• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
4,226
Points
1,160
I wonder if we, here on Army.ca, are in step with our fellow citizens.

This is from today’s Globe and Mail.  It is reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060224.wxpoll0224/BNStory/National/home
Majority opposed to Afghan mission

BY BRIAN LAGHI

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2006 POSTED AT 3:59 AM EST
FROM FRIDAY'S GLOBE AND MAIL

A robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue.

The results are included in a Globe and Mail/CTV poll that suggests the new Conservative government may have to be careful when and if it decides to extend the 18-month commitment for the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. That obligation is in its sixth month and ends a year from now. Moreover, a Canadian general takes command of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan on March 1.

"I'm very, very surprised at the degree of opposition to something that is not well known by the population," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel, which conducted the poll.

"I think you've got a knee-jerk against doing anything with the Americans, especially on the military front, but also part of this distinctiveness and difference with the United States is our unwarlike nature."

The poll found that 62 per cent of Canadians are against sending troops to Afghanistan, while only 27 per cent are in favour. Furthermore, 73 per cent of those surveyed said parliamentarians should have the chance to vote on deployment.

It's unclear at this point whether the Canadian tour of duty will be extended, although some defence officials expect it will be.

Yesterday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor promised unflagging government support for the deployment of the 2,200 Canadian troops in the country. The soldiers are facing an increasingly dangerous insurgency bent on the downfall of U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai.

"Not only is our deployment to Afghanistan the largest and most important Canadian Forces operation at the moment, it's also quite representative of the type of missions that our military will be called upon to perform in the future," Mr. O'Connor said.

The poll of 1,000 Canadians was taken Feb. 16-19 and is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.

The numbers suggest that Canadians are supportive of increasing the size of the military and like the idea of spending more money on it. But Canadians are still skeptical about taking part in international conflicts that aren't seen as peacekeeping ventures or that are part of a U.S.-led effort.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien decided in 2003 that Canada would not participate in the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Mr. Gregg said support for the increased spending commitments represents the "table stakes" that Canadians would be willing to pay in order to have a more significant voice in international affairs.

On the question of how Canadians would vote on the issue of sending troops, 76 per cent of Quebeckers were against the idea, while 56 per cent of respondents in Western Canada -- who are seen to be closer in values to the United States -- also do not like the idea.

Quebeckers were also the most likely to want their MPs to have a say in the matter, with 83 per cent saying there should be a vote.

On a related question, the poll found that among those who support sending troops, 31 per cent would change their minds if the operation leads to significant casualties.

The poll also found a split over whether Canada should participate in the war on terrorism. Of those surveyed, 48 per cent supported participation, while 43 per cent were against.

Mr. Gregg said Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have to be cautious in how he manages Canada's relationship with the United States in general.

If the Conservative Leader really is intent on having his party wrest away from the Liberals their traditional role as the party of Canadian nationalism, Mr. Harper cannot be seen to cave in to U.S. requests.

Mr. Gregg said he expects Mr. Harper will have a two-pronged strategy toward the Americans that will try to repair strained relations while being seen to defend Canadians' rights.

He may, for example, discuss such issues as Canadian involvement in ballistic missile defence, while at the same time pushing forward with such issues as Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic.

Polling on Afghanistan

Should a decision to send troops to Afghanistan require parliamentary approval?
Yes: 73%
No: 20%
Don't know: 7%

If you were an MP would you vote in favour of sending troops to Afghanistan?
Yes: 27%
No: 62%
Don't know: 11%

Would your position change if you knew it might lead to significant casualties?*
Yes: 31%
No: 64%
Don't know: 5%

4. Do Canadians think Canada should be participating in the war on terrorism?
Yes: 48%
No: 43%
Don't know: 9%

*This question asked only to those who voted yes to the previous question.

SOURCE: STRATEGIC COUNSEL

I agree with Gregg when he says, ”I think you've got a knee-jerk against doing anything with the Americans, especially on the military front …”  That being said the antipathy towards participating in the so-called global war on terrorism is disturbing.  It appears that nearly ½ of Canadians feel we ought not to be trying to subdue and defeat the terrorist movements which have, explicitly, declared war on the secular, liberal-democratic West.  I wonder if our real drift towards being a multicultural society means that we (or 40+% of ‘we’ anyway) no longer see Canada as part of that West.

