Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[Loachman]

It's funny how ironic it is that the whole country of Afghanistan rose up and fought against the Soviet aggressor, but only a fraction of the population today are fighting against the lovely Canadians.

What's "funny" and "ironic" is that you cannot comprehend why this is, because you cannot comprehend the differences between these two examples.

Resistance to the Nazi occupation of Europe was very high. There was no similar resistance movement following the Allied liberation.

And despite our best intentions; whatever we wanted to accomplish from this mission, the fact remains that this mission, in the broader western liberal notion, is to install friendly democratic governments in the middle east. The thing is though, that's not up to us. The fact that we can force democracy on other nations is the most undemocractic principle of them all.

Nobody can "force" democracy on others, period. We can only give them the ability to choose, and that's not something that their previous government would permit.

Despite your wishing it otherwise, there is still no indication that that Afghan population at large wants us to leave, and every indication that they want us to stay until they can run their country by themselves. At that point, Afghanistan is free to go its own way, and remain on friendly terms or not.

The choice will be theirs, and that is what we are trying to give them.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Loachman: Brilliant  .

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Does this help you young Nick?  From that notorious hot bed of right wing thought - SFU.

B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data
3 days ago

VANCOUVER — A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.

The university's Human Security Report Project says fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40 per cent since 2001.

Researcher Andrew Mack says previous data showing increases in terrorism have included civilian deaths in Iraq.

But he says such deaths in civil wars have traditionally been treated as war crimes, not terrorism, and it makes sense to remove them from the data entirely.

Mack says even in Iraq recently there has been a sharp decline in attacks after several years of increased violence.

He says part of the reason is that global support for Islamic terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida has declined.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA

 

[Kirkhill]

Or from the equally right wing BBC.....

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2007/12/afhans-remain-o.html

Afghans Remain Optmistic, but NATO Support Sliding in Southwest: Poll
'Afghans 'still hopeful on future'', BBC News, 3 December 2007

EXCERPT: "Most Afghans are relatively hopeful about their future, an opinion poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested. They also support the current Afghan government and the presence of overseas troops, and oppose the Taleban. But the poll suggests that Afghans are slightly less optimistic than a year ago, and are frustrated at the slow pace of reconstruction efforts. Overall, the figures indicate that the peaceful north of Afghanistan is significantly more satisfied than the troubled south. Most dissatisfaction is found in the south-west, where the Taleban are most active. Charney Research spoke to 1,377 people in October and November in all 34 provinces for the BBC, ABC and ARD."



To continue reading this article, click here.

To see full poll results, click here [BBC] or here [ABC].

See also: 'POLL: Afghans’ Criticism of U.S. Efforts Rises; In the Southwest, Taliban Support Grows', ABC News, 3 December 2007

EXCERPT: "Confidence in the ability of provincial governments in the Southwest to provide security is down by 20 points; confidence in the ability of the Taliban to provide security, while still much lower, is up by 19 points. As noted above, there’s been a 29-point drop in the number who say the Taliban has “no significant support at all” in the area. And very unfavorable views of the Taliban have fallen from 62 percent last year to 44 percent now. There’s been no change in views of the strength of U.S. or NATO forces in the region. But as noted, there’s been a huge 37-point drop in the number of people in the Southwest who report local support for NATO forces, as well as a 20-point drop in support for U.S. forces."

Related posts:
'Afghanistan in 2007: A Survey of the Afghan People', 22 October 2007
'Majority of Afghans Want NATO Troops to Stay: Poll', 18 October 2007
'Breaking Point: Measuring Progress in Afghanistan', 1 April 2007

In particular I commend this link to your attention and particularly questions 16 and 17.  Some 70 per cent of Afghans support both the US and NATO in Afghanistan, 82 per cent oppose foreign jihadis and 93 per cent oppose the Taliban.

