Canadians oppose tough, new role for the military, poll shows

[S McKee]

PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
DATE:  2005.08.17
EDITION:  Final
SECTION:  News
PAGE:  A4
BYLINE:  Mike Blanchfield
SOURCE:  The Ottawa Citizen
ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press / Canadian troopsraise the Maple Leaf over the provincial reconstruction team compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan, yesterday. Canada took over the compound from the U.S., which had operated the site since 2003. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadians oppose tough, new role for the military, poll shows: Respondents prefer 'old-fashioned' <peacekeeping> to hunting terrorists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite fiery rhetoric from Canada's top soldier that the Forces' main job is to kill people and rid the world of "scumbag" terrorists, Canadians prefer an old-fashioned image of their soldiers as benevolent <peacekeepers>, says a newly released poll.

Canadians support their troops and think there should be more of them, that they should be better funded and have better equipment. But the public's support is not deep, and still follows a traditional pattern that remains disturbing for the Forces: They don't think they deserve more money at the expense of health care and education.

Those findings were presented to Gen. <Rick> <Hillier>, the <chief> <of> <the> <defence> <staff>, by Ekos Research Associates Inc., which conducted a comprehensive telephone survey of 1,500 Canadians. The poll, done in late winter, is considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The poll was released earlier this month under Access to Information.

The Defence Department did not disclose the poll results when the Liberal government's international policy statement was released in March, showcasing a new, tougher face for the military.

The new approach -- espoused by Gen. Hillier and Defence Minister <Bill> <Graham> -- consists of a military fighting its way into a hostile environment, establishing security for oppressed people and helping them build the peace.

This "peacemaking" approach differs from the traditional "<peacekeeping>" role of a benevolent soldier on patrol, bringing aid to an impoverished child.

"Although Canadians recognize the need for a versatile military force, and understand the need to be combat ready, their preferred role for the forces is as <peacekeepers> and deliverers of humanitarian and disaster assistance. Moreover, their image of <peacekeeping> is a rather traditional, even old-fashioned one," the poll states.

About 57 per cent said they want the Forces to have a "traditional <peacekeeping> role" compared with 41 per cent that favoured "a peacemaking role, which might involve fighting alongside other UN troops to force peace in a disputed area."

Quebecers, at 62 per cent, and university-educated Canadians, at 61 per cent, most favoured the traditional role.

The pollsters offered advice on how military brass should sell their new vision of the Forces to Canadians.

"The image of the soldier holding a swaddling child is a simple and powerful one that appeals to Canadians. However, it is an isolated stereotype that needs to be put in context. That soldier may have arrived at that point by cutting through mean streets, or after overcoming daunting logistical obstacles; he or she may have been in a firefight earlier in the day, or have braved the threat of fire to prevent one."

Ekos poll respondents said the most critical issue facing the Forces was lack of funding (45 per cent). That was followed by old or obsolete equipment (38 per cent), lack of equipment (34 per cent) and a shortage of troops (27 per cent).

More than three-quarters of respondents think the military is underfunded but they had a hard time identifying exactly what ought to be cut.

"When asked to rank public priorities, <national> <defence> falls well behind other concerns such as education, health, poverty and the environment. What this means is the public's support should not be taken for granted," the pollster says. "Moreover, while the public may welcome some increase in military expenditure, this is hardly carte blanche."

 

[Edward Campbell]

If the poll was only released now, under ATI, it appears that Gen, Hillier had it for sometime (since 'late winter' according to the article) and decided, despite, the poll's indicators (perhaps because of them) that he needed to shock Canadians by talking to the troops out in public.

This is worrisome: " "Although Canadians recognize the need for a versatile military force, and understand the need to be combat ready, their preferred role for the forces is as <peacekeepers> and deliverers of humanitarian and disaster assistance. Moreover, their image of <peacekeeping> is a rather traditional, even old-fashioned one," the poll states.

About 57 per cent said they want the Forces to have a "traditional <peacekeeping> role" compared with 41 per cent that favoured "a peacemaking role, which might involve fighting alongside other UN troops to force peace in a disputed area."

Quebecers, at 62 per cent, and university-educated Canadians, at 61 per cent, most favoured the traditional role."

The article is, also, trying to manufacture controversy where none appears to exist.  It talks as if this poll was taken after Hiller made his remarks - the ones to which Ms. Parrish and many others took exception - and after Graham supported him.  That's not the case; as I said, Hillier took his actions after he had digested the poll's findings.

