Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
raymao said:
That poll is poorly worded. Maybe people don't want us leading it, for whatever misinformed reason, but still want us there. It should be straight forward: Do you want the Canadian Forces to help the people of A'stan?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
It would appear that the public opinion tide regarding our deployment in Afghanistan may be turning. This article is from Tuesday's Globe and Mail:
Canadians get behind Afghan deployment
MICHAEL DEN TANDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.
A modest but clear majority -- 55 per cent of respondents to a nationwide poll taken for The Globe and Mail and CTV over the past four days -- now broadly support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.
In late February, more than 60 per cent said that given a vote in Parliament, they would opt against sending troops to the war-torn country. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour.
That was before Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser assumed command of a multinational brigade in southern Afghanistan on Feb. 28.
It was also before two soldiers were killed by an armoured vehicle rollover, another nearly lost his arm in a suicide bombing, and yet another was badly hurt when he was attacked with an axe at a meeting with village elders.
But the latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests that intense print and broadcast media coverage of the recent casualties, as well as the handoff of control to Canadians, has had the effect of solidifying public support rather than eroding it.
"It looks like there is a modest level of support," said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of the Strategic Counsel.
"Four weeks ago, people would have voted against it if they were an MP. Today, they're conceptually, broadly, supporting the mission."
Of 1,000 Canadians surveyed, nearly 90 per cent said they are aware of the mission, and 63 per cent said they are "very/somewhat" knowledgeable about it. Only 37 per cent said they are not knowledgeable. A strong majority, 78 per cent, think Canadian troops will have a "positive impact" on the lives of Afghans. Only 14 per cent believe the deployment will make matters worse for local people.
Perhaps most surprisingly, a clear majority -- 59 per cent -- said they are willing to tolerate Canadian casualties to "help achieve security and stability in the region." At the same time, 73 per cent of respondents said they have a "strong emotional connection" with the 2,200 troops based in Kandahar.
Nearly 50 per cent said they are "very proud" of the soldiers and their work, while another 36 per cent said they are "somewhat proud."
The poll results suggest that a concerted public campaign in defence of the mission by senior military officers, as well as political figures from both the Conservative government and Liberal Opposition, has had an impact.
At the same time, there are warning signs for the government.
For one thing, most Canadians still appear to be confused about the nature of the deployment. About 70 per cent of respondents said they think the troops' main role is peacekeeping, whereas only 26 per cent said they think their primary function is combat.
In fact, neither view is right. The mission combines humanitarian work with combat in a way that, for the Canadian military, was unprecedented until six months ago. Though supporting Afghan institutions is the primary objective, in practice that requires battling a determined insurgency that, of late, has turned to Iraqi-style tactics, including frequent roadside bombs and suicide attacks.
Canadians remain sharply divided on the strong combat element of the new deployment. A bare majority -- 51 per cent -- think the military should be prepared to see more active combat. Another 47 per cent oppose Canadian soldiers having this role.
In contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has dismissed calls for a parliamentary debate on the mission as corrosive to troop morale, Canadians overwhelmingly like the idea of a debate. Sixty-nine per cent said parliamentary debate will not hurt troop morale.
Likewise, opinion is decidedly mixed on the desirable duration of the mission. General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, has spoken of a 10-year commitment while being careful to say that the nature and degree of that commitment are for politicians to decide.
Most Afghan experts say an international military deployment will be required for many years -- at least 10, possibly more -- for civil society to take root in Afghanistan.
But 52 per cent of Canadians say they are against a 10-year mission, while only 44 per cent are in favour.
On every question in the survey, support for the mission appeared softest in Quebec. In that province, which is key to Conservative hopes of winning a majority mandate in a future election, only 43 per cent support sending the troops to Afghanistan, whereas 53 per cent are opposed.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan
A small majority of Canadians say they support the military mission in Afghanistan, despite mounting troop casualties.
Do you support or oppose sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan?
CANADA OVERALL
Yes 55%
No 41%
Don't know 4%
LIBERAL VOTERS
Yes 56%
No 39%
Don't know 5%
CONSERVATIVE VOTERS
Yes 72%
No 25%
Don't know 3%
NDP VOTERS
Yes 47%
No 51%
Don't know 2%
BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS VOTERS
Yes 39%
No 58%
Don't know 3%
Should there be a debate to decide if our troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond next year?
