Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[The Bread Guy]

More details from the Ipsos-Reid poll for CanWest News/National Post (news rls attached - highlights mine)...

"Canadians’ support for the current mission in Afghanistan is holding relatively steady according to a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global Television. In 2005 support for the Afghanistan mission was at 52% and is now at 48% -- this at a time when the first half of July alone has witnessed 43 coalition troops having died including four Canadians, one Italian, 15 British and 23 Americans.

But what’s apparent now is that only 41% of Canadians support any ongoing role—including non combat where training of Afghani troops would continue: 52% are now resolved in their belief that once this commitment is concluded in 2011 it’s time for Canada’s military role to end and have the troops fully out of Afghanistan (7% are unsure or don’t know).

This is clearly a change in support for the policy of Canada being in Afghanistan, not a reflection on the conduct of its Forces: the poll finds that support for Canada’s troops has increased by five points since 2007 (77%) to 82% now with Canadians being “proud of the men and women who serve in Canada’s Armed Forces.” The biggest boost in support has been in Quebec—up an astonishing 18 points from 58% to 76% but countered by a drop in support from 78% to 64% (down 14 points) in Manitoba /Saskatchewan where debate was fuelled in 2008 by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence which found inconsistent care across the country with wounded Canadian soldiers returning from overseas and not be getting the most effective care. In this context, the downturn in “support” in the Prairies may not be a reflection on the troops themselves but rather in the state of affairs provided to them and their families by the Forces after their return.

Support for Military Mission to Afghanistan Has Remained Relatively Stable Since 2005…

The latest poll has found that one half (48%) of Canadians ‘support’ (22% strongly, 26% somewhat) ‘the use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan’. By comparison, in January of 2008, one half (50%) of Canadians supported the mission, demonstrating virtually no change in public sentiment towards the mission that expires in 2011.

Conversely, 45% currently ‘oppose’ (23% strongly/21% somewhat) the mission, down 1 point from last year. Seven percent (7%) don’t know if they support or oppose the mission, up 3 points from 2008.

A Majority of Canadians Seem to be Saying “We’ve done our bit, bring our troops home”…
A majority (52%) believes that Canada should bring its troops home at the end of the mission in 2011, up from 37% (14 points) in January of 2008 and 44% in 2007, clearly indicating that sentiment towards Canada’s future in Afghanistan has shifted significantly in the last 18 months...."

 

[Rinker]

How many people here talk to people who don't support the war, but don't really know why they don't support the war. They just say it is war, it doesn't help. Now there has got to be a lot of those types.

 

[jacksparrow]

I am personally against the war, at least for lasting as long as it did. I am all for helping the people there, just that Afghanistan is not the only country and people that need help (help as in local kind of help and sensitive to the culture and perspectives). We, including our allies, do not have the means and resources to 'help' every single country that need help, or even those deem security threats.

All the positive reasons for being there can be applied to many other places, and it is really not why we went there in the first place. Canada went in in support of their allies and commitment to NATO who reacted to the Taliban harboring those who help orchestrate 9/11. They needed someone to hit, and we helped. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and the country would still generally be ruled by the Taliban. 

Once the mission ends, would be good for Canada to consolidate, rest, and refurbish/update, and try avoid situations having our fair chunk of the military committed to one area for nearly a decade or more. 

So yes...

So you think we don't have a presence elsewhere then at the moment? Are you in the military or about to join?

We aren't the only country over there, the UK has lost just as much people over there and they were in Iraq as well. Canada is made up of of different background of people, and we aren't going to sit back and watch people's country of origin go to the dogs if there is a legitimate case for us to be there helping out in any way shape or form.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I am personally against the war, at least for lasting as long as it did. I am all for helping the people there, just that Afghanistan is not the only country and people that need help (help as in local kind of help and sensitive to the culture and perspectives). We, including our allies, do not have the means and resources to 'help' every single country that need help, or even those deem security threats.

All the positive reasons for being there can be applied to many other places, and it is really not why we went there in the first place. Canada went in in support of their allies and commitment to NATO who reacted to the Taliban harboring those who help orchestrate 9/11. They needed someone to hit, and we helped. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan and the country would still generally be ruled by the Taliban. 

Once the mission ends, would be good for Canada to consolidate, rest, and refurbish/update, and try avoid situations having our fair chunk of the military committed to one area for nearly a decade or more. 

So yes...

