Canada - Support for Afghan mission dropping: poll

[Praxius]

Support for Afghan mission dropping: poll

OTTAWA -- As the country mourns the loss of six soldiers killed in Afghanistan and reflects on a death toll that has now mounted to 66 soldiers and one diplomat, a new national poll indicates that Canadians are almost equally divided on their support for the mission. The poll, conducted exclusively for CanWest News Service and Global National by Ipsos Reid, showed that half of Canadians -- exactly 50 per cent -- said they either "strongly" or "somewhat support" the use of Canada's troops for security and combat efforts in Afghanistan. Almost equally planted on the other side of the debate are 45 per cent of Canadians who said they either "strongly" or "somewhat oppose" the mission in Afghanistan. The remaining five per cent said they do not have an opinion one way or the other. The latest numbers show a continuing drop in support for the mission since it reached a peak in the fall of 2006 at 57 per cent. In April 2007, support had slipped to 52 per cent, and now to 50, according to the polling firm's data. But even with the declining support, pollster Darrell Bricker says the conventional wisdom that as casualties mount, support will drop, is not necessarily proving true. "I actually expected that the numbers were going to be quite a bit lower because of what happened last week," Bricker said, referring to the six soldiers who were killed by a roadside bomb on July 4. "But I think what's happened is that the issue is starting to transcend the issue of casualties." Bricker said it's important to note the demographics of the people who are supportive of the mission. The poll found that Canadians with a university degree were the most likely to support the mission and nearly six in 10 Canadians whose households earn at least $60,000 a year were among those who are supportive. "What I think that we're seeing a little bit of here is that people who are a little bit more worldly, that are more plugged into the idea of Canada in the world, seem to have a bit more tolerance for this because they actually see the payoff as being more significant than simply just a sacrifice of troops," Bricker said. They may also be getting used to the idea of casualties, he added. He said the Conservative government has been trying to push a message about Canada's role in the world and trying to shift the focus to the reconstruction efforts of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and that message may be getting through to Canadians, at least to a particular group of them. "The other good thing about this for the government is that these people are more likely to vote," Bricker said. But still, the Ipsos Reid poll, conducted between July 10 and July 12, is one of several in recent weeks that have shown dwindling support for the mission. In Quebec, where the Conservatives are eager to gain ground, support for the mission remains low. The poll found that just three in 10 residents there support the mission while 65 per cent either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose the combat operations. Support for the mission, or lack of it, could change in the coming months in Quebec now that a large contingent of troops from that province is set to deploy to Afghanistan. About 200 members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos, from CFB Valcartier left Sunday for Afghanistan and hundreds more will deploy over the coming weeks until they make up more than 2,000 of Canada's 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. At the same time as a growing number of Canadians withdraw their support for the mission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed his tone about how long it will last. Earlier Harper had said his government would seek a degree of parliamentary consensus before considering any extension of the mission beyond the February 2009 commitment. But last week in Calgary the Prime minister was clearer and said his government has no desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan. Bricker said time would tell how that news plays out. About 1,000 adult Canadians were interviewed for the poll and the results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

I would agree with these statistics and the reasons behind them.....

I guess I fall under the category of someone with post secondary education, I considder myself to be somewhat worldly compared to where my coutnry stands, and for the most part, I support what the troops are doing over there......

However, my devotion to this war has also been dropping. Not because I no longer believe in what my troops believe in, not that I feel my leaders are misleading me..... but the fact that due to the total amount of NATO troops there in Afghanistan, and compared to the amount of troops we have in there..... we have lost a much greater % of our troops compared to any other country there..... and we're not getting one iota of additional support from other countries in NATO, besides perhaps the UK, Dutch and the US..... all other NATO countries have been too dam pansy ass to help out where the tought battles are.... which is where we are.

The only reason why my support may be dropping a bit, is because it seems like there are very few other countries who see things as we do, that we are there to at least help the people now and rebuild their country, as well as pushing the Taliban out....

Yes the War in Afghanistan began for one paticular reason, but it has changed to other reasons now..... and I feel the other countries who won't step up in NATO and add more troops better check themselves or they'll be there alone.

Harper mentioned that there are no futher plans to extend out mission past 2009..... so if they want us to help make a difference, NATO better step up and soon.

[Maybe-not]

Good. The sooner the occupation ends, the better.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax We're not getting one iota of additional support from other countries in NATO, besides perhaps the UK, Dutch and the US..... all other NATO countries have been too dam pansy ass to help out where the tought battles are.... which is where we are.

Your eternal refrain, Prax. But if all NATO members were elbowing each other out of the way to kick ass in Afghanistan, would things be much different?

The West missed a huge opportunity there (as I've said in many previous posts) and it had nothing to do with military power. Now it's way too late.