By the way,  in Northern Ireland Bernadette Devlin, Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams and an couple of hundred other idiots kept British soldiers "coming home in body bags" for a period of 30 years.  The Italian Carabinieri still regularly die dealing with their local thugs......As do Canadian Mounties. 

Casualty count is no indication of public opinion....it only speaks to the motivation and capabilities of those involved in committing crimes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_12_07_afghanpoll2007.pdf

 

[QV]

Good post Loachman.

 

[Haletown]

Amen Loachman, excellent post.

Way to slice 'em & dice 'em.

BZ

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The government could take some of the wounded vets on a volunteer bases, give a 2 week primer on all the history and all of the programs, progress and failures. send them to malls, fairs with a booth and a sign saying: "Not sure? Ask a Vet"

Make sure the vets can and will give honest answers, perhaps laptops with wireless so if they can't answer a question they can get the information. It will give the vets an oppurtunity to serve the mission and increase the awareness of the forces in the public eye. If the nutbars target them, people will get pissed off at the nutbars in a hurry, in fact I would not be surprised if "Joe construction dude" might walk up and assist the nutbar into tripping on the sidewalk several times.

There is lots of stuff happening there that never gets into news or talked about, that's what is hurting the mission.

 

[Flip]

No doubt.

There is lots of stuff happening there that never gets into news or talked about, that's what is hurting the mission.

I generally like your idea and I have always thought that the public should have more exposure to what the military is doing - not just Afghanistan but everywhere.

The problem in general is, that our liberal sensiblities have precluded a show of militarism like that since the 60s.  People don't want to upset their nice comfortable belief system in which all war is bad and the participants just need to be sent to their corners to think about it. 

Canadians need more information.
Canadians need to understand their military.
But, Canadians still think Santa Clause is a Canadian.

 

[GAP]

Canadians need more information.  yes
Canadians need to understand their military. yes
But, Canadians still think Santa Clause is a Canadian.  he is

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No doubt.

I generally like your idea and I have always thought that the public should have more exposure to what the military is doing - not just Afghanistan but everywhere.

The problem in general is, that our liberal sensiblities have precluded a show of militarism like that since the 60s.  People don't want to upset their nice comfortable belief system in which all war is bad and the participants just need to be sent to their corners to think about it. 

Canadians need more information.
Canadians need to understand their military.
But, Canadians still think Santa Clause is a Canadian.

I was thinking more of a departure from the CNE/PNE thing with less emphasis on equipment, but more on the human benefits of the mission itself. The vets could team up with civilians from involved agencies (and share budget costs  ) This is almost a word of mouth campagain. It will let average Canadians talk to people involved and learn more about the situation on the ground from people they will have more respect for then politicans.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is more bad news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wmilipoll0905/BNStory/National/home

Troops best as peacekeepers, Canadians say

MURRAY BREWSTER
The Canadian Press

September 5, 2008 at 1:34 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.

The results of the exhaustive survey, obtained by The Canadian Press, come despite the best efforts of both the Conservative government and the military to rebrand the Canadian Forces as a combat outfit.

“The image of the Canadian peacekeeper is one that has taken hold in the Canadian national psyche in the decades since the Korean War,” said the Ipsos Reid study, which is expected to be released Monday.

“Recent attempts at repositioning this traditional role toward one that emphasizes a more activist approach which includes the use of force have met with relatively little interest and still less acceptance.”

Desmond Morton, a military historian at McGill University, said the results are bad news for the Conservatives, who have staked a lot of political capital on Canada's playing a more militarily active role in the world, especially in Afghanistan.

He said the findings could reflect public unease with the mission in Kandahar, where almost 100 soldiers have died since 2002.

But the survey, which involved both telephone polls and focus groups, found that nearly two-thirds of those asked support what the country is trying to do in Afghanistan.

Respondents generally agree that a stronger military is important, but they sharply disagree on what that force should be doing.

Roughly 92 per cent of those surveyed think the military's role should be to respond to natural disasters around the world.

