Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comment/Editorial/2006/03/03/1471916.html

Why we are in Kandahar

Jim Davis, whose 28-year-old son died this week while serving with the Canadian military in Kandahar, knows why we’re in Afghanistan, even if some politicians don't.

“I’m very proud of my son, Paul,” Davis said. “I believe Paul died serving his country and serving the free world.” He did. Davis, of Bridgewater, N.S., became the ninth Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan. A Canadian diplomat was also killed in the line of duty.

Davis wasn’t lost in combat. He died and six other soldiers and a local translator were injured when their armoured car collided with a taxi. But his sacrifice was no less significant.

Davis’s father said his son turned down a promotion that would have let him stay in Canada because he wanted to serve with his comrades out of his profound “sense of duty.”

With 2,200 Canadian soldiers now taking the lead role in hunting down Taliban fighters and al-Qaida terrorists in Kandahar, we also have a duty here at home to them. Especially since the Liberals appear to be going soft on the mission.
 

Incredible. Sad. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper noted: “You do not send men and women into harm’s way on a dangerous mission ... and then decide, once they’re over there, that you’re not sure you should have sent them.”

Exactly. Nor do you adjust foreign policy according to the polls, whether it’s this week’s Ekos survey showing 70% of Canadians support this dangerous new mission, or last week’s Strategic Counsel one that said 62% were opposed. Forget the polls. We’re in Afghanistan because it’s right.

The time for the parliamentary debate the Liberals now want was before they deployed our troops. Why do we need it now? So we can hear more Liberal sucking and blowing like we did from Jean Chretien just before the Gulf War in 1991? Remember this Chretien gem when he was opposition leader?

“Of course, if there is no war, our forces should stay there ... If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment, and our troops should be called back if there is a war, unless we decide to be in a war.” Blah, blah, blah.

Forget the Liberals. As for Harper, a month ago we urged him to make a televised address to the nation explaining why we’re in Kandahar. We still think it’s the right thing to do.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

“Of course, if there is no war, our forces should stay there ... If faced with an act of war, we say on this side of the House that it is premature and that our troops should not be involved in a war at this moment, and our troops should be called back if there is a war, unless we decide to be in a war.” Blah, blah, blah.

Classic Shawinigan Shyster.  I still can't get my head around the Conservatives only having a minority government.  What is wrong with people?

 

[a_majoor]

Canadians in general (and the NDP/Liberals in particular) could do with a dose of reality. Here is a speech with important points for us all to consider. Tony Blair, speaking to the Australian Parliament:

http://freewillblog.com/  March 29 2006

Speech Important

I haven't had time to write what I wanted about illegal immigration, but that'll be tomorrow night. In the meantime, a vaguely related note comes from Tony Blair, speaking to the Australian parliament: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18623344%5E7583,00.html

    THE struggle in our world today is not just about security. It is a struggle about values and about modernity, whether to be at ease with it or in rage at it. To win this struggle we have to win the battle of values as much as arms. We have to show that these are not Western, still less American or Anglo-Saxon, values, but values in the common ownership of humanity, universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.

    This is the challenge I believe we face and ranged against us are, of course, the people who hate us; but beyond them are many more who do not hate us but question our motives, our good faith, our even-handedness, who could support our values but believe we support them selectively. These are the people we have to persuade. They have to know that this struggle is about justice and fairness as well as security and prosperity.

This is basically exactly what I was saying before. The stark danger of proposals to withdraw from the region or disagree is the simple reality is that we're one again sending the message that the West is not a dependable ally, and that fortune, whether guided by Allah or human actions, is with the Islamists. The moderate majority will never stand up for themselves or stand with us as long as this is what they see.

    If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values not just in our own countries but the world over. We need to construct a global alliance for these global values and act through it. The immediate threat is from Islamist extremism.

    We will not defeat this terror until we face up to the fact that its roots are deep and that it is not a passing spasm of anger but a global ideology at war with us and our way of life. Their case is that democracy is a Western concept we are forcing on an unwilling culture of Islam. The problem we have is that a part of opinion in our own countries agrees with them.

More fundamentally, their case is that democracy is a tool of Satan and that free will is an illusion, because Allah is writing all history so there's no point resisting.

    We are in danger of completely misunderstanding the importance of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops are alongside each other and I know, whatever our views on either conflict, we are all deeply proud of the commitment, dedication and bravery of our armed forces.

    But in each case we have nations engaged in a titanic struggle to be free of a legacy of oppression, stagnation and servitude.

    In each case, the people have, for the first time, been offered a chance to vote. In each case they have seized it despite obstacles we can scarcely imagine. In each case also the forces of reaction are at work, trying through the most evil of means, terrorism, to destroy this hope.