[Praxius]

It's not about who wants to get at them first or to kick ass.... it's about relief and replacement..... our troops have been fighting very often, many have been there for more then their usual time, but they stay and come back, because they know nobody else is going to come back and help the rest of ther troops..... because the Germans, Italians, and the French don't want their troops in firefights because the support for the Afghan war is already low and their excuse is if they loose a few soldiers they'll be told by their people to pull out........

Well guess WTF is happening to our troops? yeah..... we don't have as many troops there as the US..... and I'm not asking for the US, you guys give us air strikes and other support in the region.... so too do the Dutch an the UK, who are all doing a great job (Minus my dislikes of the FF and civilian casualties)

Here we all are fighting in the front lines, Canada in paticular in the Southern Provinces, and while these other countries sit behind the lines in the stable provinces, they think we'll get the job done alone, or they're scared shitless to step up..... if you join into a war, you should expect to get a little bloody.... I'm just sick of these countries not getting their troops to move in and assist... this would be done a lot faster..... and if we could also reduce the civilian casualties and police/military friendly fires, then we'd have this war in the bag..... hell.... we could get out of their a lot faster and finally claim that someone won something.

[Praxius]

As people continually say, that they don't fight the same way we do..... so why should we still stick to the same mentality as fighting on a battlefield.... this is pretty much urban combat with civilians in the middle of it.... the battlefields are the mountians.... and we can all take out our agression with all the air strikes, machine guns, snipers, whatever you want there..... that's where they're mostly based (Afghan/Pakistan Border Mountians) ~ so if we want to do any Shooting first and asking quations later, then that's the spot to do it.

These Taliban who hide in the villages, are small groups.... just to go harass the locals and threaten them to give or do what they want.... The civilians get a little pissy when they can keep coming into their villages and there's no security.

And they get really Po'd when NATO comes running in when they are told they are there, and they shoot everyone up..... They called and contacted NATO to get them out and protect them, not to shoot up families they hide behind.

I hope you understand that at least, because they're not all evil and trying to screw over your country.... the Taliban are.... if all the countries in NATO believed this, then we'd avoid more of these incidences, we'd have more support for the people and actually thinking we're there to protect them and give them a chance, not like what the Soviets treated them like... and we'd get more information provided to us by the people on the whereabouts of the taliban and we'd get them taking out much quicker, and we'd appear globally that we were actually making a difference for once.

Please observe this:


As you can see, France is hiding right behind all the US forces who are fighting in the front lines. You got the UK and the Netherlands covering Canada and the surrounding area as we spearhead into the stronpoints.......

Oh!..... and there's Italy and Germany, basking in the sun in the already controlled areas, which not only have seen very little action regarding anything, but the Afghan Army and police forces I am pretty sure have that place on a good watch. And since the Afghan Army and Police were being trained by us in NATO (we even got a few RCMP top cops over there training.) They've got devotion to their country it would seem, and the government has been negotiating higher pays..... so what the hell is the need for France, Italy and Germany to stay way back there? for show?

[Nono]

Tell me something, Prax. I was reading a piece in Maclean's last year about the latest Canadian kid to die in Afghanistan, and the guy in question was from Thunder Bay, Ontario, a member of this-or-that reserve unit.

Now I can understand why the US sends reservists -- it's a way of keeping regular forces down to levels where you can pretend you aren't as bogged down in foreign adventures as you really are.

By why are Canadian troops in Afghanistan not all regs?

[Praxius]

We use our military a bit differently then most.

This might help:

The primary reserve comprises citizen soldiers, sailors, and aircrew who train and are posted to CF operations or duties on a casual or on-going basis. Each reserve force is operationally and administratively responsible to its corresponding environmental command. Reservists number approximately 23,000 (all ranks, all services). The CF maintains a "total force" policy as outlined in the 1994 Defence White Paper, where reservists are (in theory) trained to the level of and interchangeable with their regular force counterparts. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the reserves to sustaining CF operations, particularly following the defence budget cuts and increased operational tempo of the 1990s.

And in relation to your question:

Army Reserve The reserve element of Land Force Command is known as the Army Reserve, and is often referred to by its constitutionally established name, the Militia. It is organized into under-strength brigades (for purposes of administration) along geographic lines. The Army Reserve is very active and has participated heavily in all Canadian army deployments in the last decade, in some cases contributing as much as 40 per cent of each deployment in either individual augmentation, as well as occasional formed sub-units (companies). Reserve regiments have the theoretical administrative capacity to support an entire battalion, but typically only having the deployable manpower of one or two platoons. They are perpetuated as such for the timely absorption of recruits during times of war. Current strength is approximately 15,000, and DND committed to an increase to 18,500 in 2000.

