59% polled say Afghan mission lost cause

catman

Electoral Member
Sep 3, 2006
182
4
18
OTTAWA — A clear majority of Canadians consider the mission in Afghanistan a lost cause, according to an extensive survey that hints at deep public skepticism about the war on terror.

Decima Research polled more than 2,000 Canadians last month just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up his efforts to promote the mission.


Fifty-nine per cent of respondents agreed Canadian soldiers "are dying for a cause we cannot win," while just 34 per cent disagreed with that statement.

An even larger majority said they would never fight in Afghanistan themselves under any circumstances — not even if they were forced to in some military draft.


The online survey of 2,038 people was conducted Sept. 8-18 and is considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The doubts of respondents about Canada's chances in Afghanistan paled in comparison to their downright dismissal of the overall U.S.-led war on terror.


Almost three-quarters said the Bush administration had made the world more dangerous, 76 per cent said American policy had contributed to a rise in terrorism, and 68 per cent predicted the U.S. will eventually abandon Iraq without success.


"I think the reason the Afghan mission is coming under such scrutiny has less to do with Canada's position," said Decima pollster Bruce Anderson.

"It has more to do with doubts about the leadership of the Bush administration in the war on terror than (with) decisions made by the Liberals or the Conservatives to participate in Afghanistan."


This public skepticism could have deep implications for Canada, both politically and militarily.

Kandahar now threatens to become the centre of Canada's political universe, just nine months after a federal election that saw almost no discussion of international issues.


In the last month alone, the NDP called for a quick pullout, while the prime minister launched a media blitz to promote the mission and suggested troops could even remain beyond the currently scheduled end to the deployment in 2009.

Harper has been ubiquitous in his defence of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan over the last few weeks. It was at the heart of his address to Canadians on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.


The prime minister admitted, in recent television interviews, that the fighting has been more difficult than he anticipated. But he exorted other leaders — and Canadians watching at home — to stay the course in Afghanistan during an address at the United Nations. The same message was driven home by Afghan President Hamid Karzai during his visit to Canada just over a week ago.


Twenty-eight per cent of respondents in the Decima poll said they would fight in Afghanistan if they were of fighting age and were called upon in a military draft.


No politician of any stripe has proposed conscription. But Anderson said the military could take a glass-half-full approach in interpreting the numbers.

He pointed out, for example, that the Canadian Forces could fill their ranks several times over if 28 per cent of adult Canadians agreed to take up arms. Among those aged 18-34, 20 per cent indicated that they would be willing to fight.


The military has in fact been surpassing its recent recruitment targets, despite the fact that 37 soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002.

Anderson urged caution in trying to read too much into the number of respondents who said they would refuse to serve in Afghanistan if drafted.

"We should assume that some people don't know what a draft is, whether or not there is one currently, and the implications of refusing a draft. In large measure they're reacting on the basis of `I don't want to go and put my life at risk.' "


However, it's also true that people are considerably more likely to say they would fight in Afghanistan if they believe the cause will be successful, and half as likely if they doubt it.


The results were generally similar across the country, although there were some differences. At one end of the spectrum, 14 per cent of Quebecers said they would fight while, at the other end, 38 per cent of Albertans said the same.


Anderson said Canadians may start demanding a middle alternative — something that keeps our soldiers in Afghanistan, but with some changes to the current mission.

"If people come increasingly to the view that this is not going to succeed, and that these lives will be lost in vain, they're going to want another solution," he said.


"They might not be able to articulate what it is, or how it should come about, but they are going to be asking their political leadership for an alternative to lives being lost in vain."

Decima's survey also found that:

— 74 per cent of respondents said Bush has made the world a more dangerous place, while just 15 per cent said he has made it safer.

— 67 per cent said they couldn't trust Bush's warnings about North Korea because he was '``wrong about Iraq."

— 65 per cent called the terrorist prisons at Guantanamo Bay an ``embarrassment."
 