Focus group participants were asked what image came to mind with the word “soldier” and one responded: “I do not picture a Canadian soldier carrying guns.”

Asked whether Canadian troops should be early on the ground in an international crisis, as they were in both world wars, people were wary, with only 52 per cent seeing that as important.

Similarly, about half of the respondents supported the notion of taking part in international security operations, while the other half think Canadian troops should act as ceasefire observers.

One participant lamented that the fighting in Kandahar was changing the nation's international character:

“With Afghanistan, we're more in the spotlight than ever before. Before we were under the radar. Now our troops are in Afghanistan and they are looking at us in a different light. We used to be peacekeepers and we aren't any more, and I resent that.”

Traditional peacekeeping, which usually meant monitoring ceasefires, largely disappeared with the end of the Cold War.

Canadian troops were routinely caught in the crosshairs of opposing sides during the brushfire wars of the early 1990s, notably in the Balkans where there was often no peace to keep.

That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.

Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.

Canadians “are resistant to change to the Canadian Forces, a brand with historic roots that they clearly admire and respect,” the analysis portion of the survey says.

Mr. Morton said the fact that public believes that peacekeeping is the ideal job for the country's military should send a signal to the Conservatives.

He said Canadians are idealists.

“I think the (peacekeeping) values are profound, and while I may think they may not be wholly realistic, they are rather more attractive than the values I encounter in the United States,” he said in an interview from Montreal.

Even though they do noot see their soldiers as warriors, the study suggests that a vast majority of Canadians – 71 per cent – regard the military as a source of pride.

Quebeckers and young people 18 to 24 years old are least likely to see the Forces in that way, a troubling finding for a military trying to recruit new soldiers.

The survey also found that young people are also more likely to tune out coverage of the military, including the Afghan war.

The focus groups were suspicious of both the media and the politicians when it comes to the fighting.

“Many participants claimed not to trust the media to report events in Afghanistan accurately,” the survey said.

“Political leaders were not generally believed to be an accurate source of information about Afghanistan, with some attributing ulterior motives to the government's reporting of events.”

Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, said she was not surprised by the finding because “people are increasingly skeptical” of what they read and hear.

“In these kinds of situations there's always a shoot-the-messenger kind of mentality,” Ms. Welch said.

So, despite six years of combat operations and nearly 100 KIA in Afghanistan, not to mention real fighting in the Balkans – even if the Chrétien government did try to hide our combat operations – and despite all of Gen (ret'd) Hillier's efforts, 'we' (a substantial majority of Canadians, I'm guessing because we will not see the numbers until next week) are still believers in the peacekeeping myth.

Desmond Morton says we’re idealists and I think that is part of the ‘problem’ but ‘we’ are also wilfully blind. The poll says that ‘we’ see/listen to/read the news from Afghanistan but we don’t ‘trust’ the media. What that really means is that the media is not telling us what we wish was the truth so we choose to believe something else. That’s not idealism; that, my fellow Canadians, is STUPIDITY

 

[Kirkhill]

"If wishes were horses then tinkers would ride".

Edward, you and I and a host of others on this board spend a deal of time talking about how we don't trust the media and politicians.  ;D  Isn't it a bit rich to criticize the rest of Canada for also not believing them? 

The problem these days is that everybody finds people of like mind, talk amongst themselves, devise comforting narratives and then cheerfully ignore the rest of the world.  Heck, I do it everyday.  I read this board instead of Daily Kos or Rabble.  I scan Real Clear Politics rather than watch "The Daily Show" or "Larry King".  (I gave up on the TV news of any stripe about 18 months ago).

To the meat of the article itself, and my opener.....

Canadians may prefer their soldiers to be involved in rescuing individuals from natural disasters, or peacefully and bravely (if stupidly) keeping the peace between the Lion and the Lamb without resort to bloodshed and guns while at the same time realistically appreciating that occasionally reality intrudes and you can't get what you wish for.