So you figure that it's a good idea to leave the people of Kandahar high and dry, just because they didn't get their act together fast enough for your liking?  Perhaps we should have done that to the Turks and Greeks and abandoned Cypress as well?  Stick Europe, the Russians wouldn't dare nuke them?  And doubtless we shouldn't even be even thinking of anybody being in FRY? 
Investing a decade (which it hasn't been yet) in the face of 30 years of war and global neglect doesn't seem to be such a long time. 
But doubtless we should race to Darfur and give them the very best our country can offer.
For no more than seven months of course.  Then it's GTFO time. 

 

[leroi]

I cut and paste this May 5th 2009 email response to me from the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies. I place it here because it's a good reminder that the peoples of Afghanistan do appreciate the efforts made by our Canadian Forces and others. I've edited out the individuals name who responded. I'd sent him links to a few Toronto print media "stories" that some of us thought were mis-representing his country and the Canadian mission in Afghanistan as well as sending him some links to Canadian ongoing fundraising efforts for Afghanistan. So here's a little glimpse of what some  people in Afghanistan think of Canada's efforts on their behalf:


Dear Joan,

Thank you for your email. Well your vision for Afghanistan is appreciable and adorable. I never thought that there is someone who think about my country when she is passing her college. [He misunderstood my email and thought I was a young college student as opposed to being middle-aged (can ya say old? lol) and just taking a few History courses.]

I am happy that there is still goodwill among Canadians about their Forces mission in Afghanistan and their lovely vision of helping the Afghan women. I think your country's Forces play a vital role in post-Taliban Afghanistan in the former strong hold and place of birth of the Taliban. Canadians are really in effort to provide a better situation for Afghans.

Thank you for the links provided me. I hope that your efforts be blessed and as an Afghan I thank all of your brave women. [Here he refers to a Women's Day fund raising breakfast for Afghan women I'd written to him about.]

Well there are many warm countries with cold and freezed minds, mindsets and impressions. I think, although your country is cold, but enjoys from many warm people like you. [Re: I'd whined a bit to him about the Canadian winter.]

Regards,

[name edited out]

 

[Larkvall]

Well I have something to say on this matter.

For the record I am 39 and I have never served in the armed forces, but I am applying to the Reserves.

I am very disturbed at what I am hearing in this thread.

You know when I was a teenager there was no question or choice who the enemy was. I remember sitting in history classes watching a documentary in which they asked Canadian tank crews how long they thought they would survive if WWIII broke out. I don't think anybody answered over 2 hours. That would have been a HARD war but they were willing to fight it.

Now the good news is the whole world won the Cold War.

NOW here are some facts for you:

1) We are part of NATO
2) The US was attacked
3) They asked for assistance

Get over it.

Do you people even know what the Taliban are about? They didn't allow girls to go to school and boys could only learn religion. They banned tv to cut people off from the rest of the world. Imagine what the country would look like after a couple generations of this! You don't think this would be a problem?

Here is an idea. I am sure the UN would love some troops for Somalia peacekeeping. What could be "hard" about a mission there? <sarcasm>

 

[zipperhead_cop]

They banned tv to cut people off from the rest of the world. Imagine what the country would look like after a couple generations of this! You don't think this would be a problem?

Well, that would explain why Kandahar Has Talent and Degrassi Jr Madrassa suck so much.  ;D j/k

Great post.  Nice to see a civilian who "gets" it. 

 

[burnaby]

In my opinion from what I am studying about (taking a course called War and Society) our military is not designed to fight insurgents. Ok let me make it clear before i go on, I'm not saying we are going to lose for sure, all wars can be won or lost. Our military originally before Afghanistan, is trained in a Western style of warfare, in this kind of warfare we look for pitch battles, quick victory and to fight uniform personal. This is what we are taught in the public too in some extant. We remember the battle of Vimy Ridge for an example, but in the war in Afghanistan there are no specific battlefields, the whole country is the battlefield. I think this is one of the number one problem facing the public, because we as the general public is so fixated of finding "that" battle or "that" operation. If you go on the streets and ask the average Canadian, "name me a battle in Afghanistan or an operation" a majority of them will not know. But if you ask them a WW2 or WW1 battle or operation they will likely to give you an answer(a grade 11 student can name Somme and a grade 12 student can name Operation Overlord they teach it in school at least when i was in secondary school). In Afghanistan there is constant skirmishes in some nameless place in the middle of a hamlet not heard of in Canada. Another problem that is plaguing the public is that the lack of knowledge or interest, honestly (I live in BC) I ask some people at my campus and on the streets they don't really care, they have lost interest, some feel we have been there for far too long, we should pull out, we are still fighting in Afghanistan? (<-----one of my favorite answers, gee they can get a math degree but don't know whats out the door), etc.... The constant news of soldiers getting killed is more lethal then a bomb, because it spread like a cancer, the general public get demoralize quickly. Simple answers such as "lets just pull out and leave" is a very appealing answer for the public. Furthermore as mention before news from the media is hazards, they either post ambiguous, lies and sometimes truth about the situation. One example is the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War.