I also agree with the overwhelming majority of Canadians in believing that troops should not be deployed and sustained on overseas missions – not on allied coalition missions, not on NATO missions and not on UN missions either - without, at least, a take note debate in parliament.  (I am not suggesting that parliament should usurp the sovereign’s right and duty (guided by her Privy Council) to send her army to pursue her vital interests but parliament is the keeper of the purse and it should pass on all adventure, including military ones.  HM (the cabinet) doesn’t need parliament’s approval to deploy armed forces but it should explain its actions to parliament and, eventually, take note of parliament’s views.)
 
So, according to this, most Canadians feel we should take part in the war on terror. We just shouldn't have to send troops to do it. That doesn't really make sense.
 
I think that the real problem here is that the Americans poisoned the well with Iraq.

After 9/11, the requirement to go into Afghanistan was real, undeniable, and understood. Appropriately, public support for the Afghan mission was high.

Then the Yanks went into Iraq, ostensibly over chemical and biological weapons stockpiles destined to be supplied to terrorists and used on US soil (remember the whole "wrap your house in plastic sheeting and duct tape" thing?) and then, after the fact (for whatever reason) that turned out to be false justification and may well have actually made things worse.

That burnt all the moral currency accumulated by 9/11 and worse, equated the mission in Afghanistan with the mission in Iraq. I bet Johnny on the street cannot differentiate between them any more. I would not be surprised at all to find Canadian civilians who think that we are in Afghanistan to "search for WMDs".

So then, it seems to me that our government (who clearly *can* differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi missions, given that they committed to the former and avoided the latter)  need to get the message out about why it is we are in Afghanistan and to further communicate that Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same mission, and that we will work with the Americans when their interests align with Canadian interests (and vice versa) and that we will stand aside when Canadian and American interest do NOT coincide.

How they would go about doing that... I'm no PAO. But it seems clear to me that the message is NOT getting out and it needs to be addressed.

DG
 
This is just one of the reasons I am embarassed at occassions to have a Canadian Passport...

  By my count about 70% of the Canadian public are too dimwitted to tie their own shoes.

 
I'm willing to bet t hat of the 62% who are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, 50% are completely unaware that our troops are actually IN Afghanistan, and that the poll wasn't just asking the question out of the blue....

I mean, I could probably get a high majority of people to be against sending Canadian troops to Greenland if I just started asking people about it without any point of reference....

Other questions that might be fun....

Do you think Canadian troops should carry guns?
Do you think Canada should have an army?
Do you think Canada should do anything to protect its own sovereignity and national identity?
Do you think that Canadian ideals are worth fighting for, including your own idiotic opinions?
Do you think there is enough respect for and/or support for the cultural needs of suicide bombers?
Do you think that Canadian troops should use the Hokey Pokey as a way of communicating our peaceful intent to everyone in the world who should automatically love us?

 
RecceDG said:
So then, it seems to me that our government (who clearly *can* differentiate between the Afghan and Iraqi missions, given that they committed to the former and avoided the latter)  need to get the message out about why it is we are in Afghanistan and to further communicate that Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same mission, and that we will work with the Americans when their interests align with Canadian interests (and vice versa) and that we will stand aside when Canadian and American interest do NOT coincide.

The Americans and the media further cloud the issue by linking our increasing commitnment in Afghanistan with US troop reductions there.  The US and Canadian media is then quick to point out that our Afghan commitment allows more US troops to re-deploy to Iraq, thereby implying that we now support the Iraq war.

RecceDG said:
How they would go about doing that... I'm no PAO. But it seems clear to me that the message is NOT getting out and it needs to be addressed.

You're correct and I think the following is a start.  This is an excellent explanation of why we are in Afghanistan.  I received it in an e-mail aty work.  Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere already (yes, I used the search function...):

Why We Are In Afghanistan
Sean M. Maloney, PhD

The assassination of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry and the grievous wounding of Pte. William Edward Salikin, Cpl. Jeffrey Bailey and Master Cpl. Paul Franklin by a terrorist suicide bomb cell in Kandahar Sunday is a personally shocking but not unexpected event. I have recently returned from Kandahar, where I spent a month with the Canadian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team. As a military historian, I usually don’t deal with diplomats and aid workers but the nature of Canada’s war in Afghanistan put me in contact with Glyn and his counterparts: we had many fruitful conversations on our progress in the region and the new relationship between National Defence, Foreign Affairs, and the Canadian International Development Agency. I also had extensive contact with the soldiers from Patrol Company, who I accompanied on numerous patrols throughout Kandahar Province: theirs is a dangerous job in an unforgiving environment and Canadians need to know how professional and dedicated their soldiers are in the face of this. Those dangers were driven home for me personally when I arrived on 4 December right after a coalition patrol in Kandahar was hit with a suicide bomber, and then again on 12 December 2005 when I changed my plans at the last minute to attend a briefing. The G-Wagon I would have been traveling in on a long-range patrol was blown up by a Taliban road side bomb, seriously wounding Pte. Ryan Crawford and Capt. Manuel Panchana-Moya.