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
We would have to be careful with this. Pulling out the troops in a "war" never was to help the Afghani people rebuild, but to take out or allies enemies, if Canada pulls out and then lets say NATO looses in Afghanistan which is a real possibility because the Taliban could wait ten, fifteen years and if European countries had the same amount of coffins as Canada has returning, at least 10+ a month for each NATO country, the Taliban would be able to outlast them.

And this would first put us in a boat with America as hostile to about 2/3 of the world, second, it would alienate us from the U.S and NATO, and thirdly be the first loss of a war in Canadian history, if we pull out, that is what would occur, basically everyone not liking us and the number of Canadians dying in vain.
 

catman

Electoral Member
Sep 3, 2006
182
4
18
As far as Canada is concerned we have a commitment to stay in Afghanistan until 2009. The question is will we be staying longer? This question will be up for parliamentary debate since I have no doubt that the situation will not have substantially improved any by then.

So is bringing Canadian troops home by the end of our mission the same as "cutting and running"? I don't think it is but I'm sure others will disagree.

And yes, I am part of the 59%.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Researcher- not jumping down yer throat here but one of your 3 points kinda made me wonder, and it is valid to this discussion so if I may, I will elaborate a bit on it.

The suggestion that IF we were to pull out without achieving the ill-defined victory we seek would be the "first war Canada ever lost"

I have a few issues with this one- first, although the language pertaining to the "mission" is rather war-like, we are techincally not at war in the definitive sense of the word- this "war" as it is being carried out now is much more like the US inspired "war on drugs", in that there is no actual sovereign nation as the opponent, which in turn likens it much more to the ill-fated "police action" in Vietnam. Calling it a war of any sort is part of the reason that the victory conditions are so fluid and ill-defined. A real war would end with articles of surrender, which at this point do not appear on the horizon, thus, just like in Vietnam, we will be free to decide whether we have won or lost...

I think this is the thing sticking in the craw of a lot of folks- since there is no properly defined enemy, there can never be a properly defined "victory".

And as to the matter of "losing our first war", well, it has to happen sometime if we jump into burning piles of crap, eh?? I would rather have a full and transparent breakdfown of exactly what we are trying to do and how we are going about it, and honestly, if we've bitten off more than we can chew, the LAST thing I want to hear is that we're gonna keep throwing stuff at the problem until we can at least believe in the notion that we have somehow achieved some kind of victory. Whether it's our first "war" lost or our 12th doesn't change the fact that the way we are going at it, "Victory" in the sense that the word was meant to suggest is unlikely in this one- and I am only judging on the confusing, patriotic mumblings from our top folks.

I guess it could be summed up as (please permit this ludicrous analogy) we are a hockey team, and our coach is always telling us to WIN... and somehow the coach loses his way, and now he is telling us that we will win at a practice- the first thought that crosses my mind when I hear this concept is that "practice- you can't 'win' at a practice... maybe do your best and all that, but the word 'practice' isn't in reference to a conflict, and I don't even understand how you could 'win' in such a situation"

And if you ask the coach how you're going to go about it and he can't rightly explain, who's at fault?? Is it the players, for not understanding something that makes no sense?? Or is it the coach's fault for using the wrong approach?? And is it wrong to ask further questions?? AND if the team goes out and tries their best to "win", only to be informed that they "lost" at the practice, who's fault is it then??

Sorry for being so ambiguous, but the whole mess IS really nebulous in real life and taking it by the hors is realy difficult with all the odd rhetoric swirling around it..