Well that's my summary of why we are having such a hard time on the field and at home. i believe that we can win this war, we shouldn't be quick to judge the war is over, it may be longer then WW2, but at the end what really matter is "do we have the will to go on?" and "are we doing everything possible adapt our tactics efficiently to destroy our enemies".

 

[Good2Golf]

burnaby, as you noted about your studies in history, it often takes the passage of time for things to be ingrained in a society's "memory".  While not every Canadian will be able to name "The Battle of the Panjwai" or "Operation Medusa" now, many might in the future.  There are Canadians who now know at least the name, or even some context to "The Battle of the Medak Pocket" in the Former Yugoslavia where Canadian and some French troops interposed between Croat and Serb forces to protect the Serbs in the village of Medak.

Regards
G2G

 

[Larkvall]

Here is a documentary on the Battle of Medak Pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-AvcKJnx9I

 

[The Bread Guy]

Britain, Canada Differ from U.S. on Afghan War (link embedded in title)
Angus Reid Global Monitor, 22 Jul 09
More details attached as .pdf

"Adults in the United States remain supportive of their country’s military engagement in Afghanistan, but people in Britain and Canada are considerably less enthusiastic about the mission, according to a three-country poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 55 per cent of American respondents support the military operation in Afghanistan, but only 43 per cent of Canadians and 39 per cent of Britons concur.

In fact, 53 per cent of respondents in Britain—and 52 per cent in Canada—oppose the military operation in Afghanistan ...."

From July 15 to July 18, 2009, Angus Reid Strategies conducted an online survey among 1,007 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panelists, 1,000 American adults who are Springboard America panelists, and 1,887 British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1% for Canada, +/- 3.1% for the United States, and 2.2 per cent for the United Kingdom. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Canada, the US and the UK. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.

 

[OldSolduer]

Here is a documentary on the Battle of Medak Pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-AvcKJnx9I

I was there. Watching this video gave me goosebumps. I know the two gentlemen (Mr. Green and Mike Spellen) fairly well.

This battle was kept under wraps for quite a few years, as the the government of the day was very sensitive to having "peacekeepers" actually have to shoot and possibly kill people who were up to no good. The Somalia affair was very fresh in everyone's memory, plus the Western press was postively anti Serb.

The Croatian government continues to deny this incident to this very day.

I spent 10 days in The Medak Pocket. Bn HQ was located in a two story brick house. All the windows were long gone, but it was still 100% better than what the troops in the Pocket were living in. I remember having the BHQ drivers count and identify Serb equipment that was moving into the area. I also remember the explosions and the smell of fires for those days. I do not like the smell of woodsmoke, particularly on a humid cloudy day.

Once in the Pocket, what the troops found was sheer destruction.

Our Bn Photographer was tasked with providing photographic evidence of the destruction.
They weren't pictures you show at a cocktail party.

In some ways I'm still harboring some anger towards the Croat "army". They weren't "army" at all, but more like the SS factions in WW2 that followed the fighting troops and exterminated people wholesale.
Cowards....all of them. We found personal documents of Croat "army" soldiers in the Pocket.

My rant ends. Thank you for your patience.

 

[leroi]

OldSoldier, have you ever thought of writing a book?

This is a fascinating snapshot of history and not a rant at all.

Some of you guys and gals have experienced things that have tested the limits of your humanity and yet you've endured and survived and can talk/write about your experiences. It is quite amazing.

 

[OldSolduer]

OldSoldier, have you ever thought of writing a book?

This is a fascinating snapshot of history and not a rant at all.

Some of you guys and gals have experienced things that have tested the limits of your humanity and yet you've endured and survived and can talk/write about your experiences. It is quite amazing.

I started one, but haven't finished yet....there are more chapters to be written.

Thanks for the compliment!

