Negotiate with the Taliban, Disturbing poll results from CTV news

[Armymedic]

Perhaps someone should point out the only way we would be able to get get the Taliban to negotiate with us is to make them promise they won't try to kill us in the middle of the discussion.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070520/afghan_poll_070520/20070520?hub=TopStories

CTV.ca News Staff
 
Updated: Sun. May. 20 2007 11:00 PM ET

Canadians still think it's a good idea to negotiate with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents as a way to end the violence there, a poll finds.

In The Strategic Counsel poll conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail, there was almost two-to-one support for the notion:

Net good idea: 63 per cent
Net bad idea: 32 per cent
The proportion of respondents saying it was a bad idea dropped by four percentage points when the same question was asked in October.

"In a way, it's a very Canadian thing to believe that nothing can't be solved by sitting across a table and talking," Peter Donolo of The Strategic Counsel told CTV.ca on Sunday.

However, Canadians might also think the mission is a morass, with no real end point in sight, he said.

Donolo said 57 per cent of Conservative Party members supported the idea of negotiations.

When NDP Leader Jack Layton called for peace talks with the Taliban last fall, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay later called the approach "naive." Some wags started calling Layton "Taliban Jack."

Afghanistan's Senate has recently called on the government of President Hamid Karzai to open talks with homegrown Taliban militants, in part as a response to civilian casualties caused by combat between the militants and NATO and U.S.-led troops.

Detainee controversy

An explosive political issue in Canada in recent weeks has been the fate of captured Taliban suspects who faced abuse or even torture at the hands of Afghan officials.

When asked how they feel about the treatment of detainees, only 31 per cent say they were outraged and that Canada's reputation has been hurt, while 56 per cent said Canada shouldn't be held responsible for what happens to prisoners held in Afghan-controlled detention centres.

"Basically, Canadians are pretty sanguine about this issue," Donolo said.

The level of outrage was highest in Quebec, at 37 per cent. However, more than half of Bloc Quebecois supporters pronounced themselves outraged, he said.

The public's feelings on the issue stands in contrast with the amount of time spent on it by opposition politicians in Parliament's question period.

Donolo said if the issue was damaging for the minority Conservative government, the damage came more from their perceived handling of it more so than the issue itself.

In the "horse race" portion of the poll released Friday, the Conservatives lost two percentage points in popular support compared to a late April poll (percentage point change from the April 21-24 poll):

Conservatives - 34 per cent (-2)
Liberals - 31 per cent (+1)
NDP - 16 per cent (+3)
Bloc Quebecois - 10 per cent (+1)
Greens - 9 per cent (-12)
Donolo noted that Canadians hold the military in high regard.

The poll asked about support for public institutions. Eighty-six per cent of respondents say they trust the military, with a net trust rating of +76. Here is how some other institutions compared:

Canada Post - 90 per cent, +81
RCMP - 80 per cent, +65
Canada Border Services Agency - 69 per cent, +53
CSIS - 60 per cent, +39
House of Commons - 58 per cent, +24
While they may trust the military far more than they do politicians, Canadians are still lukewarm about the Afghan mission.

The poll shows a slight rise in support for the mission compared to a late April poll (percentage point change in brackets):

Total support - 40 per cent (+4)
Total oppose - 55 per cent (-2)
However, only six per cent say they strongly support the mission, compared to 24 per cent who say they strongly oppose it, Donolo said.

Even with the national rise, those opposed hold at least a bare majority in Quebec, Ontario and the West, he said.

Technical notes

This poll was prepared by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail.
Sampling was carried out between May 14 and 17.
One thousand Canadians over the age of 18 were interviewed in a proportionate national sample.
The national margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Quebec: 247 sample size, 6.3 percentage-point margin of error
Ontario: 379 sample size, 5.0 percentage-point margin of error
West: 279 sample size, 5.7 percentage-point margin of error

 

[KevinB]

I am ALWAYS suspect of polls for politcal reasons.

Why -- Well I guarantee I can come out with a polling question series that will have 100% support for the mission.
1. Are you in favour of allowing the Taliban to continue to stone women to death
2. Do you beleive Afghanistan should revert to its pre March 02 stance on womens rights
3. Do you think it is a good idea to let the Afghanistan be used for terrorist training camps.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics...

