Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Bobbyoreo]

I have seen four polls today..one said CDNS behind the misson..another said more CDNS against...one said Afgans feel more secure...another said Afgans are giving up hope.....I really dont trust polls they always seem to lead to the way that the poll takers want..

 

[Teflon]

Polls - their value is always dependent upon how the questions are phrased (ie: is the question specific or very broad, or if the question is asked in a slanted manner) and the already present conceptions of the answering people, along with their knowledge of the polls subject.

I never really put much stock in any poll which doesn't include the actual question asked along with the results.

 

[Nieghorn]

Very good point, Teflon.

I've seen the City family of stations' newspeople have been advertising something along the lines of 'most canadians polled think we should leave afghanistan before 2009' ... which even by that wording, doesn't give you much of a choice.  I'd like to see our troops home before then as well, so long as things are stable.  I skip local news, but I wonder if they mentioned that it's a CBC poll?  I'm an admitted CBC-ophile, but I know that most of their fans are the centre/left leaning types, which would also play a factor in my interpretation of the polls.

 

[Kunu]

Not to mention, often times when the poll numbers don't match their agenda, they twist and contort their wording until it does.  Sometimes they pull it off well, and other times, like the example below, it's pathetically blatent. 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/afghanistan-survey.html?ref=rss#skip300x250

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Only 2% got the right answer, sent by the Canadian government  :crybaby:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan: Bush-clone cowboy warmonger!  "Stay the course in Afghan war: Clinton [my emphasis - MC]".
http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=mercury/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163069645338&call_pageid=1050067726078&col=1050421501457

How odd that none of the major media seem to have picked up this story about what a leading US Democrat--very popular with Canadians unlike a certain George Bush--thinks. Given this selective news coverage ("accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive") no wonder Canadians are divided about the war.  Latest poll (their own) was lead story on CBC Newsworld this morning, and I'll bet they're all over it on Don "Chuckles" Newman's "Politics".
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/afghanistan-survey.html

Note that Mr Clinton wants US troop strength increased by 8,000. More fighting troops from somewhere (Europe, nudge, nudge; wink, wink) are certainly needed in the south.

Former U.S. president spoke in Kitchener to an audience of about 1,000 yesterday

JEFF OUTHIT

WATERLOO REGION (Nov 9, 2006)

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton urged Canada to keep its soldiers fighting in Afghanistan in a talk in Kitchener yesterday.

Pulling out of the country now could allow the repressive Taliban regime to take control again, he warned.

The Taliban would again offer protection to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 and who are now in hiding, he said.

"That would have direct implications for your security," Clinton said.

He spoke yesterday to almost 1,000 people at a hall at Bingemans. They spent $500 each to attend a fundraiser for the Catholic Family Counselling Centre, which is expanding its campaign against family violence.

He said NATO allies must stay in Afghanistan to support its democratic, pro-western government, and he said the U.S. should put up to 8,000 more troops there.

"If we lose in Afghanistan and the Taliban come back, it will not only be a nightmare for the Afghan people," Clinton said, "but it will create greater options of movement for the Al-Qaeda leadership, and increase the likelihood that they will be able to mount and conduct more global terrorist operations."

Clinton drew distinctions between the NATO-led war in Afghanistan and the American-led war in Iraq.

The U.S. made a "serious mistake" by invading Iraq when it was already fighting in Afghanistan, and by underestimating the challenges in each place, he said.

"Because Canada has been part of our NATO alliance in Afghanistan, you are paying the price of that," Clinton said...

At least CBCnews online carried its own version of the story.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/09/clinton-reaction.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

So how much would we all have to pitch in if we wanted to hire one of the polling firms to commission our own poll, with our own questions? 

 

[Kirkhill]

So how much would we all have to pitch in if we wanted to hire one of the polling firms to commission our own poll, with our own questions? 

Wouldn't do us any good mate.  They low ball the polls in order to get their party in power so they can live off contracts afterwards. And we can't compete when the government uses our own dollars against us. 

..........Time for my medication

 

[North Star]

Another reason why one shouldn't govern by polls.

 

[vonGarvin]

Polls don't determine what is right or what is wrong.  They only focus on opinion, which is as changing as the wind in Gagetown.  Take this snippet of "information" out there

Despite what we hear from our political and military leaders, this war to support U.S. oil policy is not going well. Just recently it was reported that in 2005 there were 150 insurgent attacks against NATO forces each month; this has risen to 600 in 2006. Back in 1979 Zbigniew Brzesinski urged President Jimmy Carter to lure the Soviet Union into Afghanistan to trap them in their own “Vietnam war.” How long will Canadian forces stay in Afghanistan?  We have already surrendered our long tradition of peacekeeping under the United Nations.
(from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAR20061116&articleId=3891)

In this article, the author neglects to mention any UN resolutions on Afghanistan and the terror attacks of 11 Sept 2001.  One that comes to mind is 1368 (2001) which states in part:
"Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"
So, my point is: people are stupid.  Not individual persons, but people as a collective mass of humanity are generally stupid and do things for the wrong reason.  How else to cry "No Blood for Oil!" regarding the war in Afghanistan.  Why else would people call this "Bush's war"?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Polls don't determine what is right or what is wrong.  They only focus on opinion, which is as changing as the wind in Gagetown.

