would not fire on American civilians (I have a feeling that might change if a different party were in the White House but that is a can of worms I don't want to open right now). I have a feeling though that if some president were enterprising enough to attempt to subvert the Posse Comitatus Act by using DoN personnel the state in which this took place would likely call up the Guard to fight back and we would have civil war.

So, to answer the original question of what would my reaction be if I were handed this? As a dumb private I would be confused as to what was going on. Now, I would be concerned and curious and think through what I described above. In either case I would be opposed to being under UN command and control unless specifically authorized by my government and knowing that I would still be serving the the United States Army (or USMC in this case).

That "survey" looked a whole lot like a "troll" to me.
Does anyone really think that US troops would swear allegiance to ANYTHING but the US
Constitution? Really?

Lastly, whoever asked a troopie anything?