Yes 69%
No 27%
Don't know 4%
What should Canada's role be in international conflicts?
QUEBEC
Prepared for active armed combat duty 65%
Not actively involved in combat 33%
Don't know 2%
REST OF CANADA
Prepared for active armed combat duty 41%
Not actively involved in combat 57%
Don't know 2%
Do you support or oppose having troops in Afghanistan for the next ten years?
QUEBEC
Support 38%
Oppose 58%
Don't know 4%
REST OF CANADA
Support 45%
Oppose 50%
Don't know 5%
Canadian casualties: Is it the price we have to pay, or is the price too high?
QUEBEC
This is the price we have to pay 47%
Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 51%
Don't know 2%
REST OF CANADA
This is the price we have to pay 63%
Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 35%
Don't know 2%
What do you perceive to be the purpose of our troops in Afghanistan?
More peacekeeping than combat 70%
More combat than peacekeeping 26%
Don't know 4%
How will the Canadian troops in Afghanistan impact the everyday lives of the Afghan people?
Improve 78%
Worsen 14%
Don't know 8%
Do you have any emotional feelings about Canadian troops being in Afghanistan?
Yes 73%
No, 26%
Don't know 1%
Canadians get behind Afghan deployment
MICHAEL DEN TANDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.
A modest but clear majority -- 55 per cent of respondents to a nationwide poll taken for The Globe and Mail and CTV over the past four days -- now broadly support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.
In late February, more than 60 per cent said that given a vote in Parliament, they would opt against sending troops to the war-torn country. Only 27 per cent said they would vote in favour.
That was before Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser assumed command of a multinational brigade in southern Afghanistan on Feb. 28.
It was also before two soldiers were killed by an armoured vehicle rollover, another nearly lost his arm in a suicide bombing, and yet another was badly hurt when he was attacked with an axe at a meeting with village elders.
But the latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests that intense print and broadcast media coverage of the recent casualties, as well as the handoff of control to Canadians, has had the effect of solidifying public support rather than eroding it.
"It looks like there is a modest level of support," said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of the Strategic Counsel.
"Four weeks ago, people would have voted against it if they were an MP. Today, they're conceptually, broadly, supporting the mission."
Of 1,000 Canadians surveyed, nearly 90 per cent said they are aware of the mission, and 63 per cent said they are "very/somewhat" knowledgeable about it. Only 37 per cent said they are not knowledgeable. A strong majority, 78 per cent, think Canadian troops will have a "positive impact" on the lives of Afghans. Only 14 per cent believe the deployment will make matters worse for local people.
Perhaps most surprisingly, a clear majority -- 59 per cent -- said they are willing to tolerate Canadian casualties to "help achieve security and stability in the region." At the same time, 73 per cent of respondents said they have a "strong emotional connection" with the 2,200 troops based in Kandahar.
Nearly 50 per cent said they are "very proud" of the soldiers and their work, while another 36 per cent said they are "somewhat proud."
The poll results suggest that a concerted public campaign in defence of the mission by senior military officers, as well as political figures from both the Conservative government and Liberal Opposition, has had an impact.
At the same time, there are warning signs for the government.
For one thing, most Canadians still appear to be confused about the nature of the deployment. About 70 per cent of respondents said they think the troops' main role is peacekeeping, whereas only 26 per cent said they think their primary function is combat.
In fact, neither view is right. The mission combines humanitarian work with combat in a way that, for the Canadian military, was unprecedented until six months ago. Though supporting Afghan institutions is the primary objective, in practice that requires battling a determined insurgency that, of late, has turned to Iraqi-style tactics, including frequent roadside bombs and suicide attacks.
Canadians remain sharply divided on the strong combat element of the new deployment. A bare majority -- 51 per cent -- think the military should be prepared to see more active combat. Another 47 per cent oppose Canadian soldiers having this role.
In contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has dismissed calls for a parliamentary debate on the mission as corrosive to troop morale, Canadians overwhelmingly like the idea of a debate. Sixty-nine per cent said parliamentary debate will not hurt troop morale.
Likewise, opinion is decidedly mixed on the desirable duration of the mission. General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, has spoken of a 10-year commitment while being careful to say that the nature and degree of that commitment are for politicians to decide.