Note that in the article ONE, Individual, in the focus group came forward with the unique view that soldiers shouldn't have guns.  What did the rest of the group say?

While it appears that 50% of our population is of a suitably scrambled and muddy socialist mindset I would prefer to focus on the other 50% that sees intervention as an unpleasant but unavoidable necessity.  And, as well I have hope that at least 20% more, that combine with the realist 50% in having pride in the work of the troops can also be brought around to an appropriate state of military zen.

I don't see a desire to live in a peaceful world as being mutually exclusive to realization that that world doesn't exist.

Now, as for the 30-50% of the population that are "no-hopers"................................nuther story.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.

The results of the exhaustive survey, obtained by The Canadian Press, come despite the best efforts of both the Conservative government and the military to rebrand the Canadian Forces as a combat outfit.

"The image of the Canadian peacekeeper is one that has taken hold in the Canadian national psyche in the decades since the Korean War," said the Ipsos Reid study, which is expected to be released Monday.

"Recent attempts at repositioning this traditional role towards one that emphasizes a more activist approach which includes the use of force have met with relatively little interest and still less acceptance."

More on link: CTV News Link

I find it interesting that the poll states that nearly 2/3 of respondants support what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.... yet the MSM paints the whole country against the mission.

 

[George Wallace]

More on link: CTV News Link

I find it interesting that the poll states that nearly 2/3 of respondants support what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.... yet the MSM paints the whole country against the mission.

And they (the MSM) wonder why we think that they are all f*&^%$ up.  They can't even read the polls........or they think they know better than the people polled. 

It has been the propoganda spewed out by the Federal Government since the Pearson/Trudeau days that we are Peacekeepers.  Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to associate Peacemaker in the equation and a step towards becoming Peacekeepers.

 

[OldSolduer]

Hello:

I'm back posting my opinions,,,,

Here's one.

If the politicians of MY generation had DONE THE BUSINESS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE in the 60's-90's, then this generation would have an easier time of it. But we'd rather invite psychopathic criminals to tea and "Negotiate" with them. BULL$HIT!!!!!!

I think you know what I mean.

 

[Petard]

Sheep tend to gather with, and like the company of, other sheep.
That, and just plain ignorance, I would say is the reason this peace keeping myth endures.
how many Canadians for example have even heard of the Dag Hammarskjöld Medal?

http://www.geocities.com/dco700/UnitedNations.htm

I don't recall too much interest from Canadians when this was announced, or, for that matter, when some of these brave souls that this medal recognizes did not come back from these "peace keeping" missions .

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to Petard's comments on sheep:

I am brought back to this comment by one of the Focus Group participants.

One participant lamented that the fighting in Kandahar was changing the nation's international character:

“With Afghanistan, we're more in the spotlight than ever before. Before we were under the radar. Now our troops are in Afghanistan and they are looking at us in a different light. We used to be peacekeepers and we aren't any more, and I resent that.”

My sense of that comment is that it reflects fear. 

Before, we were everybody's friend, or at least people ignored us.  There was no threat to Canadians (and THERE is the greatest myth of all).
Now we have taken a position (and some of us argue that we have to and that that only happened because we were forced to by events).  We suddenly find ourselves in the line of fire.

I would put our position as akin to an Ostrich on a firing range.  Fat, dumb, happy and lucky it has survived with its head in the sand.    It presented an amazing target but through luck or circumstance nobody has shot it, or even shot at it. One day though, somebody dragged our head out of the sand and we discovered bullets cracking and banging all around.  Our situation hasn't changed but our awareness of our situation has.  All of a sudden we have been taken from a state of blissful ignorance to a state of fearful awareness.

Under those circumstances it is not unusual to be resentful of the individual that caused you to become fearful - even if all that individual was doing was trying to lead you off the range, out of the line of fire and towards safety.

