Topic: Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Kirkhill]

so even though I think TWAT is a necessary evil,.....

Actually Bruce I find myself more warmly inclined to the concept.  Hard to come by.

FWIW I think at least 50% of our citizenry just doesn't care that much.  TWAT is a distraction from beer, curling and hospital beds.   And besides it may be hazardous.

As to a parliamentary debate - no for immediate commitment, yes for sustained operations requiring stand-alone funding.

[Lost_Warrior]

I was actually going to quote that very sentence.  The Liberals have all but scared the Canadian public when it comes to foreign operations associated with the US.   In some cases with good reason, but in most others, out of vote grabs.

Well I can't comment on CDN's mental capacity, but I do think RecceDG that it is intellectually dishonest to say that it was the "YANKS" who poisoned the well!

I respectfully disagree.   The US campaign in Iraq has been shrouded in controversy and lies.   The Iraqi's are no safer today than they were under Saddams rule (Some would speculate even less so)

This will probably get me crucified on this forum, but I believe the current state of Iraq today is far worse than what it was under Saddam.  The right wing nut cases have trumpeted the number of dead under Saddam under his rule as thousands a year, but the fact remains, the number of Iraqi dead this year alone far exceeds the number who were murdered under Saddam during any year of his reign of power.  If you want to take the current trend more long term, then more Iraqi’s will have been killed under US occupation than during the rule of Saddam.   The country is in chaos and on the brink of civil war.   I know many will come and counter this claim with pictures and stories of US forces accepting flowers and praise from the "Iraqi government" and Iraqi civilians, but for the majority on the ground, the situation is quite different.

I also know that a bunch of you will jump on me asking me if I have been there, and how I know.   I have not been there.   I have a friend from Washington who works for ABC news.  He has been there for 3 years now.  He went over during the beginning of the war, and returned home.  He went back about a year ago to cover stories there.  He told me the country is in a mess. 

Do I know better than to accept hear say from second hand sources?   Of course I do.    Should I accept the opinion of someone who is there?   Probably, but I usually take things with a grain of salt.   The driving factor is the constant band news reports we have grown accustomed to when it comes out of Iraq.    "70 people have been killed by a road side bomb in Baghdad today"     This is the kind of news we look at now and say "meh...so what else is new"     

This kind of chaos should not be taken for granted.   

I praise the efforts of our Southern Brothers in arms, but this war has gotten out of hand.  No fault on their part however.  They have fought the good fight.   Its their leaders who must take responsibility for this mess now known as Iraq.

Sorry for the rant.    Enter insults here.  I understand this forum is privately owned and freedom of speech does not count here.  Delete this thread as you feel fit.   Debate it if you will.

[HDE]

Agreed!

     I always find it amazing that there's probably more sources of information available to the public than ever before and yet there's a pretty amazing lack of interest in anything not directly impacting on the individual.  I'm also pretty unimpressed with the media; anything that can't be explained in a 30 second sound bite dies a quick death.  I wonder if the problem is that people are being so bombarded with the "crisis of the day" that there's a desire to simply drop out.  

[HDE]

It appears fairly large numbers of Iraqi deaths are caused by the so-called "resistance"; presumably the people of Iraq are able to put the blame where it should go.

[Lost_Warrior]

Agreed.    But this wasn't something the US fully planned on.   The large number of Iraqi deaths obviously didn't come from the US, but can be considered a related action to the occupation.

If Saddam was still in power, this would not be happening.

Not to say Iraq would be better under Saddams rule but rather they would be better off had the US planned for this sort of situation and took action before hand.

The argument can be made that they had "no way of knowing" but many Liberal (shudder) pundits have predicted this very situation, and at the time they predicted it, they were called "anti American" and "communists"

Look who's laughing now unfortunately....

[Armymatters]

I was actually going to quote that very sentence.  The Liberals have all but scared the Canadian public when it comes to foreign operations associated with the US.   In some cases with good reason, but in most others, out of vote grabs.

I respectfully disagree.   The US campaign in Iraq has been shrouded in controversy and lies.   The Iraqi's are no safer today than they were under Saddams rule (Some would speculate even less so)

This will probably get me crucified on this forum, but I believe the current state of Iraq today is far worse than what it was under Saddam.  The right wing nut cases have trumpeted the number of dead under Saddam under his rule as thousands a year, but the fact remains, the number of Iraqi dead this year alone far exceeds the number who were murdered under Saddam during any year of his reign of power.  If you want to take the current trend more long term, then more Iraqi’s will have been killed under US occupation than during the rule of Saddam.   The country is in chaos and on the brink of civil war.   I know many will come and counter this claim with pictures and stories of US forces accepting flowers and praise from the "Iraqi government" and Iraqi civilians, but for the majority on the ground, the situation is quite different.