I disagree, polls only focus on what the intended and/or required opinion of the pollster's buyers need it to be.

 

[schart28]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/14017

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose sending troops to Afghanistan?

                Dec. 2006            Oct. 2006

Support      35%                    44%

Oppose      61%                    53%

Not sure      4%                      3%

 

[Duzty]

Does this include the data collected by the the phone surveyors who hang up on you if you say you support the the CF in a'stan?  ;D

First thing my stats prof taught me... never believe stats...

 

[STONEY]

Polls are essentially popularity contests that change daily usually by the last headline or TV show.
Why have elections , wouldn't it be cheaper and faster to simply have a poll.
Cancel the hocky season , simply hold a poll of fans. There is a simple formula = length of mission x number of casualties= loss of support.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A polling company called me last week, likely sponsored by the government. They ask me to rate stuff on a 1 to 7 scale, 7 being good/very supportive. When asked several questions on Afghanistan I gave a big 7 to the mission and any other question related to supporting it. 

 

[Gunnar]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[North Star]

Reading the press release, I can detect a polling bias already. It describes Afghanistan as part of the "Global War on Terror", which usually turns people off to our deployment right away. I wouldn't doubt that the questioners put the term in their preface to the question. Anti-Americanism gets you the results you want in polling about peace and war.

If it were reworded as "Canada's contribution to the UN-sanctioned NATO mission in Afghanistan", I betcha you'd get different results.

 

[GAP]

Afghan mission support rebounds slightly
Published: Saturday, January 13, 2007 Peter O'Neil, CanWest News Service
Article Link

Support for Canada's mission in Afghanistan has grown over the winter as memory of a wave of bloodshed during the summer and early autumn fades, according to a new national poll provided exclusively Friday to CanWest News Service.

The online Jan. 8-10 survey of 2,206 Canadians by Innovative Research Group found 58 per cent of respondents support the military action compared to 38 per cent who are opposed.

The numbers are in line with a previous Innovative survey done last June, but up from a follow-up October poll that had just 54 per cent of Canadians backing the mission and 42 per cent opposed.

Of the 37 Canadians who died in Afghanistan last year, 26 perished during the July-to-October period.

Innovative Research president Greg Lyle said his research shows Canadians are prepared to support the dangerous overseas mission as long as they are convinced Canadian soldiers are providing critical assistance and bringing peace and democracy to the war-plagued country.

"The idea that we're a bunch of pacifists sitting around singing Kumbaya just isn't the way Canada is."

David Bercuson, programs director for the Calgary-based Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, said the expected fighting lull in Afghanistan during the winter months isn't the only likely reason for the increased public support.

He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government's stepped-up communication efforts, combined with generally positive media coverage of the conflict over the holiday season, have illustrated to Canadians that the military is engaged in reconstruction as well as combat.
More on link

 

[pbi]

He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government's stepped-up communication efforts, combined with generally positive media coverage of the conflict over the holiday season, have illustrated to Canadians that the military is engaged in reconstruction as well as combat.

This, IMHO, is the important part. While the CF has understood all along that we have to win the Info fight on this side of the pond if we want operational success, the Govt (and, to be honest, the previous Govt as well) really just didn't get it. In fact, I have fairly good anecdotal source saying that the current Govt was quite unhappy and uncomfortable with the way the CF "leans forward" on information. But, over the last couple of months, I have seem a distinct change: I think the light came on. This has been reflected in the reportage I have seen (although we could cynically say that due to the usual winter lull, there isn't much "bleeding" so reconstruction does the "leading"....I hope not, but then I can be a bit dim some times...)

The baddies and their support networks (who are no doubt reading this and every other open source in Canada, as well as watching our TV, reading the Cdn papers and  watching our domestic political developments) know that a military defeat of NATO forces is probably impossible, but that an information-based defeat of NATO public opinion is much easier and probably more important in the long run. They will be sitting in their Northwest Frontier refuge areas asking themselves why they haven't achieved that  defeat yet, and what weaknesses they can exploit. So far they haven't had to do too much: just sit and watch as NATO partners point fingers and call each other names in plain view, thus encouraging ill-informed Canadians to fear that the CF is carrying Afgh all by itself. A more adroitly exercised info ops campaign might do even more.

So what? Well, I think somebody once said that a lie can be half way around the world while truth is still getting its boots on, or something like that. So, it means that neither the Govt nor the CF can backtrack now on keeping the Cdn public informed with the truth, as quickly as possible, even if it isn't glorious. We needn't fear doing that. If, however, we get caught fibbing or "covering up" (to use a term we should remember all too well...) then look out. The baddies have nothing useful to offer the people of Afghanistan, but they have the ability to depict the opposite to an ill-informed public, aided and abetted by some of our political hopefuls who will cynically exploit dead Canadian soldiers to take a whack at the party in power.

Information is a weapon: it can destroy armies as surely as bullets and bombs.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

Information is a weapon: it can destroy armies as surely as bullets and bombs

Just in case someone missed it pbi.