A further complication:

After spending a lot of time working in the States (even though I only lived there for two years I have spent almost 12 years serving Americans) I have returned to a Canada much changed.  I find myself working with a virtual United Nations of folks, even in a small town in Southern Alberta.  I have come to admire and respect them (even if they do think that Che Guevara and Castro are heroes and have difficulty discerning the difference between Kosovo and Ossetia).  One thing that has been forcefully brought home to me is that for many of these people bombs and machetes are not theoretical bases for discussion.  They are constantly with them as reminders or waking nightmares.

They came to Canada to join us in our blissful ignorance.  They joined with us in sticking their heads in the sand.  They convinced themselves that they were safe because everybody else said so.  Now, when forced to confront their current predicament their resentment is amplified by their even greater fear. 

And one of their greatest fears is that Canada will join with the US and cause them to be put back in the firing line, or worse be treated like Japanese were treated in WW2, Galicians were treated in WW1, or they were treated in their homelands when they were unpopular minorities.....

I happen to believe that we have always been on that firing range and that ignoring our position doesn't make the bullets go away.  We have to deal with reality,  the world as it is and not the world as we wish it.

But I think I am getting a new appreciation for the anti-american opposition here in Canada.  In point of fact I don't blame the immigrants.  They were, by and large, just looking for a safe haven and an opportunity to live a normal, WESTERN, life - complete with cars and bars and debt.

I blame those Canadian born (and some Clydeside immigrants like those that used to run the Post Office) bureaucrats that kept the rest of the flock, on the firing range, in blissful ignorance.    Some of those bureaucrats were a guileless as the rest of the flock and didn't perceive the threat.  Others though, I am convinced, not only perceived the threat but actively worked to keep the flock's heads down both for their own political benefit but also, and more nefariously for the benefit of other external forces.

Sorry,  just ran out of tin-foil.....  Conspiracy theory again.....must control that urge.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile a CBC poll.  It would seem (CP poll above for comparison) that while many people want to do good things in Afstan, they just don't want the necessary military means--and costs--used to achieve them (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html

The number of Canadians who disapprove of the country's military action in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2002, according to the results of a new poll sponsored by CBC News.

The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 34 per cent of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Canada's participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent "somewhat disapprove," making a total of 56 per cent [emphasis added].

By comparison, 41 per cent of respondents were in favour of military action, with 14 per cent saying they "strongly approve" and 27 per cent "somewhat approve."

The latest figures stand in contrast to previous responses to the same survey question, posed in March 2008, where 54 per cent of respondents said they disapproved and 44 per cent said the opposite.

The March numbers had represented the highest level of disapproval since polling began in 2002, the same year Canada launched its military mission in Afghanistan.

"Canadians, I think, can sustain a certain number of casualties and they can sustain that if they think that the mission is worth doing and if the mission is going to be successful," she said.

"And when we start to see pessimism about the success of the mission increasing, which we see here, that to me is what is behind the overall slow erosion of support for Canada being [in Afghanistan]."

When asked whether they approved of the agreement reached by the federal Conservative and Liberal parties in March 2008 to support keeping Canadian Forces in Afghanistan until 2011, the majority — 54 per cent — of Canadians said it was not a good agreement.

Poll results showed 41 per cent of respondents said it was a good agreement, while five per cent didn't know.

These responses are particularly important given the likelihood that Canadians will face a federal election this fall, Dasko said.

"By agreeing to keep the troops there, the Liberals have kept the issue off the table and actually eroded their own ability to build support by opposing the issue.

"It could have been a wedge issue for them, but it's not. So they removed it as a possible issue for them to use in an upcoming election."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve his minority Conservative government.

Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14.

Dasko said the lack of support for the agreement had fewer implications for the Conservatives, considering that 61 per cent of people who said they would vote Conservative in the next election approved of Canada being in Afghanistan.

By contrast, 65 per cent of those who said they would vote Liberal said they disapproved of the Afghan mission.

"Support is eroding but at the same time, [the Conservatives'] core supporters support Canada being there," Dasko said.

"So in fact, they're in sync with their own supporters who think that Canada should be there. So it doesn't hurt them that much."