Most Afghan experts say an international military deployment will be required for many years -- at least 10, possibly more -- for civil society to take root in Afghanistan.
But 52 per cent of Canadians say they are against a 10-year mission, while only 44 per cent are in favour.
On every question in the survey, support for the mission appeared softest in Quebec. In that province, which is key to Conservative hopes of winning a majority mandate in a future election, only 43 per cent support sending the troops to Afghanistan, whereas 53 per cent are opposed.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan
A small majority of Canadians say they support the military mission in Afghanistan, despite mounting troop casualties.
Do you support or oppose sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan?
CANADA OVERALL
Yes 55%
No 41%
Don't know 4%
LIBERAL VOTERS
Yes 56%
No 39%
Don't know 5%
CONSERVATIVE VOTERS
Yes 72%
No 25%
Don't know 3%
NDP VOTERS
Yes 47%
No 51%
Don't know 2%
BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS VOTERS
Yes 39%
No 58%
Don't know 3%
Should there be a debate to decide if our troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond next year?
Yes 69%
No 27%
Don't know 4%
What should Canada's role be in international conflicts?
QUEBEC
Prepared for active armed combat duty 65%
Not actively involved in combat 33%
Don't know 2%
REST OF CANADA
Prepared for active armed combat duty 41%
Not actively involved in combat 57%
Don't know 2%
Do you support or oppose having troops in Afghanistan for the next ten years?
QUEBEC
Support 38%
Oppose 58%
Don't know 4%
REST OF CANADA
Support 45%
Oppose 50%
Don't know 5%
Canadian casualties: Is it the price we have to pay, or is the price too high?
QUEBEC
This is the price we have to pay 47%
Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 51%
Don't know 2%
REST OF CANADA
This is the price we have to pay 63%
Price is too high; we shouldn't be there 35%
Don't know 2%
What do you perceive to be the purpose of our troops in Afghanistan?
More peacekeeping than combat 70%
More combat than peacekeeping 26%
Don't know 4%
How will the Canadian troops in Afghanistan impact the everyday lives of the Afghan people?
Improve 78%
Worsen 14%
Don't know 8%
Do you have any emotional feelings about Canadian troops being in Afghanistan?
Yes 73%
No, 26%
Don't know 1%
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Well I'm going to risk myself here. Since the days of the Rt Hon Lester B Pearson Canada has been a Peacekeeping country and I will not doubt that. However even as a peacekeep we sometimes have to be the Peacemaker. It sounds brute and hororable to the weak kneed people in this country I know but let us remember this. Canada was not a Peacekeeper from Day one. We were a tool of the British Empire yes that I do know, however the point still stands. We were not always a peacekeeper nation. Canada's roots (Like many nations if not all of them) has it's roots steming from war. I agree with most people on this thread and as far as our country goes on not supporting the war....Well I'm sorry we are already there and as Soldiers we must carry on and do the job that is tasked in front of us with the best tools we have at our disposal. As a country we must carry on and support our troops/Airmen/Sailors as members of a Military force that is trained to defend a nation first and peacekeeper seconed. God it sickens me to think that there are people out there in Canada to this very moment who beleave that our Military is only a peacekeeping force. For the love of God man....If that's the case then I will have to ask this question one more time....WHY DO WE HAVE A MILITARY IN THE FIRST PLACE? If we Canadians don't want to send them to war.scm77 said:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
This crap over Canadians not supporting us is crap,the Canadian people have alway's supported us on all our deployments,it's the present Government and press saying this. 
What the people are against is deploying with out debate.
We are the only country in the world where the P.M. can just send off troop's with out debate our consensus of the House.Our PM is the envy of World Leader's due to the power he hold's which no other National Leader has.
What the people are against is deploying with out debate.
We are the only country in the world where the P.M. can just send off troop's with out debate our consensus of the House.Our PM is the envy of World Leader's due to the power he hold's which no other National Leader has.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
chris_502 said:
Sorry mate but "peacekeeping nation since Lester B.." is hooey.
Gulf War 91.....War
Bosnia late nineties .....under NATO was not peacekeeping
Somalia....not peacekeeping
Kosovo 2000...War...Canadian planes dropped bombs and killed people.