The numbers are outdated, but the method is the same. My father, my brother and myself were in the Militia, therefore we recieved the exact same training that our Canadian Forces do. This has always been the way here in Canada.... even in WWI and II....

If your full time soldiers are wearing out, getting stretched thin, and need replacements, it makes no sense to replace them with people who don't have the same level of training or understanding of the roles being given to them.

In a sense, the Militia here in Canada could be equated to something like a bunch of US civilians who have the right to bear arms, who would gather together to fight for your country..... only in Canada, you as a citizen and civilian will get training and supply of equipment from the Government of Canada, and will make sure you know what your role will be, in case of an emergancy..... you are trained how to be a soldier, how to use your weapon, how to communicate.... basically everything you would do as a full time soldeir in the Army.... but you only work about one day a week, and one weekend a month, unless there is a war, such as this.... then you can be called and shipped off to go fight across the pond.

Now the reason why we have Militia there as well as Regulars, is because of what I was trying to explain, that we don't have enough men to reinforce us where we are.... as we are fighting in the most volitile region right now, and those other countries won't step up.... so our soldiers don't want to retreat or fallback, but they can't continue to stay on the front lines for long periods of time.... that does things to the mind.

So we stepped up our recruitment in the Reserves and in the Regular army, but they both get equal roles in Canada.....

Basically the only difference is the Regulars live and work in the military, while the Militia/Reserves work in our cities, our towns and like volunteer firemen, when they are needed, they go.

[Praxius]

Primary Reserve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here' the quick link I used

Overseas deployment is voluntary. Members of the Primary Reserve have to be selected after volunteering and undergo workup training before being deployed overseas. However in the case of a national emergency (such as the World War's) parliment may call the Primary Reserve force for deployment.

[Nono]

Thanks Prax. Both my brother and my sister used to be in the naval reserve (and so spent a little time down your way). I'm sure it never occurred to them that things might get serious....

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Praxius The only reason why my support may be dropping a bit, is because it seems like there are very few other countries who see things as we do, that we are there to at least help the people now and rebuild their country, as well as pushing the Taliban out....

This, IMHO, is the source of your disenchantment with the direction of the Canadian military operation in Afghanistan. Your troops AREN'T there to help the people and push the taliban out any more than the U.S. is in Iraq to "bring democracy" to that country. If "the people" truly wanted the taliban out, they would do the job themselves, they don't need some seemingly benevolent super power to do the job for them. East Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Romania to name a few all deposed oppressive regimes on their own, without U.S. or Canadian intervention. The Shah was deposed in Iran without air strikes or Delta Force clandestine attacks.
I freely admit that I don't know the real reasons for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, or the significant participation of Canada in Afghanistan, but I sure don't buy the "official" reasons for the current strife in either country. It's pretty much evident that bush doesn't give a shit for the welfare of the average U.S. citizen, why are we supposed to believe that he cares any more for the average Iraqi??

[Praxius]

Well if you admit you don't know, that's cool.... at least you admit it.

I'll admit, I opposed our joining NATO in Afghanistan from the start. But as the battles ensued, these same media personel who have been "responsible for the failures in Vietnam" are showing what the soldiers think themselves, they are showing the positives as well as the negatives. Our troops tend to have more freedom on their opinions then US soldiers, and they get to express their views on why they are there, and what they seen.

I believe my troops over my generals.... and although the original principle excuses to invade I felt were wrong, and I opposed them, we're there now, but a new development has occured..... which is the people of Afghanistan are not treating us all like the people of Iraq..... and I think we should take advantage of this before they decide to think like Iraqis.

All I'm saying is that we're at a critical point in Afghanistan, not just by their support but by our country's support as well..... and if we blow it now with the reckless disregard mentioned above, then it will turn just like Iraq, and we'll all be screwed..... and if it goes like Iraq..... it'd all be for nothing.

Our troops and other NATO troops do see exactly what's going on in Iraq, and none of them want that where they are now.... it's at a borderline controllable state right now.... but all that is needed to unbalance it, is for the Afghan people to turn their opinions of us to something more worse.....

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax We're at a critical point in Afghanistan, not just by their support but by our country's support as well..... and if we blow it now with the reckless disregard mentioned above, then it will turn just like Iraq, and we'll all be screwed..... and if it goes like Iraq..... it'd all be for nothing. Our troops and other NATO troops do see exactly what's going on in Iraq, and none of them want that where they are now.... it's at a borderline controllable state right now.... but all that is needed to unbalance it, is for the Afghan people to turn their opinions of us to something more worse....

I've said it before: The critical point is long past. The West had its chance in Afghanistan (5 years ago) and blew it. Now there's mutual disenchantment. So, time to leave.

That's if you look at things purely in terms of "nation-building". But of course there's also oil...