When Canadians were asked which political parties could best handle a variety of heated issues in Canada, including Afghanistan, the choice was most often the Conservatives, as reported by CBC News on Thursday.

Those responding to the poll said they believe the Conservatives are best able to deal with the economy, provide honest government, deal with crime and justice, represent the interests of people’s home provinces in Ottawa and deal with Afghanistan.

By comparison they thought the Liberals could best deal with environmental issues like global warming and environmental pollution. The Liberals are also best suited to handle national unity issues, respondents said.

"Overall, the level of disapproval of our involvement is at its highest point that we've seen in our tracking, and support is at its lowest," Donna Dasko, senior vice-president of Environics Research Group, told CBC News on Friday.

"So we can see the public is clearly, at this point, leaning against the mission."

A total of 2,505 people from across the country were surveyed by telephone for the latest Environics poll. It is considered accurate to within plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Also down is the number of Canadians who think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful.

Only 28 per cent of respondents said they think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful, compared with 34 per cent who responded affirmatively during a November 2006 poll.

The current number of Canadians who said the mission wasn't likely to be successful was 65 per cent, compared with 58 per cent in the 2006 poll. In both instances, seven per cent of people said they did not know.

These findings, Dasko said, are important because they could affect people's overall level of support for Canada's military intervention in Afghanistan.

In March 2008, the federal Conservatives and the federal Liberals came to an agreement that they would both support keeping Canadian Forces in Afghanistan until the year 2011. In your opinion was this a good agreement or not a good agreement?
Answer %

Good    41
Not Good  54
Don't know/No answer  5

Do you strongly approve or somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Canada’s participation in military action in Afghanistan?
Answer %

Strongly approve  14
Somewhat approve  27
Somewhat disapprove  22
Strongly disapprove  34 [emphasis added]
Don't know/No answer 3

Do you think in the end the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful or not successful?
Answer %

Successful  28
Not successful  65
Don't know/No answer 7

On CBC's "The National", Sept. 5, Brian Stewart interpreted the poll as basically indicating that Taliban successes were proving false the CF's efforts (not/not the government's) to sell the mission.  Never mentioning that our media--esp. TV which forms most opinion--generally cover military things almost exclusively, especially the bad (death) news; report almost only on the CF at Kanadahar; and do not report major ISAF successes, e.g.:

British soldiers kill 200 Taliban in Afghan dam operation
A major secret British operation to boost the economy in Afghanistan's Helmand province has been completed after a force of 5,000 troops fought for a week to drive a huge dam turbine through Taliban lines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2668595/British-soldiers-kill-200-Taliban-in-Afghan-dam-operation.html

More here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/development-through-combat.html

Moreover, no Canadian media organization has even one reporter stationed in the capital, Kabul--so we get almost zero reporting about Afstan at the national level (e.g. in education).  That gives Canadians the totally skewed view that the troubles (big) at Kandahar represent the country as a whole--and therefore things are hopeless and we should bug out.  But no reporting on the largely secure North, pretty secure West--and ditto Kabul and the large economic progress there.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Flip]

My "feeling" is that a significant amount of disapproval comes from the misguided notion that GWB started the "War on Terrorism".  We've completely lost track of the Fact
that war was foisted upon us by our collective enemies.  In previous wars we blamed the "bad guy". Now for some perverse reason we're blaming ourselves.

I've never heard a Canadian politician say "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here"  I'm not sure how it would play.  This what brings up the most insidious part of the peacekeeping myth.  Canadians and indeed many westerners believe to fight a war is unneccesary, even when it's started by the other side.

Canadians by and large do not understand their history.
In particular military history. And in particular to that, peacekeeping history.
New Canadians do add a problematic dimension, as do this generation of established Canadians. 

 

[tomahawk6]

What ever happened to support the troops even if you dont agree with the mission ? These polls and short sighted politicians are putting the troops at risk.