I also know that a bunch of you will jump on me asking me if I have been there, and how I know.   I have not been there.   I have a friend from Washington who works for ABC news.  He has been there for 3 years now.  He went over during the beginning of the war, and returned home.  He went back about a year ago to cover stories there.  He told me the country is in a mess. 

Do I know better than to accept hear say from second hand sources?   Of course I do.    Should I accept the opinion of someone who is there?   Probably, but I usually take things with a grain of salt.   The driving factor is the constant band news reports we have grown accustomed to when it comes out of Iraq.    "70 people have been killed by a road side bomb in Baghdad today"     This is the kind of news we look at now and say "meh...so what else is new"     

This kind of chaos should not be taken for granted.   

I praise the efforts of our Southern Brothers in arms, but this war has gotten out of hand.  No fault on their part however.  They have fought the good fight.   Its their leaders who must take responsibility for this mess now known as Iraq.

Sorry for the rant.    Enter insults here.  I understand this forum is privately owned and freedom of speech does not count here.  Delete this thread as you feel fit.   Debate it if you will.

I remember a Middle East specialist came by our university to talk about the political situation in the Middle East for a lecture in one of my classes. When asked about Iraq and the prospects for civil war, he responded that the question of civil war in Iraq is not a matter of "if" (meaning that he felt there is going to be a civil war), but "when".

[Lost_Warrior]

On a side note, this looks like the sort of thing the Liberals will ride all the way to the ballots in order to win next election.

"Vote for us and we will bring the troops home, the evil Conservitaves want to keep them there"

Don't be suprised...

[Lost_Warrior]

I remember a Middle East specialist came by our university to talk about the political situation in the Middle East for a lecture in one of my classes. When asked about Iraq and the prospects for civil war, he responded that the question of civil war in Iraq is not a matter of "if" (meaning that he felt there is going to be a civil war), but "when".

As much as I hate to admit it, that’s very correct.  What most Westerners don't understand is that Iraq is made up of a number of Muslim Sects.  Each with a claim to power.  Under Saddam, that claim was suppressed under an iron fist.   Now that they are "free", each sect is open to battle against the other.   Freedom from tyranny is unfortunately tearing the country apart.

Some would argue that they have their first parliamentary election.   The fact remains that that election and that government does not represent the best interests on all Iraqi's and one the interests of the ruling sect.

This is what they are fighting about.   Call them insurgents and "freedom haters" all you want.   A good number of Iraqi's fighting just don't want to be ruled by another parties secular leader.  They would not have their best interests in mind.

What Iraq needs is a government with multiple parties, each keeping the interests of it's respected population in mind.   This would end much of the bloodshed.

But again, this is just IMHO, and is open to scrutiny.

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Britney,
I think if one wished to  , one could see that my question was purposefully generic and well you should be able to figure out the rest.

And for the byline,yea the "product" had even me worn down today....thankfully I have a hockey game tonight to shake them off my nerves.......

[Rider Pride]

On a side note, this looks like the sort of thing the Liberals will ride all the way to the ballots in order to win next election.

I concur, and would not be surprised.

[Armymatters]

I concur, and would not be surprised.

And expect the voters to have a short memory... the Liberals will conviently neglect to mention that they were the ones to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan in the first place...

The Canadian Electorate = A man with long term memory loss. Damn convienient for the politicians that want to be elected, but screws over the electorate later on, and the electorate forgets it...

[Genetk44]

Ok...i'm going to put my 3 pennies in .......1)people in general, are only concerned with what affects them directly...its unfortunate but after 50 years of liveing on this planet thats my general conclusion. 2)Until 2001 99% of the people in the west had no idea what Afghanistan was, couldn't find Afghanistan on the map and cared even less 3) the Canadian public, in general and for various reasons has no concept of the military,its reason for being, its needs etc., in any way, shape or form. 4) I think that the majority of Canadians don't have a clear understanding of the reasons for mission in Afghanistan or the mission itself.  So I believe that the poll is meaningless and the results are based on alot of misinformation and  ignorance.
Cheers
Gene

[Lost_Warrior]

I agree Gen.   The Conservitaves have a big job ahead of them.  The Liberals have all but destroyed the fact that our troops are Soldiers and NOT "peacekeepers".   We have a lot to do in our current mission.  Hopefully those is power won't see it as "peacekeeping" (as there is no peace to keep) but rather war fighting against a force who does not have the best interest of those in their country at mind.