 

[Britney Spears]

It seems to me that most of these public opinion polls which involve terms like "traditional peacekeaping" are kind of useless, because the public, by and large, does not understand what the term means. Do the majority of the Canadian public also favour the partition of Afghanistan into seperate sections controlled by Karzai and Al Quada, with tangible borders forus to get "in between"? If not then where is the "traditional peacekeeping" suppose to come in? Imagine if we let a bunch of civies in Quebec who don't have a clue about the facts decide by poll what kind of truck or helicopter we should buy, where would that get us?

Oh... wait.......darn....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

As Lewis MacKenzie so aptly put it at the Couchiching meetings, "I don't care if politicians lean whichever what the wind blows on a host of domestic issues, but when it comes to defence and foreign policy, it is the Prime Minister's job to lead from the front.  You step up and say 'Here's what we're doing, and here's why it's important.'"

Bottom Line:  You lead from the front.  Good for Hillier is doing it, and now Martin needs to start....I'll be holding my breath.



Matthew.    :-X

 

[Island Ryhno]

Seems all the polls about the Canadian Armed Forces have leading questions in them. "Would you prefer a traditional peacekeeping military role?" seems like a very leading question to me. Sigh, I really hope Gen Hillier gets to carry through on all this, I hope he doesn't get cowed under by the government. Then we really net LGen Leslie as the next CDS, then we could really make some progress with back to back like thinking CDS's. Ahh one can only dream. Perhaps a very large shock of terrorism in our own country is what we need to wake up the people to what our role should be.

 

[Armymedic]

From article:

Canadians support their troops and think there should be more of them, that they should be better funded and have better equipment. But the public's support is not deep, and still follows a traditional pattern that remains disturbing for the Forces: They don't think they deserve more money at the expense of health care and education.

well, duh. If we take money from our children's education and our families' health care, then we don't have much of a country to defend. It should be a priority in the budget. But just like I have prioritise rent, food, and car payments...all are equally important, but would I take money from one to boost the other...no.

The public's support of the CF is only as deep as the media will "allow" it to be.

 

[BITTER PPLCI CPL]

You know what, and I hate to say this, Canada and Canadian's need a swift and hard kick in the fuckin balls! It seems how we forget planes flying into buildings and people have all but 2 choices, burn or jump! Canadian's need to be educated about traditional peacekeeping, and how it places soldiers lives in extreme peril (more than in Afghanistan). Look in what happened to the Belgian Para's in Rwanda when the politicians refused to give them permission to fight and for them to be rescued. I sorry but Delaire could have done more if he wanted too! Canadian's are soft and need to educated in many ways (if extreme, then that's ok) and one of them is about how traditional  peacekeeping doesn't resolve anything but prolongs the problem.

​

 

[x-grunt]

I see some good news here. Yes, the poll says people want a "traditional peacekeeping role", but I see the recognition that this is an old fashioned view, and that the public image needs to be put into a more realistic context. In addition I have noted a very slow, grudging recognition in the media  that the CF is actually a war fighting organization. Societal views take time to change, and this recognition may be the precursor of that change.

Frankly, without a wake up event like a terror attack or war threat, I wonder if going great guns to "shock" the public may well backlash. Better to slowly increase public awareness. Exactly as the pollsters suggest, keep the current image of the soldier comforting a kid, but start to add in images of facing down/fighting bad guys to get to that point.

A case in point should have been Medak...a battle for a good cause, to stop an ethnic cleansing of a village. I think the average Joe or Jane would have cheered that. That's the image we want to cultivate, and the government needs to push.

I suggest a way to start is to stop the current trend of looking back to WW2 for heroes and heroic events. Those vets deserve every bit of respect we can muster, but they get ALL the recognition. (I do not mean to deprive them of the real thanks they deserve - heck, my Dad was in 1 Can Para and fought all through Europe.) But what about all the unrecognized more recent incidents? What about the CAR in Cyprus in 74? The Medak folks? Golf Company ( I think) from the RCR taking on a Serb tank? Or any time a "peacekeeper" has come under fire, and has had to get nasty. Let's start publicizing these events a bit more as right actions involving heroic Canadians in combat for a good cause.

The image of firefighters come to mind as I type this. This is a great prototype for us to use to start shaping public awareness. Everyone knows firefighters rescue cats and kids, but we also know they darn well face danger and fight fires to get to the victims. We need this image - rescuing "cats and kids", but rushing into real danger, and fighting bad guys to get to them.

 

[McG]

I see some good news here. Yes, the poll says people want a "traditional peacekeeping role", but I see the recognition that this is an old fashioned view, and that the public image needs to be put into a more realistic context.

We could even facilitate this message by making it a core theme in some recruiting commercials.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

New money has to come from somewhere.