Kandahar 2001 and Ships blockading at sea....not peacekeeping.
It's all media and liberal propaganda.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
IN HOC SIGNO said:
Gulf War 91....we did not attend the war sorry
Bosnia late nineties ....under NATO was not peacekeeping....the war ended in 95 sorry again
Somalia...OK I give ya that one
Kosovo 2000 ....we did not attend this one either
Kandahar 2001 jurys still out on that one I have crdable sorce for Cdns in action thier in 01
I agree with the propaganda comment though
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Gulf War one: Deployed a Canadian Field Hospital, Charles Company of RCR(?) as security and several ships patrolling the Gulf. CF 18s participated in CAPs over the gulf and eventually joined the "Desert Storm" air campaign. If you mean no CF ground units participated in "Desert Sabre", then you are correct.
Former Yugoslavia: Multiple actions in Bosnia and Croatia, under the UN (Remember MGen Lewis McKenzie? Sarajevo? ring any bells?) and under NATO. NATO PSO efforts ongoing to this day (I returned from Bosnia in Feb 2004).
Somalia: PSO
Kosovo: I suppose those CF-18s in Aviano were there for an airshow? I suppose you don't remember the crapstorm the Air Force caused when Canadian pilots claimed they were not interoperable with the rest of the NATO force over Kosovo because their on board computers were like "Commodor 64's"
Canadian troops participated in "Operation Anaconda" in the Sha i Kot valley in 2002 and OP Harpoon on the "Whale's back", and this was also the area the "Friendly fire" accident took place.
Scrolling farther back into history, our operations in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Rwanda and Haiti have very little resemblance to "classical" peacekeeping, often one or more factions did not want us there, or simply ignored the presence of ineffectual "International Observers" etc.
Amazing whatyou can find on the DND.ca website, or Google, isn't it?
Former Yugoslavia: Multiple actions in Bosnia and Croatia, under the UN (Remember MGen Lewis McKenzie? Sarajevo? ring any bells?) and under NATO. NATO PSO efforts ongoing to this day (I returned from Bosnia in Feb 2004).
Somalia: PSO
Kosovo: I suppose those CF-18s in Aviano were there for an airshow? I suppose you don't remember the crapstorm the Air Force caused when Canadian pilots claimed they were not interoperable with the rest of the NATO force over Kosovo because their on board computers were like "Commodor 64's"
Canadian troops participated in "Operation Anaconda" in the Sha i Kot valley in 2002 and OP Harpoon on the "Whale's back", and this was also the area the "Friendly fire" accident took place.
Scrolling farther back into history, our operations in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Rwanda and Haiti have very little resemblance to "classical" peacekeeping, often one or more factions did not want us there, or simply ignored the presence of ineffectual "International Observers" etc.
Amazing whatyou can find on the DND.ca website, or Google, isn't it?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
a_majoor said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
>Canadians get behind Afghan deployment
>MICHAEL DEN TANDT
>From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
>OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over >the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.
It's really amazing what effect a concerted effort to educate the canadian public, why we're there, what we're doing and what it means for them, can have on public opinion. Imagine if everyone in the CF took as much responsability.
>MICHAEL DEN TANDT
>From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
>OTTAWA — Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over >the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.
It's really amazing what effect a concerted effort to educate the canadian public, why we're there, what we're doing and what it means for them, can have on public opinion. Imagine if everyone in the CF took as much responsability.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Spr.Earl said:This crap over Canadians not supporting us is crap,the Canadian people have alway's supported us on all our deployments,it's the present Government and press saying this.
What the people are against is deploying with out debate.
We are the only country in the world where the P.M. can just send off troop's with out debate our consensus of the House.Our PM is the envy of World Leader's due to the power he hold's which no other National Leader has.
WRONG. That was the whole point of why so many people are pissed with Pres. Bush. He acted on his own as Commander In Chief.
Here ya go:
The Constitution of the United States
Article. II.
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
GOOGLE continues to be a tool of wonder. I don't really need to post a link to the Constitution of the United States, do I? I'm betting there are plenty of other countries, but the point doesn't need to be flogged.
What is there to debate? Who would even decide what the issues are? In the absence of those answers, I have humbly come up with my own referendum. Here is my "useful" contribution. Any viewing bureaucrats or media can feel free to reprint this in the paper of their choice or post it to a web site.