    I know the Iraq war split this nation as it did mine. And I have never disrespected those who disagreed with me over it. But for almost three years now we have been in Iraq with full UN support. From the outset our forces in Afghanistan have been there with UN authority. In both cases there is the full support of democratically elected governments.

    Every reactionary element is lined up to fight us. Why? They know if they lose a message is sent out across the Muslim world that strikes at the heart of their ideology. That is why they are fighting us hard.

...and if we win, it tells the Insh Allah set that they aren't destined for global conquest, and that they need to step the hell off.

    We must not hesitate in the face of a battle utterly decisive as to whether the values we believe in triumph or fail. Here are Iraqi and Afghan Muslims saying clearly, "Democracy is as much our right as yours" and, in embracing it, showing that they too want a society in which people of different cultures and faiths can live together in peace. This struggle is our struggle. If the going is tough, we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through.

    But though it is where military action has been taken that the battle is most fierce, it will not be won by victory there alone. Wherever people live in fear, with no prospect of advance, we should be on their side, in solidarity with them, whether in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma or North Korea. Where countries, and there are many in the Middle East today, are in the process of democratic development, we should be there extending a helping hand.

...and loaning them good rifles.

    This requires, across the board, an active foreign policy of engagement, not isolation. It cannot be achieved without a strong alliance. This alliance does not end with, but it does begin with, America. For us in Europe and for you, this alliance is central.

    I do not always agree with the US. Sometimes they can be difficult friends to have. But the strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European and in world politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in.

    The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved. The danger is that they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved. We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them. Our task is to ensure that, with them, we do not limit this agenda to security. If our security lies in our values and our values are about justice and fairness as well as freedom from fear, then the agenda must be more than security and the alliance include more than America.

    Once the Israeli election has taken place we must redouble our efforts to find a way to the only solution that works: a secure state of Israel and a viable, independent Palestinian state. It is why we must continue to mobilise the resources and will to turn the commitments of 2005 into action to combat the ravages of conflict, famine and disease in Africa, where literally millions die every year preventably.

    In 1939, when Britain declared war on the Nazi tyranny, that same day your prime minister announced you were at war too; no ifs, no buts, just solidly with the world. How magnificent and how typical of Australia. We needed you then and we need you now. Today's struggle is of a very different nature, but it will determine our collective future. I believe it is one together that we can win.

People tend to live an elaborate fantasy life of security. When a plague of some kind comes, they think it's the end of the world, despite pandemics wiping out huge portions of the Earth's population every few generations. If the Earth is warming a degree, clearly there's something desperately wrong, because in the tiny blip of time in which everyone alive has been on Earth, they don't remember it being that warm. The idea that the world goes on without us is alien, and it's by that same token that people would rather live under the happy suburban illusion that there is no threat to their way of life, that there is no danger that their granddaughter will be killed for showing her face or that their grandson will be forced to submit as a Dhimmi. Everything our ancestors built will surely be there for our descendants, right?

Wrong. No Aztec ever imagined the Spanish would come. No Soviet, and, in fact, few Westerners, imagined the Soviet era would last less than a century. The Romans couldn't have imagined the Imperial throne being taken by a German barbarian, nor the Arabs that their hired Turkish goons would eventually overthrow them. Entire nations and the fate of all of Western civilization has repeatedly revolved around single days, single decisions made by one or a few men of varying importance on forgotten battlefields.

This is how history happens. It's just that fast. Baghdad itself was once the great capital of Islam until it was torn down to the ground by Hulagu and the Mongols, after which it was nothing for centuries. What happens to our homes, our communities, our families, and our nations is not decided by fate, by Allah, or by "somebody else". In the end, it comes down to us, and it's our responsibility to make sure that we defend the world we want to pass to our heirs from those who desire only to usurp it for a world we wouldn't wish on our most hated enemies.

 

[pbi]

CFL: Good one with that post on the debate. I certainly didn't know about it, and I'll bet a whole lot of people in the rest of this country didn't, either. Sounds like maybe there are a few MPs who would like to pretend that that previous debate never happened (perhaps because they skipped it...? ??? ).

Cheers

 

[ArmyRick]

Its amazing the cheap games that politicians play. They seem very good at exploiting "political oppurtunities". Whats worse are the die hard liberal/NDP/left leaning who only hear and comprehend the stuff the want to. Thats why the conservatives do not have a majority government, yet.

 

[William Webb Ellis]

I actually think it took place Nov 15, 2005, starting at 19:00

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/toc150-E.htm#TOC-TS-1920

Sroll down.