I guess my main problem is in calling what is happening over there a "war", since we already have other more accurate terms for the "mission" and I do believe that even suggesting it is a "war" is ridiculous and is one of the biggest "divisive points" in any discussion about the whole mess
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
I think the fact that we realise there is no clearly defined enemy is a sign of the human race growing up a bit. In any war the enemy is not clearly defined. In WW2, the germans were not the enemy but we bombed the **** out of them anyway. Everyone lost that war, including the winners.

the next step is to realise that sinc ethere is no clearly defined enemy there is no sense in the war. Unfortunately the next step is for the buggers that caused the trouble to realise how irresponsible it is and control themselves. Which seem pretty unlikely at this stage so we'll bounce around among the lower stages, perhaps for centuries, pehaps for ever.

Thus goes the story of human senselessness
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
First let me say I have always supported the rebuilding efforts of Canadians in this troubled country. I have less feeling of support now however since we are taking over the conflict portion that the Americans started and left unfinished to go in search of Iraqi oil. Everyone says we are committed until 2009, well maybe so but we can leave whenever we please.
How the hell did this become a NATO problem? Afghanistan is not a NATO partner, nor are they an NATO enemy?
We are no longer striking a blow for democracy, we are propping up a shady government. and backing an ally that has been less than honest with the entire world as it turns out.
I am beginning to wonder if we should just leave.
The west should mind its own business and let these people fight their own battles, we should contain the regions and let them fight. When they are tired of killing each other we can deal with the aftermath.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
This became a NATO problem when Afghanistan sheltered the people responsible for an attack on a NATO member country. NATO responded as they should have.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
NATO is nothing more than a group of hired guns required to do Americas bidding.
It can go and attack anyone anywhere like it stuck its nose into Serbia and Bosnia, and now Afghanistan.
I still say let the guys in the third world kill each other until they are tired of fighting. Patrol the borders of such regions, yes, go in and separate the conflicting sides, no.
I agreed in the beginning with a role for Canada, but the conditions have changed and that was not the role we were sold. Canadians should have a say directly in whether we want to participate. If Harper put that to a vote he would lose.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
NATO is nothing more than a group of hired guns required to do Americas bidding.
It can go and attack anyone anywhere like it stuck its nose into Serbia and Bosnia, and now Afghanistan.
I still say let the guys in the third world kill each other until they are tired of fighting. Patrol the borders of such regions, yes, go in and separate the conflicting sides, no.
I agreed in the beginning with a role for Canada, but the conditions have changed and that was not the role we were sold. Canadians should have a say directly in whether we want to participate. If Harper put that to a vote he would lose.

Like it or not, we're in NATO. I find it strange you'd be upset they stuck their nose into Bosnia. Maybe you're right and we should have just let them keep killing eachother, but I don't think so. I can't separate myself from my fellow human beings' suffering as easily.

I've heard so many Canadians say this was a bait and switch. That we're just supposed to be peacekeepers. Well, that's bull. We haven't been peacekeepers much for years and this was sold as a war. Now when we start to lose some soldiers and spend some money we want to back out? It's embarassing. If that's all it takes to destroy our resolve we might as well just call up OBL and capitulate today. This is one of the few areas I agree with the conservatives.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
I've heard so many Canadians say this was a bait and switch. That we're just supposed to be peacekeepers. Well, that's bull. We haven't been peacekeepers much for years and this was sold as a war. Now when we start to lose some soldiers and spend some money we want to back out? It's embarassing. If that's all it takes to destroy our resolve we might as well just call up OBL and capitulate today. This is one of the few areas I agree with the conservatives.


No it wasn't sold as war (relative to ally responsibilities). The USA encouraged international assistance on the premise major combat was over and that the responsibilities of it's allies would primarily be that of rebuilding.

Also at the compound, Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, told reporters he hopes the declaration that major combat is over will encourage more international assistance with rebuilding Afghanistan. The international community needs to step up and help rebuild the country, which has been devastated by decades of war, he said.

Here is the article dated Thursday, May 01, 2003:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85688,00.html

Rumsfeld Declares Major Combat Over in Afghanistan

Thursday, May 01, 2003

KABUL, Afghanistan — In an announcement marking a major victory in America's ongoing war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared Thursday that "major combat activity" has ended in Afghanistan. Later in the day, from aboard an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, President Bush planned to announce that military combat is over in Iraq.