In the current election campaign, questions have been raised: why, exactly, is Canada in Afghanistan? What is it that demands that Canadians are placed in harms way in that country?

Canada has been engaged in Afghanistan militarily since 2001. This engagement has taken many forms and has evolved over the years, yet the objectives remain the same. Al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a training base, recruiting centre, and safe haven, hiding behind the Taliban shield after Osama Bin Laden’s organization was forced to de-camp from the Sudan in 1996.. The parasitical relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban “host” nation ensured, along with the rugged terrain and relative remoteness of Afghanistan, a substantial amount of security from any potential intervention. Al Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan were diverse and numerous, including biological and chemical weapons laboratories and multi-national terrorist training camps. Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, which Canada participated in immediately after the attacks on New York and Washington, was designed to pierce the Taliban exoskeleton so that special operations forces could attack the Al Qaeda “meat” underneath. Coalition operations ripped out the Al Qaeda infrastructure, in the main by working alongside the Afghan people, many of whom resented the use of their country as a base for international terrorism and who were willing to take up arms to eject them.

Canada, along with the other coalition partners, committed to ensuring that Afghanistan could no longer be used as a safe haven and base area for international terrorists or their sympathizers. This, of course, was easier said then done. The remnants of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda support networks continue to operate from Pakistan and are committed to re-taking Afghanistan. The critical battleground, once the Taliban were physically removed from power and put to flight, are the peoples of Afghanistan. Back in 2002-03 the danger lay in the possibility that anarchy would reign in a power vacuum, and armed groups with no popular legitimacy would plunge the country into an inter-tribal or inter-ethnic civil war similar to what happened in 1993, which lay the ground work for the original Taliban intervention in 1996. Skillful use of military force and capacity building by Canada and her allies has, from 2002 to today, borne fruit. The Taliban, as a movement, enjoy almost no popular support outside of the front-line Pashtun-dominated provinces that border Pakistan: even there, their influence is shaky at best and they know it. The danger now lies in the possibility that the Afghan people may become disenchanted with the slow government reconstruction process, one which has many problems including corruption, and turn on the government or even side with elements of the Taliban out of mutual convenience.

Glyn Berry, working in the Provincial Reconstruction Team, was part of a Canadian effort to stop this slide back from the successes of 2001-02. The Canadian PRT in Kandahar is structured to help the Afghan government build its ability to govern and police this disparate and strategically critical province. At the same time, the PRT works with the Afghan people to convince them to support counterinsurgency efforts conducted by military forces against Taliban urban terrorist cells and guerilla fighters in the hills.

Closer to home, Canada’s credibility within the Western coalition of forces is at stake. The failure of Canada to lead an effective multinational coalition into Zaire in 1996 damaged Canada’s reputation amongst the ABCA countries, countries who are the mainspring of the effort in Afghanistan. Canada’s commitment to lead the military effort in RC South in Afghanistan will be part of the long road back from the debacles of the early and mid-1990s. That process started with Kosovo in 1999 and has continued throughout our time in Afghanistan.

If we fail in Kandahar, we may fail in Afghanistan. And we cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan: it is the closest thing we have to a regional or campaign victory in our global war against the Al Qaeda movement. Afghanistan has critical psychological properties: it is widely called the Graveyard of Empires- and with good reason. Al Qaeda never anticipated we would come after them there. We have a moral and psychological success as much as a material one, but that success remains to be consolidated. The Canadian effort is a critical part of that consolidation. Al Qaeda was emboldened by the international community’s failure in Somalia, particularly when coalition forces took casualties and departed. We have to prove that Canada can stick with the Afghanistan project, despite the casualties. The Afghan people have put their trust in us and we are partners with them in this enterprise. Glyn Berry knew this and was committed to the effort to capacity build in Kandahar. And that is what he gave his life for.
 
You have to remember this was probly a question asked to 100 people. So dont let it get you mad..the press as we all know likes to blow things up to look like Canada has a whole has voted for the removel of troops from Afgan. The only few I've ever heard say we should not be there are the few that have no idea what we are doing there or whats going on in the world.