 

[Larkvall]

Afghanistan's First National Park

It seems progress is being made in some places.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQD9fo88Ao

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyzEYNMTCU

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an opinion piece by former Conservative leadership candidate and Liberal cabinet minister Belinda Stronach:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/investing-in-girls-pays-off-in-social-and-economic-progress/article1296298/

Investing in girls pays off in social and economic progress
As host of the next G8 Summit, Canada has the opportunity to kick-start this engagement

Belinda Stronach

Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009

Despite demonstrable evidence that countries enjoy comparatively greater economic growth if they choose to invest in improving and protecting education for girls and young women, too little is still being done to nurture these vulnerable young people – especially in developing countries.

Chronic neglect of this critical population is detailed in a new report by Plan International, and although most prevalent in the developing world, its impact extends far beyond. A grim legacy of lost opportunity and squandered economic potential continues.

Many charitable foundations and non-profits are active in promoting improved educational outcomes for girls and young women in Africa and other parts of the developing world. But this work would be greatly advanced by concerted action at the highest level of government.

Overseas, real progress on this issue requires the participation of the developed world to break once and for all the cycle of inferior education and limited economic chances. The timing is right for Canada to take up the charge and show real leadership.

As host of the next G8 Summit, Canada can to kick-start this engagement – and, in doing so, to begin improving the lives of the 500 million girls and young women in developing countries.

Advancing the potential of girls and young women, here at home and around the world, is one of the Belinda Stronach Foundation's primary goals. This week, in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, the Belinda Stronach Foundation is making a commitment to bring together leading national and international organizations to focus our collective efforts on elevating the advancement of girls and women to the G8's agenda.

The global recession both magnifies the challenge and heightens the urgency of the situation. As the preface of Plan International's report puts it, even fleeting economic turmoil can take a long-term toll on the futures of girls and young women around the world: “In times of financial stress it is girls who will be pulled out of school by cash-strapped families; who will bear the brunt of increased household chores as their mothers search for work; and who may end up in exploitative and often dangerous jobs because the immediate need for money is so pressing.” Family hardship all too often results in the future of girls and young women being neglected.

The report also offers a basis for hope. The proportion of girls in school, primary and secondary, has risen markedly during the past 20 years, which is important because education is so closely connected to opportunity. Education is a critical step on the path toward economic equality – and greater economic equality for girls and young women in the developing world will benefit us all by helping poor countries rise out of poverty.

But much more needs to be done – and more attention needs to be paid to the fact that in some parts of the world, tremendous opportunity is being lost because education options are inadequate or denied outright. Governments need also to take a look within their own borders: Even in the developed world, girls and young women – especially those of aboriginal or other minority backgrounds – are confronted by growing inequality. In the words of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director of the World Bank, adolescence in many parts of the world is marked by a stark divergence between genders. “During adolescence,” she says, “the world expands for boys but contracts for girls. Boys gain autonomy, mobility, job prospects; girls are systematically deprived of these opportunities.”

Restricted mobility, domestic duties, forced marriage, social custom – these elements still conspire to restrict girls' access to schooling. As a result, the gap between men and women in the developing world labour force remains wide. In South Africa, for instance, 82 per cent of men are active in the labour market, compared to just 27 per cent of women.

As economic turmoil threatens to push girls and young women further to the margins, diminishing not only individual but national economic outcomes, Canada can emerge as their champion – leading a summit that responds to their needs and respects their potential. At every stage of a girl's life, there is action that can be taken to advance her potential – feeding her, giving her a school and making sure she's able to attend, providing skills training to bridge the space between formal education and the labour market.

An investment in girls and young women is an investment in economic equality and social progress. It's an investment in the future of the world.

Belinda Stronach is chair of the Belinda Stronach Foundation.

I agree with Ms. Stronach. Investing, in every sense of the word, in women and girls makes good social, economic and political sense. Most of what I have read about micro-financing, for example, indicates that investing in projects run by women is most likely to produce better results and returns than one gets from projects run by men.

But, I’m surprised and a bit dismayed that Stronach has ignored the ongoing mission that involves our biggest and “best: investment in women and girls: Afghanistan.

Ms. Stronach and the G8 and whatever Gn will meet in the years to come should applaud those NATO/ISAF members, including Canada, that are investing treasure and blood in Afghanistan’s women and girls. We are “making a difference,” right now.

Ms. Stronach missed an opportunity to inform Canadian public opinion.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC’s web site, is an opinion piece by veteran CBC foreign correspondent Henry Champ:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/23/f-rfa-champ.html

Henry Champ: Will Obama abandon Afghanistan?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

By Henry Champ, special to CBC News

When Taliban leader Mullah Omar heard of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's grim assessment of the Afghanistan war recently, he issued a statement saying, "The invaders should study the history of Afghanistan. The more the enemy resorts to increasing forces, the more they will face an unequivocal defeat."