Robbing peter to pay paul doesnt work.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Is it any major surprise to us that the poll was take in Quebec? I'm not too surprised, given the levels of overall support in that Province.

If you polled here in the West, the results I think, would be much diffierent.

 

[Kirkhill]

One question I have is who allowed the word "traditional" to be tied to "peacekeeping"?  

How about asking the question in terms of Canada's "traditional" role of "liberating the oppressed" as in World War 1, 2, Korea, Kosovo, Somalia.....?

For the average citizen answering a poll while anxious to return to their supper a word like "traditional" implies doing what we have always done, what we are doing now, not requiring change, it works, I'm comfortable - sure keep on keeping on and let me get back to KFC before it gets cold.

As to where to allocate spending priorities?  How about - "Do you think the budget surplus should be allocated to National Defence?"  vs "Do you think that we should tear down schools and throw your Grandmother out of hospital to buy Tanks?"

Polls give the answers you want to hear.  If you want to hear the truth they can do that.  If you want to generate answers that support your position, they can do that to.

 

[mdh]

Polls give the answers you want to hear.   If you want to hear the truth they can do that.   If you want to generate answers that support your position, they can do that to.

The question is therefore is this poll telling us some truths that we in the military don't want to hear? The results shouldn't be surprising.   After 30 years of relentless Liberal propaganda propagated through almost every cultural and educational institution in the country, the notion of Canada as the nice and helpful peacekeeper has achieved iconic status - complete with the requisite Ottawa monument.  

Frankly I would have been astounded if Canadian public opinion had shifted to the point where Canadians wanted their army to conduct aggressive offensive operations against insurgents.

But it's not going to advance our cause very far if we think that confronting the public with the ugly reality of war is going to be the answer.  

As ex-grunt noted there is always the danger of a backlash which our political class is not going to stand up to and suddenly exercise "leadership" by defying public opinion and insisting that we take the war to the terrorists in Afghanistan - (especially given Quebec's traditional cultural and historical suspicions of the Forces and its electoral importance - nay, obsession - to the Paul Martin Liberals in the wake of the Gomery Inquiry.)

A steady and measured campaign to raise awareness and educate the public is the best approach - (again as ex-grunt described above).   We have already made progress on this front and I would argue that there has been considerable success in working with the media to highlight the CF's mission in Afghanistan. We need to more of it.

Cheers, mdh

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just as a side note, for those that don't know the Cuchiching Conference (or whatever the heck it's called - watched it on CPAC) is traditionally attended by a large number of left-leaning NGO's and student groups.

From the questions that were asked after their comments, you could tell that some of the common sense that Mackenzie and Leslie were trying to impart was in fact getting through which was really nice to see.

When I saw both Mackenzie and Leslie there, my first question was: "I wonder if Hillier is starting to fight the public fight that Martin won't?"

In any case, both guys represented themselves very well and I thought did a hell of a job.



Matthew. 

 

[Bert]

The article talked alot about the results of the poll.  I'd like to read the actual questions and
get a sense of the poll's objectivity and direction.  I lean towards Kirkhill's perspective.

Canadians are isolated from most of the world's severest problems and form detached
opinions and perspectives.  I can't blame the CBC and the like for this as its a part
of the human condition.  Given social services are more identifyable, its not unusual
for the general population to be confused with peacekeeping, military force structure,
and the ability of the CF to be deployed in all out force.

At the beginning of WW2, Canada transformed itself quickly from agrarian resource
based country to a formidable military power.  If a serious situation required Canada
to deploy in force today, the CF may have trouble.  Cruise missiles, force projection of
many powers, and the rapid respose of hi-tech systems wouldn't allow Canada to have
the same amount of time to prepare and survive.

Its good the public talks about it at least.

 

[Kirkhill]

The question is therefore is this poll telling us some truths that we in the military don't want to hear?

Fair enough mdh but the comments of you and x-grunt just put me more squarely behind this:

How about asking the question in terms of Canada's "traditional" role of "liberating the oppressed" as in World War 1, 2, Korea, Kosovo, Somalia.....?

If we can reclaim fighting for a cause, in defence of those that can't, as a "traditional" Canadian value then perhaps we can go someways to bridging the gap.

I don't know how much support we are likely to get from government etc on this but maybe it could start with Remembrance Day.

That day has come to be seen by many as an opportunity to remember the futility of war and the poor misguided fools who died because of blood thirsty, idiotic warmongers.  Lest We Forget has melded with Never Again.  There is little sense left of the torch being thrown from failing hands and breaking faith.