But like I said earlier.   Dont be suprised if the Liberals take full advantage of this and declair the Conservitives as war mongers and vow to pull our troops from A-Stan just to gain power again.   Its a sleazy plot not uncommon to the Liberals.

[Jaxson]

But like I said earlier.   Dont be suprised if the Liberals take full advantage of this and declair the Conservitives as war mongers and vow to pull our troops from A-Stan just to gain power again.   Its a sleazy plot not uncommon to the Liberals.

Paper speaks better then words, Would there not be papers issued by the liberals for the start of deployments before the conservitives came into power? Or am i hoping to much? it would be easy to argue, with a paper trail.

[Glorified Ape]

Paper speaks better then words, Would there not be papers issued by the liberals for the start of deployments before the conservitives came into power? Or am i hoping to much? it would be easy to argue, with a paper trail.

I don't think anyone's trying to argue that the Libs, if so inclined, could actually convince the populous that they weren't the ones to deploy the CF to Afghanistan. I think the point is that the Liberals could campaign on a "we'll get our troops home" ticket and the electorate would fail to recognize the irony, since the Libs sent them in the first place.

As for short-memory/uninformed electorates, that goes for just about every country. Such is the nature of democracy - people far overestimate the knowledge of the average citizen and thus are constantly disappointed/mystified by their voting habits. 

[sapper69244]

    I'm not sure I agree with Pres Bush's reasoning for being in Afghanistan &/or Iraq.
We are there>>>  therefore, I deem it necessary to stand "strong".
It may not be our fight, but it could be relative to our "freedom" that our ancestors fought & left lots of blood in europe for.

[radiohead]

I read the poll and the list of replies on the globe with saddness.  the Liberal party has taken canada so far out into left field and filled so many canadians with Anti-americanism; and they can even see the real reason why Canada is there.  Its not support Bush and not to help to the war in iraq, its to build a new nation where there was really noe before.  to keep Afghanistan from felling back to the terrorist state it was before 2001.

the Liberal party has canadians thinking they can just about peace and a better world and it happen, without doing any work or sending in the troops to help it happen.  its sad to say but i doubt even an attack here in canada would do much to change the 40 years Liberal party spin.

[HDE]

S_Baker

   I agree with you.  Living with the threat of being killed for doing anything the regime doesn't approve of doesn't appear to be the sort of world I'd choose to live in.  I do think we have to keep in mind that the vast majority of Iraqis, a nation of 25 million, aren't involved in either the "resistance" or getting hit by IEDs.

[Pencil Tech]

I would really like to add to Lost_Warrior's comments, with which I agree. I really don't understand why the US let their relationship with Saddam deteriorate to the level that it did. Here was a secular non-Islamist Sunni tyrant totally in opposition to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Now you have this chaos and a virtual civil war in Iraq that the Shiites, by sheer force of numbers, are bound to win. In any case, thanks to imported democracy, they will dominate Iraq one way or another. From the US point of view, what strategic interest did this serve?

[HDE]

Strictly speaking the majority of the population probably should hold the balance of power; certainly a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite majority flies in the face of things.  I don't know that Iraq will descend into a civil war if the vast majority of people don't go along with those who are trying to start one.    I was always amused at how Saddam tried to portray himself as a devout Muslim while bringing about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people.   

[Armymatters]

I would really like to add to Lost_Warrior's comments, with which I agree. I really don't understand why the US let their relationship with Saddam deteriorate to the level that it did. Here was a secular non-Islamist Sunni tyrant totally in opposition to the Shiite theocracy in Iran. Now you have this chaos and a virtual civil war in Iraq that the Shiites, by sheer force of numbers, are bound to win. In any case, thanks to imported democracy, they will dominate Iraq one way or another. From the US point of view, what strategic interest did this serve?