 

[ethan]

Canada has never backed out of a war. Usually some people are against the war but not this many IN my town i am the only person with a support our troups sign in my yard. Its time to start backing up our boys in the Military

 

[scoutfinch]

Ethan:

Do you mind if we support ALL of our soldiers in uniform and not just *the boys* as you so quaintly put it?

Thanks... from one of the non-boys.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

:rofl:  I owe you a soda pop........

 

[scoutfinch]

Thank you, Thank you very much... I'll be playin' here all week! 8)

 

[a_majoor]

Mark Steyn should be an honourary member of the forum, he keeps coming up with lots of good stuff. Consider the final paragraph of this article (which starts and ends with Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but has some interesting turns in the middle):

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060327_123641_123641#

Based on current trends, by mid-century, America, India and China will each be producing roughly 25 per cent of world GDP, with Europe down to 10 per cent. As the columnist John O'Sullivan points out, the three global powerhouses are all strongly attached to traditional notions of national sovereignty, so Europeans and others who've bet on transnationalism have the next 10 years to cement its existing institutions and expand its reach. A worldwide eco-tax? Global gun control? Meanwhile, back in the real world, from terrorism to tsunamis, effective multilateralism is now the province of "coalitions of the willing." I'd like to think the Prime Minister's trip to Afghanistan was a first step toward the side of real global leadership.

If people start seeing things in that light, well, maybe the horse will sing after all!

(I just realized the last line was a bit obscure, so here is the source of that one):

Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."

As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.

"And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."

 

[grayrc]

Is the current mission in Afghanistan in Canada's national interest?

http://www.ctv.ca//

Yes 6247 votes   (59 %)
No 4312 votes   (41 %)
Total Votes: 10559

/GC

 

[monika]

I believe there are far more things that are of greater national interest, but it is in our best international interest to be there.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

My opinion, as someone in uniform, is to make sure that my kit is all serviceable, my troops are good to go, and that I know the mission.  Is it in Canada's interest?  Dunno...not my job to decide...it IS my job to be ready to go if/when they say "go".  People that are WAY more educated but not necessarily half as smart as Canadian soldiers get to make those decisions... ;D 

The rest of it?  I got to have faith and trust that the powers that be know what they are doing.  Is that always the case?  Nope...but I would rather not lay awake at night thinking about that...and...thats not my job.  I have "the 3 M's" to get sorted out...(the mission, the men, myself )..after that...well there is better stuff to think about than stuff I have no control over...right?

Let me put it like this.  If you lived in a house, and your next door neighbor was beating his wife, or his kids, or not letting his wife out of the house, not letting his kids go to school, and assisting in the supply of drugs to kids in your neighborhod...would you call the police??  Sit back and let it happen??  "It's not my problem"?  Some would, some would not...I like to believe that those that were able would be willing able and ready to get involved. 

I also believer that, in uniform, your job is to make sure you have checked your equipment, sounded off, and are standing in the door waiting for the green light.  Its up to the country to decide when it is we "go"...and our job to go.  Nice and simple.

 

[pbi]

MudRecceMan: I certainly agree that focusing just on the "three M's" makes like simple. And, at the very most tactical levels, that works OK. But you also said:

Let me put it like this.  If you lived in a house, and your next door neighbor was beating his wife, or his kids, or not letting his wife out of the house, not letting his kids go to school, and assisting in the supply of drugs to kids in your neighborhod...would you call the police??  Sit back and let it happen??  "It's not my problem"?  Some would, some would not...I like to believe that those that were able would be willing able and ready to get involved. 

I agree, but I would extend the idea of "duty to get involved" to include "duty to educate". As professionals (Reg/Res, Offr/NCM) we are the keepers of a huge store of  specialized knowledge, both about soldiering itself, and about the many areas we deploy to and the ops we do there. We live in a country where (like most Western countries, including the US) there is a generally low level of understanding of this knowledge by the public. At the same time, this public has the power, either by electing certain parties or by expressing its opinion, to have a huge effect on us in the military(and on the country as a whole). This power should not be an ignorant power.

So, IMHO, sometimes we keepers of the knowledge have to educate Canadians. In order to do that, we have to be aware of issues. That (again IMHO) requires us to think beyond the tactical to the bigger issues. As you can see, we have lots of "tactical" folks here, both officers (like me) and NCOs (like, say, CFL). But we all think and dispute actively about everything under the sun. And so we should.

Cheers

 

[Scipio]

What are Canada's interests?