 

[Exarecr]

If its  the Globe and Mail, that says it all. This News agency has consistently tweaked the facts, and ranted about Canada,s position and involvement in Afghanistan so take this disturbing pole with a grain of good antidepressant. To get it into the apparently really thick skulls of the average Canuck the absolute evil of the Taliban , it looks like a more pro active approach is necessary. Perhaps every 20 minutes or after every TV show if we were to air photos of the atrocities of the Taliban, or show a rousing game of kick the beheaded head into the net, or show public executions between intermissions on Hockey nite in Canada some of the thickness might disappear. I have my doubts. In this country history is a never ending, interchangeable story to be altered at the convenience of the story teller. I can picture the Globe reporting on the Dieppe raid. " Today Canadian terrorist troops attacked and murdered vacationing German troops at the port city of Dieppe", or something to this affect. The Feds have really dropped the ball on this one and i am afraid it may be to late to educate Canadians on the absolute evil of the Taliban before the next election. I fear a reinstated Liberal Government,or God forbid, an elected NDP and the damage this would do to our credibility more than i do the Taliban. What happened to our Country that so many could be so blind to the obvious?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not to mention the pedigree of the principals of the company doing the survey - emphasis is mine:
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_people/p_donolo.asp

"Peter Donolo leads The Strategic Counsel's strategic communications practice.

From 1993 to 1999, Peter served as Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office and chief communications strategist for Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his government. In that position, Peter established a strong record in developing successful communications strategies for the most important government initiatives and most contentious political and public policy issues of the past decade. In the process, he established a strong personal reputation in one of the most intense and high-pressured jobs of its kind.

Following his tenure in the PMO, Peter served for two years as Canadian Consul General to Milan, and later as Senior Vice President Corporate Affairs and Government Relations at Air Canada.

Peter and his wife, Mary Cruden, have three children: Annie, Maggie and Michael.

Along with a love of history and travel (a bug that's bitten the whole family) among Peter's more arcane interests are the music of Frank Sinatra, the films of Rita Hayworth and losing at Scrabble."

COUGH-COUGH-Liberal hack-COUGH

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sadly I think it shows just how little the Canadian population understands the nature of the enemy they face.


Matthew.  ???

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Here's my position: Send a very prominent Left-Winger to 'chat' with the Taliban, when he fails we can at least say we tried, then people would at least shut up about the issue.

 

[Fraser.g]

Here's my position: Send a very prominent Left-Winger to 'chat' with the Taliban, when he fails we can at least say we tried, then people would at least shut up about the issue.

Do you mean fails to negotiate or return from the meeting?

In either case, I nominate Jack Layton.

 

[Kirkhill]

The question itself is broadly meaningless. 

I think it is a good idea to negotiate with Taliban.  I don't think it is a good idea to negotiate with Mullah Omar or Osama (if still alive).  I think it is a great idea to negotiate with lower level Taliban - there is a fancy term for it these days "psy ops".  It is as ancient as warfare and may predate it.  It is the simple matter of separating leaders and followers.  And ISAF and NATO and Canada and the UN and Karzai all get that.  It is entirely possible that many of the respondents to this poll were also thinking along similar lines.  Hopefully anyway..... I'd hate to think they really were willing to bargain away the future of Afghans.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Do you mean fails to negotiate or return from the meeting?

Does it matter?

 

[Greymatters]

But arent they >gasp< terrorists? And dont we have a firm rule, 'we dont negotiate with terrorists'...? 

 

[CrazyCanuck]

But arent they >gasp< terrorists? And dont we have a firm rule, 'we dont negotiate with terrorists'...? 

Is that a rule for us or just the Americans?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The question itself is broadly meaningless. 

I think it is a good idea to negotiate with Taliban.  I don't think it is a good idea to negotiate with Mullah Omar or Osama (if still alive).  I think it is a great idea to negotiate with lower level Taliban - there is a fancy term for it these days "psy ops".  It is as ancient as warfare and may predate it.  It is the simple matter of separating leaders and followers.  And ISAF and NATO and Canada and the UN and Karzai all get that.  It is entirely possible that many of the respondents to this poll were also thinking along similar lines.  Hopefully anyway..... I'd hate to think they really were willing to bargain away the future of Afghans.

It's up to the Afghans to negotiate with the Taliban or parts of it and they have done so in the past and offer an amnesty for much of the rank and file up to some senior commanders, I believe the last big round of talks was in 2003. Without NATO's help, the present government will never get a chance to negotiate with the Taliban. Their senior leaders are unlikely to give up much and will likely have to be killed or imprisoned. The lower ranks will likely be willing to go back home under certain conditions. This is how almost all successful operations against insurgencies are won. In the often used Malay Emergency, it was the ability to "turn" the insurgents and send them back to persuade the others to give up. However this tactic was only successful once the insurgents knew they were fighting a losing battle. It was other tactics such as the Briggs plan and very successful Humit operations that set the stage, along with 3 rounds of failed negotiations previously.