The Americans were in short playing with both Iran and Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Americans were giving support to both sides of the conflict. The Americans sold TOW missiles and other weapons to the Iranians, and then gave money and weapons to the Iraqis. The Americans did not want one country to be stronger than the other, so as one side looked like they were winning, the Americans propped up the other side until things were equal. The Americans did not like either Saddam or the Ayatollahs in Iran, so the in Washington came to the conclusion that Saddam was the lesser of the two evils, so they gave more visable and direct help to Iraq while doing under the table dealings with Iraq first through Israel then directly. All this directly lead to the various Iraq-gate and Iran-Contra affairs in the US.

[Armymatters]

Note: It should be "doing under the table dealings with Iran first through Israel then directly" than "doing under the table dealings with Iraq first through Israel then directly"... my bad...

[Whiskey_Dan]

I agree, where were the polls conducted?
A poll done in highly socialist, left wing areas would totally throw off the results of the survey,
especially since most Canadians arent left wing.

[Cannonfodder]

  Surveys are done to accomplish a desired effect , so with that I view this statistic as engineered . I do not subscribe however to this notion of War on Terror , the western world is under no threat from a terrorist attack for islamic fundamentalist Taliban . It is a nation rebuilding  mission and it is worth it as long as you stick within those boundaries , of course you need to protect yourself but conducting operations against beligerants should be well thought out .

[E.R. Campbell]

Here is a follow-up (from the poll) editorial from today’s Globe and Mail (reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060225.EAFGHAN25/TPStory/Opinion/editorials

Why Canadian troops have gone to Afghanistan

It is perhaps not surprising that a Globe and Mail poll reveals that an astonishing 62 per cent of Canadians oppose the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. There was, after all, no parliamentary debate last year on the nation's heightened commitment to that fragile state. The issue of our increasing deployment barely surfaced in the recent election, even though 2,300 Canadian soldiers were then preparing to move into the perilous southern province of Kandahar. As General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, ruefully acknowledged yesterday, "Many Canadians do not know or understand the complexities of what the Afghan mission is about, why we are there and its critical importance to Canada. The number . . . indicates we have a significant challenge."

The government could tackle that challenge with a belated parliamentary discussion. If nothing else, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor could spell out how and why Canada will take command of the multinational brigade headquarters in Kandahar next week. It is a legitimate and honourable undertaking. After the terrorist attacks of September, 2001, and the ousting of Afghanistan's Taliban regime, that nation's new leaders worked with the United Nations to provide security. The resulting International Security Assistance Force operates with a UN mandate under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with 9,000 soldiers from 26 NATO members and 10 non-NATO members. Although the southern regions, including the multinational brigade, are now under U.S. command, NATO is expected to assume control over the region within several months.

The mission is dangerous, but worthy. Kandahar was the headquarters of al-Qaeda, and the region is rife with warlords, drug smugglers and extremist factions. Last year, when the former Liberal government announced it would move its forces from the relative safety of Kabul to Kandahar, almost tripling troop strength, then-defence-minister Bill Graham went on a brave speaking tour in late summer to outline the dangers. Almost no one paid attention as he made the point that if extremists win the upper hand in Afghanistan, they could destabilize a nation that has braved enormous odds to hold free elections over the past two years. Those extremists could also turn ancient Afghanistan into a terrorist enclave once again that could threaten global stability.

Surely it is time that Ottawa tackled the glaring gap between Canadian public opinion and global needs. The government could start with a thorough debate about Afghanistan -- if only because 73 per cent of Canadians believe the deployment should have parliamentary approval. In fact, no House of Commons motion could deter the government's decision to move into Kandahar. As University of Toronto constitutional-law expert Sujit Choudhry notes, "the legal power to deploy troops is one of cabinet's powers under the National Defence Act, and it stems from the Crown's inherent power to make peace and war." But the very airing of the issues would be an end in itself.

As well, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow through with his preliminary plans to visit the forces in their dangerous encampment. That high-level mission might do what Ottawa should have done months ago: secure national support for this vital initiative.

In an editorial published here http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,33760.0.html in September of 2005, Army.ca took the (Liberal) government-of-the-day to task for a ”Lack of leadership.”  Now it is the turn of Prime Minister Harper’s government and, I, at least agree with the Globe:  Mr. Harper needs to lead Canadians to an informed understanding of and support for the mission in Afghanistan; he needs to lead Canadians to understand and support the requirement to transform our armed forces by, inter alia, increasing the number of personnel by many thousands, tens of thousands, and giving them enough new, better equipment to do the job; in the process he can strengthen our democracy by taking note of Canadians’ elected representatives’ views on our operations – all over the world.