Calling his country the graveyard of empires, Omar was referring to Alexander the Great, the British in the 1800s and the Soviets who occupied the country from 1979 to 1989.

All of them made ignominious retreats after trying to tame Afghanistan.

Of course, this was fairly standard rhetoric for the mullah, who issues regular taunts from his headquarters somewhere near the Pakistani city of Quetta, just across the Afghan border.

But the image of American troops staying on for years in Afghanistan while losing precious lives and spending untold billions in a conflict that may not be winnable, is one that has new resonance in an increasingly unsettled White House.

Last March, President Barack Obama announced a new strategy — to use a hearts and minds counter-insurgency to prevent the return of the Taliban and enhance the Afghanistan government's ability to rule.

The world, he said, cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos.

The concept was to secure individual Afghan villages, send aid and Americans to rebuild them, and eventually turn them over to a newly-capable Afghan government.

On the battlefield, the Taliban would be routed by new infusions of U.S. troops using newly robust tactics.

Now comes McChrystal, the American commander in the region, who says get me more troops and quickly, and if this is not done within the year, all will be lost.

Oh, and by the way, winning will take years of patience, many more billions of dollars and many more American lives.

Pushing back

But now, Obama, who has called Afghanistan a war of necessity, not one of choice, is clearly having second thoughts.

In a splurge of television interviews these past days, he said that everything is on hold while he and his senior national security advisers work through their strategy and decide how to proceed.

The military is pushing for a quick decision, warning that lives are at risk. But the president is pushing back, saying, in effect, I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan.

The implication here is that there may be a serious rethink of the strategy he announced only six months ago.

Adding fuel to the speculation, Obama says he doesn't care about saving face.

What changed since March?

First and foremost, American public has shifted and rather sharply. In the last Washington Post poll, 51 per cent of Americans said the once-popular Afghan war is not worth fighting. This week, a CNN poll put the disapproval rating at 58 per cent.

Second, the Afghan election, which was to be one of the signposts of progress, instead is being regarded as one of the great election thefts of all time. Polls that didn't open on voting day nonetheless sent ballot boxes full of votes to the counting centres.

What's more, voter turnout was down sharply to 39 per cent of registered voters and Afghans and many Americans cannot understand how an election monitored by tens of thousands of soldiers and observers could have been so poorly handled.

The Karzai government now likely to be reinstalled for another five years is considered hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.

The White House knows that the election debacle will only further poison support among American voters and make sacrifice for a tainted regime almost impossible.

Third, NATO has little stomach for continuing the fight. Britain, Canada and the Dutch have done their part; the others have hid behind so-called caveats to avoid fighting.

Fourth, al-Qaeda's presence in the world is not the same as it was when its leaders gathered in Afghanistan and planned the Sept. 11, 2001 attack against the World Trade Centre.

Large and easily-targeted training camps are a thing of the past.

Although al-Qaeda's leaders are hiding somewhere in the rugged mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, potential bomb-makers can learn their craft in a Hamburg apartment or, as is being investigated at the moment, in a home in Colorado.

Al-Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan any more.

Get out, get out

As Washington Post writer Eugene Robinson wrote on Monday, it's hard to read McChrystal's assessment of the Afghanistan war without hearing one of those horror-movie voices that seem to come from everywhere and nowhere, a voice that grows louder and more insistent with every page: Get out, get out, get out.

Mind you, it hasn't been in the DNA of American presidents to walk away from a fight even when it has looked hopeless in the eyes of almost everyone else.

President Dwight Eisenhower laid the groundwork for American fighting in Vietnam and John Kennedy expanded it. Kennedy apologists have always said he would have ended the effort had he had more time in office, although there is no evidence that is true.

President Lyndon Johnson knew he was in deep trouble in Vietnam but kept escalating the war on the advice of his generals and because he was busy horse-trading with Republicans who would vote for his Great Society initiatives in return for staying on the battlefield.

Recordings of Johnson's conversations during that period of American expansion in Vietnam indicate he was most afraid of being the first president ever to lose a war.

No one in the Obama administration wants pictures of Americans or sympathetic Afghans climbing onto helicopters from the embassy roof in Kabul, as they did when the Americans abandoned Saigon.