The day could perhaps be recast, with perhaps the help of the Legion if none else, as a day not to remember just the fact that people died, but the fact that those that died gave their lives fighting to defend others and many others fought for the same reason and did not die.

Remembrance day used to be a day to remember sacrifice and honour not only those that died but also those that offered themselves up as a sacrifice and thankfully returned safe.  Now the message seems, by and large, to be the war is a waste, dying is a waste, fighting is a waste.

Those aren't the sentiments of those that went overseas and demanded that "if ye break faith, we shall not sleep".

By recasting the message, by repossessing the word "traditional" then fighting in defence of those that cannot becomes not a divergence onto a new path as a result of Anglo-American Military-Industrial Hegemonists (god these communists write some great script don't they?) but it is a return to "traditional" Canadian values and the values of those honoured on Nov. 11.

Sacrifice, not waste.

 

[COBRA-6]

I love the myth that the politicians have pushed on the public "if you want more money for the military then health care and education will suffer". Bullshit! We have more than enough money to have world class health care, education and defence, if the government would only show some fiscal responsibility and stop pissing it all away, a billion here, a billion there...

 

[Mineguy]

I think its gonna take an attack to wake them up, period. Most important thing to the cdn people as selfish as they are is personal nessecity (included in that the effcts of 40 years of progressive re education) from which they derive national defence needs and answer these questions.

WW2 and the 1950s era was a diffrent generation who thought diffrent and had diffrent values, this one has been steadily re educated to believe what the media and people up their in parliment with a steady plan that they happily followed (with no public harrassment that would harm them at voting time since the 60s) of how the military should be and what a soldier does for a living that chipped away till it is at where it is now, no co incedence. Now they want it to stay that way and theyll fight hard. We have already lost soverignty to really protect our own country.Plainly obvious. These average people ( and most being opposed were the educated ones from the centers of excellence in re education- not a co incedence) dont even see that at home and wont till somebody bombs somewhere inside canada or some other form of attack and they see and experience it first hand and truley see for the first time we have been targetted all along just like we were warned about. I think then when theyre afriad for their families things might change when their nessecity priority changes.

I think Gen Hilliers comments stimulous have clearly shown the effects of that re education in high society (ms parrish) and the poll in average society well. From the sounds of their replies and objectivly Theyre just plain selfish, theyve had it great for many years in the best country on the planet and dont even come near us!!. They (and the politicans) like to attend all the nov 11 days and talk abut how every body loves canada and we are such famous peacekeepers and point at the swaddling photo and its so safe in the bubble. But, as soon as the new world was thrust onto them in 2001 when they should have realized things changed (and truly saw the state we are in for defence)  they cant get their head around it that we are in the same boat as everybody else when it comes to the threat and thats its only a matter of time....but of course that costs money, and because they are borne of neccesity, if its gonna cut health care and education within the bubble where nothing could ever happen to canada, well defence is gonna have to take a number and wait in line for eerybody else to be served first cos thats of course the important stuff guys!..well so the guy on his way to work in missisauga thinks of course!

I think when we get it someday on our own soil General hillier will be the man overnight with a large portion of these educated and average people..but not until they loose this view of canadian impartiality and saftey in this new world and thats way too late!!

 

[canadianblue]

Remembrance day used to be a day to remember sacrifice and honour not only those that died but also those that offered themselves up as a sacrifice and thankfully returned safe.  Now the message seems, by and large, to be the war is a waste, dying is a waste, fighting is a waste.

Yeah I loved singing "Little Tin Soldier" at our Rememberance Day at my school. All it was, was about the futility of war and how useless it is. Nothing ever seemed to deal with the honour and sacrifice that was paid by the soldiers who died overseas. As well Canadian's have also traditionally liberated people as well which many seem to always forget.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just my own opinion but I think that the current "Canadian Identity" needs a serious wake-up call.

We generally talk a good game about how kind and caring we are, and then demand more and more money for our own social programs while robbing our military the ability to intervene around the world where innocent people are getting raped and killed.

Bottom Line:  As a whole, I think we're pretty damned selfish and think someone needs to make it clear in a public statement that the opportunity cost of our self-indulgence is that bullies and warlords rule far more of the planet's surface than there should be, imposing their will on the unfortunate residents.  That doesn't mean we can fix all the world's problems, but it means we look so hard at how everything affects "me" (damnit I had to wait an hour for my doctors appointment today!), that we've lost the bigger picture context.  In short, the view is "Let's intervene in Darfur as long as we don't have to spend money on strategic lift, more troops and possibly even [gasp] tanks.....and we better not shoot anyone while they're there.  Perhaps we can bring daisies...."




Matthew.    ???