NATO needs to continue to use their big stick and the Afghans need to ensure they keep the lines of communications open so they will know when the time is right to negotiate.

 

[Greymatters]

Is that a rule for us or just the Americans?

Although popularized by the US (reputedly used by both Reagan of the USA and Thatcher of the UK), I think its supposed to apply to all NATO countries at least...

US example: (reproduced under the Fair Dealings Act...)
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/reidjudge.html
U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to prison....
"Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."

 

[KevinB]

FWIW -- The Taliban and elements of insurgents in Iraq are not specifically terrorists.  The majpority of them are unemployed people with no manner to support their familes but take up weapons for a cause.

  The best way to create a lasting peace is to rebuild the country -- and as such take the "foot soldiers" away from the leaders.  The true idealists will still need to be killed -- since their stated goal is the elimination of us and our way of live (which gives us two choices -- one of which -- it relly not all that palatable to me...)


We can kill the minions till we are blue in the face -- but their staying power is much greater than our (look at the polls), and we will still not have made any headway in reconstruction in the country.  Like in Iraq a lot of the tribal leaders that are against the gov't - are not specifically Al-Q linked -- they where simply discarded in the building of the gov't have lost power, prestige and finances.  Bringing them back in the fold -- under a set of rules both sides can work with - will serve to polarize the enemy -- with their extreme measures seen for what they are in more and more villages --

  Look to the Anbar Salvation Council in Iraq - moderate Sunni insurgent Shiek's banded together to work with the US and get rid of Al-Q --- for Al-Q is much worse for them than us Infidels...  It took them a bit to realise that -- but its settling in.



 

 

 

[vonGarvin]

Here's what most people don't realise about the whole skill of negotiation.  It's about concessions and meeting halfway.  For example, Union "A" is striking against company "B".  They negotiate.  "A" wants 15 bucks an hour, "B" wants to give 12 bucks an hour.  They meet, they haggle, and in the end, "A" gets 13.50 an hour PLUS extra coffee breaks.  "B" saves money on salary, but loses production time.
So, I ask Canada and Canadians: shall we then tell the Taliban to "give up" beheadings by 50%?  Only burn 28% of schools that educate females?  What do we give up in return?  THAT is the real question Canadians should have to answer if they support negotiations. 

 

[Greymatters]

FWIW -- The Taliban and elements of insurgents in Iraq are not specifically terrorists.  The majpority of them are unemployed people with no manner to support their familes but take up weapons for a cause.

Cant argue with that...

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Here's what most people don't realise about the whole skill of negotiation.  It's about concessions and meeting halfway.  For example, Union "A" is striking against company "B".  They negotiate.  "A" wants 15 bucks an hour, "B" wants to give 12 bucks an hour.  They meet, they haggle, and in the end, "A" gets 13.50 an hour PLUS extra coffee breaks.  "B" saves money on salary, but loses production time.
So, I ask Canada and Canadians: shall we then tell the Taliban to "give up" beheadings by 50%?  Only burn 28% of schools that educate females?  What do we give up in return?  THAT is the real question Canadians should have to answer if they support negotiations. 

I think that most Canadians overlook that fact and expect the government to wave a magic wand and have the Taliban put down their weapons peacefully, maybe a proper poll should go along the lines of "What concessions should we make to the Taliban for peace?" Now since I can't think of any I can't take my poll any farther than that.

 

[wannabe SF member]

I think most would change their opinion if they knew that during the taliban reign, foreigners with a different religion had to wear a yellow badge stating their religion and nationality.
Kinda reminds you of something else.

 

[TN2IC]

Here's my position: Send a very prominent Left-Winger to 'chat' with the Taliban, when he fails we can at least say we tried, then people would at least shut up about the issue.

Okay... Jack will go over. Meet with Osama.. we get NATO to carpet bomb the whole area, plus a 50km radius for good luck. We get Osama, PLUS Jack gone... it is a win win deal for us. Who's game? I have to go now. I got a meeting in Ottawa now.



Regards,
TN2IC

 

[nihilpavor]

I don't think planning the killing of a member of the Parliament is acceptable.

Negotiations in a time of war are not publicly acceptable (you cant talk to the guy that kill your soldiers in the field) and they must remain secret. The fact that the public wants more negotiation with the enemy means that the enemy isn't perceived as such.