Embassy roofs

Several months ago I wrote that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan was already beginning to change, with American troops shifting from outposts in the hinterlands to concentrate on protecting the bigger cities such as Kabul and Kandahar. That plan has continued.

At this juncture, there is something to be said for a complete pullout, but what seems more likely is that the president will reiterate his overall objective of destroying al-Qaeda camps in western Pakistan and will escalate that effort.

That would mean keeping several big bases in the country and using them to launch attacks against those who would make trouble for the West.

It would also mean keeping a reasonably large number of troops in country to train the Afghan army and police, while the effort to persuade moderate Taliban to change sides continues.

But nation building, as it is called, will be reduced and the Afghan people will be left more to their own devices. There will be complaints, and there should be, about human rights in Afghanistan, particularly where it involves women.

The West must continue to do what it can on this front, but soldiers seldom are agents of social change.

All these changes to the war plan for Afghanistan will allow the president to focus on domestic issues, concentrating on health care and the economy, on education and jobs.

Trust me the country is ready to peel away from Afghanistan. So is the president.

Champ and I must be looking at different wars. What I see are American combat brigades “out in the boonies,” in the farms and villages, with the Canadians, going after the Taliban and securing the people – not hiding in big cities.

But, his main point is: Obama wants out. That remains to be seen.  He also says, and I agree, that Americans are growing tired of the war. Perhaps their spirits can be lifted by some good news. Absent good news it is hard to see how they might “turn about” and support a mission when they are e.g. worried about the economy, confused by the health care debate, and concerned about immigration.

Most Canadians, we know, have already stopped “supporting” the war. “News” like this will reinforce that opinion.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Support for combat role feeble, poll finds
Peter Zimonjic, Sun Media, 28 Sept 09
Article link

OTTAWA -- Almost half of Canadians say our troops should remain in Afghanistan, but only if the mission changes from a combat role to a training and development mission.

A Leger Marketing poll says 45% of Canadians support staying for a non-combat mission, while 12% want the troops to stay until the war is won.

"People are supporting the troops and hoping they make it home safe. They are saying we do have a role in Afghanistan, but just not that one," said pollster Christian Bourque, vice-president of Leger Marketing.

Military analyst and retired colonel Michel Drapeau says the support for Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan in a different role indicates many are displeased with the departure from Canada's traditional role as a peacekeeping nation.

"It's surprising there is as much as 12% who want to stay until the war is won because that is about as open-ended a mandate as we could have," said Drapeau. "Nobody can say what it would mean to win, or when that objective would be achieved. It could be a century from now."

Support to remain until the war is won was greatest in Alberta (19%), but lowest in Quebec (6%). When asked if Canadian troops should leave Afghanistan immediately, 52% of Quebecers said yes compared to the national average of 37%.

"Quebecers have always had this very naive or pacifist perspective on foreign relations and they have always sided in that same direction," said Bourque.

While the high disapproval rating in Quebec for the combat mission in Kandahar should be expected, it might be especially high right now, Drapeau said.

"The very people who have lost their lives over the past six months are primarily coming from Quebec," he said.

 

[PMedMoe]

Support to remain until the war is won was greatest in Alberta (19%), but lowest in Quebec (6%). When asked if Canadian troops should leave Afghanistan immediately, 52% of Quebecers said yes compared to the national average of 37%.

"Quebecers have always had this very naive or pacifist perspective on foreign relations and they have always sided in that same direction," said Bourque.

While the high disapproval rating in Quebec for the combat mission in Kandahar should be expected, it might be especially high right now, Drapeau said.

"The very people who have lost their lives over the past six months are primarily coming from Quebec," he said.

AFAIK, Quebec has never supported the mission like the rest of Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Québec’s isolationism goes far, far, farther back than this mission.

Laurier faced intense opposition, for example, to creating a Canadian Navy (1910) from two sources:

1. Those imperialists, spread across society, who felt that a small, locally administered Canadian Navy would be a waste and that the same resources (men and money) simply applied to the Royal Navy would produce better results; and

2. The Québec isolationists, led by Henri Bourassa, who, as they had during the Boer War, opposed any “overseas adventures.”

Québec isolationism goes beyond being “opposition to British imperialism." In 1917 and in the 1940s there was little enthusiasm for “supporting” or “liberating” France, either.

Québecers, broadly, have a deep seated sense of self and a very, very weak connection to the rest of us. They know what they have and what they want, and, again very broadly, they care little for the "world" outside their own linguistic, cultural and geographic "borders."