"Please take a few minutes to complete this survey:
1. As a Canadian citizen with regards to Afghanistan do you care about;
a) Human rights atrocities
b) Women's rights
c) Nations that sponsor terrorism
d) Nations that ignore drug cartels for cash
e) None of the above
f) All of the above
g) Is there a Starbucks there?
2. If you answered any of the options other than e) then do think, as a nation;
a) We should send our valuable troops possibly into harms way to assist a nation to rebuild
b) Use terse phrases in the media and in printed letters like "we condemn" and "are most displeased"
c) Throw aid dollars at them ad infinitum because money can fix anything
d) b + c
e) All of the above
3. If you answered a) or e) then should the troops in Afghanistan;
a) Should be armed with the best available equipment in order to do the job effectively
b) Should be issued saffron robes and appear as Buddhist monks trying to spread divine peace
c) Saffron is expensive, so let them wear their uniforms, but no guns (especially handguns)
d) Can wear uniforms and have guns, but need to have the decision of a future referendum in order to fire a shot.
4. If deployed in a stabilizing role in Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces should stay;
a) Until the job is done or can be turned over to someone who can do it as well
b) As long as no one gets mad at us, or does anything to make an unpleasant picture in the Toronto Star
c) Until someone gets hurt. We have had our fill of "hurting wars" and we are only supposed to be "peace keepers"
d) Provided that public opinion doesn't falter, despite petty partisan sniping, regardless of how badly off the Afghani people will be if we "cut and run".
e) b + c.
f) All of the above, but a).
5. Should Canada even have a military?
a) Yes b) No c) Can't the US or the UN just take care of it?
6. Should the Canadian Forces be expanded in anticipation of greater roles in the world?
a) Yes. We should be pulling our own weight in the world security picture.
b) No. We should keep the Force the same size it is now, but keep them flexible to go to new areas as our interest in a region falters.
c) Hell No. Pierre Trudeau had it right when he started shredding those warmongers.
d) Maybe. Can't we just ask George Bush to tack on a couple of areas that we are interested in instead?
Thank you for taking time to complete a Stats Can survey. Your input is valuable to us, as it will create many committee's and subcommittee's in order to analyze it and create "fact finding" boards to disseminate the information to a group appointed to determine how to best advise the staff of the Minister of National Defence after consulting with the PMO's think tank.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Only a university student would consider ten typed pages to be "short"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
In greater detail I'm sure it requires much more than ten pages to discuss the debate on why some Canadians are in support and why some Canadians are against our involvement in Afghanistan. Even the length of this thread indicates how much everyone has to say in regards to this subject. You may notice I included some of the popular sentiments I gathered from Army.ca in my paper. (thanks Mike)
The debate begins on why we went, to why we should stay, our objective while we are there, the cost of being there, and also the level of accountablity within government to make these decisions.
The debate begins on why we went, to why we should stay, our objective while we are there, the cost of being there, and also the level of accountablity within government to make these decisions.
zipperhead_cop said:
ALSO WRONG. Spr Earl was correct in pointing out the PM's considerable power to deploy troops compared to US Presidents (and many other heads of state / govt.)
The PM can deploy troops (whether declaring war or not) acting in his executive role without any input or real oversight from the legislative branch (House of Commons / Senate). No debate is required within Parliament.
The President, on the other hand, needs the consent of Congress in order to make any troop deployment of any real duration. While the President may be the Commander-in-Chief, he still needs a CONGRESSIONAL declaration of war or authorization to use military force to commit troops to any given conflict:
"Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly [throughout] until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force, within 60 days (Sec. 5(b))."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
So, its true that the Canadian PM has a relatively large amount of executive power compared to other leaders. Furthermore, people aren't "pissed at Bush" because he "acted on his own as Commander-in-Chief"... Bush couldn't have acted alone as Commander-in-Chief because he needed Congress' support. People are "pissed" because many see the official arguments for invading Iraq as unfounded.
Wikipedia is just as useful as Google.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I would just like to say a great friend of ours is in Afganistan right now. We pray for a safe return home to you and the troops. Cant wait to see you Dale
S.Bradbury
S.Bradbury
Similar threads