A Bush administration source told Fox News that Bush's "compact" address to the nation from aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (search) will be "not too far short of a victory statement."

Rumsfeld, seeking to reassure allies jittery about reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, made his announcement in a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai (search) in Kabul.

He opened the news conference with the good news: "We're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities."


This is the context that we felt to be a part of this operation. As the US administration put it, “stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities” under the context that, “major combat activity has ended in Afghanistan."
 
Last edited:

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan in October 2001, about a week after Britain and the US first started fighting. That's long before major combat operations were declared over.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/10/17/hfx_sendoff011017


Yes Tracy. We did join with the USA on “the initial war on terrorism”. Just at the article states. But as far as I know unless someone can correct me on this, that was what it was suppose to be about. And we offered that support.

Please find a source where it states our government declared a position that it was at war with the country, Afghanistan or any country for that matter.

Terrorism itself isn’t a nation.

When we sent troops to Bosnia, we weren’t sold on the idea that we were at war with Bosnia. In the same sense, the mission there wasn’t a war against the country itself.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Maybe we are getting into schematics. I guess one can try to argue that what we have in Afghanistan is still a war against the terrorists, but really it isn’t. Taliban is a political group in a sense. The people we are fighting are primarily the Pushtuns. Whether they are the Taliban or just different Pushtun tribal fractions is really not clear. We refer to anyone we end up fighting as Taliban for the convenience of public perception.

And this blur in an enemy is also a blur in this translation on what we were sold as to our general mission in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Yes Tracy. We did join with the USA on “the initial war on terrorism”. Just at the article states. But as far as I know unless someone can correct me on this, that was what it was suppose to be about. And we offered that support.

Oh I see, we were just supposed to help them destroy things and kill people and then leave... That's a country I'd be proud to call my own:rolleyes:
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
I would like to know who payed for this poll, who they polled in Canada? Was it just Quebec and Ontario as per the norm. Second the questions they asked were loaded so the results would lean towards withdrawl of our Troops, to me this is nothing more than the media designing a Poll, and printing the results as if it were an independant poll. I'm tired of the MSM creating the news instead of reporting it.

Canada is a member of Nato, and when one of our Allies ask for help- we help if we can. Removing our troops isn't going to happen in the near future and I wish the media would find legitimate news stories to report than creating news. I'm sick of being a puppet to MSM, they are crossing the line of proper conduct regarding Afghanistan.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Oh I see, we were just supposed to help them destroy things and kill people and then leave... That's a country I'd be proud to call my own:rolleyes:




Hey, I’ll make this same sarcastic statement right back at ya. It’s a statement I can say to you just as pointedly and fault you for allowing an even greater loss.

We aren’t different in how much we care about lives, both Afghan and Canadian. We aren’t different in how we care about our country’s reputation.

However, as in Vietnam, people like yourself could throw the same claims and guess what, more lives, more money spent would have only been just that. A result of more needless death and destruction.

And so the statement goes right back at you Tracy. If indeed that Afghans never let us accomplish change for them, how many more lives and resources do people like yourself end up costing both sides because you looked past the reality of the situation in favour of your righteous belief in what that reality should be? That the politicians were able to go forward longer in the wasting of lives because of the support from people such as yourself?

And if it is a waste, I just don’t want us to kill more. It’s as simply as that, and it may hold the hallmark of a guilt I don’t want this country to bear.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
In Vietman, the USA argued that the people wanted democracy. What were they going to do? Help them destroy things and kill people and then leave?

Well that is what it amounted to. But you know, they could have at least stopped a little earlier.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. There are obviously parallels that can be drawn, but it isn't the same. It isn't even close to the same. Other countries have turned out to be improved by international involvement, even armed involvement. Why is that impossible in Afghanistan in particular?