The term Yank.......should really just get use to it....I've been called worse in the USA..lol..Plus I dont think most of us use it in a bad way....Just a short form for American!!!  :cdn: :salute:
 
S_Baker said:
I know on the forum I read about the CDN military's superior training, however, how many CDN troops are in Afghanistan?  ~ 2200, I hardly think that increasing US troop levels by ~2000 in Iraq are going to make much difference.

I would daresay that just one Canadian soldier, properly equipped and fuelled by a mix of Timmies and Red Bull, would have the operational impact of a full SF ODA!

... but that's just me. ;D
 
Of course it isn't The Evil Americans™ poisoning the well, no such thing exists. The blame lies squarely with <a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11500950/site/newsweek/>the incompetent leadership of Bush and Rumsfield</a> for destroying all world support for TWAT and with <a href=http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html>the Neocons in general</a> for turning Iraq into a disaster when it didn't have to be. In light of recent events, even my continued support for the occupation is starting to weaken.

Oh yes, I have returned, friends. Did you miss me?



EDIT: Spelling.
 
BS.... you forgot to include "dead eye" Chainey and his alma matter Haliburton
 
:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:                                                                :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

Yumpin' yimminee's folks,
sometimes we are just as stupid as the responders to these questions. I would double dog-dare the makers of this poll to redo it with the word "peacekeepers" instead of "troops" and laugh at the near 100% approval rating we would have........

Not worth the paper...etc.
 
Bobbyoreo said:
You have to remember this was probly a question asked to 100 people. So dont let it get you mad..the press as we all know likes to blow things up to look like Canada has a whole has voted for the removel of troops from Afgan. The only few I've ever heard say we should not be there are the few that have no idea what we are doing there or whats going on in the world.

The term Yank.......should really just get use to it....I've been called worse in the USA..lol..Plus I dont think most of us use it in a bad way....Just a short form for American!!!  :cdn: :salute:

We have had our own questionable polls where the results are intentionally skewed to favor the democrats. Pollsters call up a majority of democrat voters with a sprinkling of independent and republicans respondents. They do this with Bush's popularity numbers. They did this with exit polls in the 04 elections. If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets. If the majority of americans were against Bush and the war we would have demonstrations rivaling the Vietnam war peace demonstrations.
 
SO true Bruce,

You also have to wonder where they did the polls.  ??? ???
 
sometimes we are just as stupid as the responders to these questions. I would double dog-dare the makers of this poll to redo it with the word "peacekeepers" instead of "troops" and laugh at the near 100% approval rating we would have........

Well, maybe you, the CDS, and BGen Fraser should go out back for a huddle and come back when you've agreed on some consistent terminology then.  :)

We have had our own questionable polls where the results are intentionally skewed to favor the democrats.

Cite?

If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets.

When was the last time that happened for ANYTHING?

If the majority of americans were against Bush and the war we would have demonstrations rivaling the Vietnam war peace demonstrations.

Absurd. The Iraq war has ZERO direct effect on 99% of Americans. Why not bring in the Draft like Vietnam and see what happens?

Most Canadians and Americans don't care enough, even though <a href=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm>most oppose the war in Iraq</a>. 
 
If the majority of canadians were against the Astan mission there would be hundreds of thousands in the streets.


Not likely, those liberal ads probably still have everyone scared that harper will send the millitary in after them.  ;D

Okay, that was maybe a little uncalled for but i had to say it.

Edit: If the troops are in afghan fighting terrorists, they cant be in our cities  ;)
 
Haggis,

That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?
 
wongskc said:
Haggis,

That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?

Unfortunately, no.  I received it as a paste into an e-mail from my Directorate CWO at NDHQ.
 
In my experience the majority of Canadians dont even have a clue about what we are doing in afghanistan. Most people are appauled to learn that my husband may actually be doing something other than building schools and handing out blankets. I think the news needs to focus more on what they actually do over there. It seems the news only shows them when someone dies or there is some charity case that needs help (not that these things shouldnt be covered). I think the Canadian public has been lured into a false ense of security and its time they wake there asses up.  >:D
 
I wouldn't place too much faith in anything coming out of Strategic Counsel.  They haven't the best record for accuracy even within an industry not known for it.
 
wongskc said:
That piece you provided written by Sean M. Maloney, PhD is quite good.  Do you have any source information for it?

It was printed originally in an editorial in the 16 Jan 06 Ottawa Citizen.

Sean also has an online copy of it on his website: http://seanmmaloney.com/OC16jan06.pdf
 
Back
Top