A recent Military.com poll posed this question:  "When should American troops withdraw from Iraq?"  The response from readers was noteworthy.  Forty two percent of the 5,440 respondents chose the answer worded "Now.  We're wasting lives and resources" and another 17 percent chose "The end of 2008.  That's plenty of time."  Added together, the results show 59 percent of those who responded were either for an immediate withdrawal or precipitous pullout within the next year or so.

While this poll was technically "unscientific" in terms of how the data was gathered (it was not a deliberatively representative sample and Military.com membership was not required), when compared to similar polls conducted in previous months the results were a surprise to us here in Military.com's offices.  The great majority of our readers have consistently demonstrated support for the war.  As recently as late June, 57 percent of poll respondents voted "yes" to the question "Should Congress Give More Time for the Surge to Work?"

Is this poll an accurate accounting of the will of a credible segment of American society - servicemembers, veterans, families, and those with military affinity - or simply another example of how the public's attitude toward an issue can be co-opted by how the media chooses to cover it?  (Or is it a little of both?)

White House spokesman Tony Snow strongly believes it's the second option.  In a recent press conference call I attended along with a group of milbloggers, he blamed the mainstream media for the public's attitudes toward the war:  "There is very little awareness of the kind of successes that have been going on and furthermore very few visuals of what Americans in their hearts want to believe," Snow said.  "At this point all anyone has gotten is bad news and it's a miracle anybody supports the war based on the kind of characterizations that have been painted."

When I related that quote to a friend of mine, a prominent blogger, he scratched his head and asked if Snow wasn't now part of the same A-Team that won two elections by owning every element of their message along the way.  By their own admission, these masters of information control in the media universe are now losing to Al Qaeda, an organization on the run when they're not holed up in caves?

I scratched my head in return.  If this is, in fact, a media war that we're losing, which, in turn, will cause us to lose the actual war, then how did we come to be losing?  Because as I remember it, the media seemed onboard for the big win back in '03.  They were embedded - riding tanks with the first wave, sending blurry videophone reports from the front every hour on the hour.  The embeds were smiling; back home the Pentagon press corps was smiling (along with Donald Rumsfeld).  Life was good.  Hell, the whole nation was swept up in the Abilene Paradox of it all.

So at what point did the MSM decide we were going to lose this thing?  Was it during the Fallujah campaign in '04 (the one where we kicked their butts)?  And what was the media's motivation behind the decision?  Ratings?  More ad dollars?

I'm just asking because the poll I'm referring to here wasn't conducted by CNN or ABC or The New York Times but by Military.com.  We know who our audience is.  Military.com regulars are pro-military, to put it mildly.  The military experience isn't some vague concept to them.  They served or are serving, along with their families.

Therefore I have trouble believing that Military.com readers can be manipulated solely by the MSM's one-sided coverage (if it's true that the coverage is one-sided).  Take a look at any of our discussion pages.  Do these folks seem to waiver in their convictions?  As a recent SECDEF might have put it:  "Goodness, no."

So if it's not the MSM, to what do we attribute this poll's results?  (And please, loyal readers and cherished friends, don't tell me we're going to lose this thing . . .)