Aside from the US, I feel Canada is in Afghanistan for the same reason every body else is - image.  Which is not a bad thing.  Regardless of what Sprite tells you, Image is important for us.  Even now Canadian troops are hard pressed to get media points from any where outside Canada.  Having our troops there gives Canadians a sense of pride in knowing that we are affecting international events, something reserved for upper echelon power houses.  On an international scale, Canada is very irrelevant.  Being in Afghanistan is good for us, it shows that we do care and are able to support our friends, even if it's for a dead-end cause.

Cnn.com, BBC.com, French, and German news sites all use the same wording when describing land forces in Afghanistan.  "US and Britain led Coalition forces are currently blah blah...".  Last time I checked a Canadian held significant rank in Khandar and the largest body of troops in the region was made up of Canadians.  It's a bit of slap.  Why we only committed 2000 troops is beyond me.  I would have sent in 5.2 times that.  Over 10,000 and perhaps we'll get some recognition 

Do we share anything in common with Afghan?  Will helping them help us?  Are we friends?

Afghanistan is run by a strict law which condemns just about every thing other than Islam.  Women have 0 rights, the country is overwhelmingly illiterate, and for decades now the vast majority of the public show support for fundamental Islamic principles.  These are diametrically opposite to anything people in the West would call familiar.  While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common.  We don't do notable trade with them, with the exception of heroin, and I'm not sure if they'd 'be there' for us-if only in words.

The country is a mess.  The Soviets attacked them back in '79 out of fear that this extreme religion would start to migrate to Russia's lower belt and cause a chain of anti-Marxist sentiment and possible government overthrows.  The Reds lost and Afghanistan turned into what it is today.  With backing of foreign supplies, the Taliban took power and have had it since then.  Later on, in an act of repaying the kind favor to Europe and the US, the Taliban starts using government funds to support large terrorist regimes.  All the while their people suffer from unemployment and early death.

How do you go about helping them?

You put one guy in power by military and financial aid (Saddam, Taliban) and later you knock him off to replace him with another because it turns out he wasn't all that he was cracked up to be.

History has shown me that Middle Eastern countries are impossible to rebuild, with the exception of Israel, which was built largely out of Europeans.  Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Russia, and Fascist Italy all conceded defeat after being ruled by very powerful and influential people.  These countries stood by their leaders. After defeat, they were given aid and through the strength and endurance of the citizens, repaired themselves.  People loved Hitler, but Germany soon got over him.  Ditto with Mussolini, the Emperor of Japan, and Marxism ideology.  When will Afghani’s walk away from their despotic governments and start building a secure system?
   
Opposition groups have displayed very little difference from that of the Taliban.  I don't think much will change with this new government.  The country will still be run by extreme Islamic laws.  Far right wing Conservatives, no matter what they worship, all seem to have a penchant for warfare.  But in this case terrorism would be the tactic of choice since conventional warfare is not within their reach.

The litmus test was when the current government we're protecting actually considered killing a guy for converting to Christianity.  They buckled under international pressure and the fear of losing their bodyguards (our army) but any body who actually thinks things will change is fooling themselves.

I do support our work over their and feel it's important for the Canadian Military to work along side our allies.  However, I’m also sure that our involvement probably won’t do much in the long run for Afghanistan.     

Which is funny because every soldier’s testimony or general’s impromptu speech I hear on the news are all convinced that Canadian military are helping the place.  And this will some how help Canada? If anything it's made us subject to terror bombings.  :skull:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Scipio,
History has shown me that Middle Eastern countries are impossible to rebuild,

Which ones have needed to be rebuilt?

 

[Armymedic]

Why we only committed 2000 troops is beyond me.  I would have sent in 5.2 times that.  Over 10,000 and perhaps we'll get some recognition 

Because 2000 troops is 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire Army's deployable forces. We could never, ever get 10 000 troops overseas at this time without some major changes in the CF.

I agree the added positive exposure to the CF in the media is all good for us professional soldiers.

The rest is your opinion. I leave you to it.

 

[Old Sweat]

Scipio,

It is extremely difficult to get mentioned in another country's press, unless it is bad news. This is especially true of the US and British media, which are very parochial. We woulld have to be virtually the largest troop contributor (impossible), or to kill or capture Osama bin Laden to rate more than a passing mention. The British are also good at getting their word out, far more than we, and as their army, while much reduced in size, is just over 100,000 strong, it is large enough to get the attention of the American military and media.

 

[Scipio]

Which ones have needed to be rebuilt?

Iraq today, Iraq 20 years ago, Afghanistan today, Afghainstan 20 so years ago,  Iran after it's war with Iraq.  Econmically and socially the countries I outlined above were destroyed. 

Every major war since NAM have taken place on Middle East soil.  And NOTHING good has come of it.  No resolution, no rebuilding, nothing.