59% of Candians see Afghan mission as lost cause

[The Chameleon]

59% say soldiers dying for unwinnable war; 34% disagree

Results reflect poor opinion of Bush leadership, pollster says

Oct. 2, 2006. 05:48 AM

ALEXANDER PANETTA

CANADIAN PRESS

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 consistent 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 exhorted 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.

The poll results were generally similar across the country

Toronto Star Article

Edited October 2, 2006 by Guest

[SmoothedShredder]

I tend to agree with the 59% at this point. Those soilders have encountered far more resistance in the recent deployments in the south than they had in Kabul... also, our NATO ally, who spearheaded the mission in the first place, has since gone AWOL (to Iraq), outside of a few friendly fire attacks... George Bush has done nothing but fan the flames of fanatics... on both sides... but definately, at this stage of the Mission, we are in a full on quagmire... retreat to Kabul, work on reconstruction, and focus on being ambassadors instead of continuing to fight a foe that the Russians, Americans, and Chinese couldn't even defeat. And lets work on fixing 'our side' before we worry about populations vehlemently opposed to our brand of democracy, and effectively defending themselves on their hometurf. Our troops should take a defensive position where our causalities will be minimal, or if you prefer less than they have been the last 4 months, like it was before we moved our battalions South. And work on pressuring the American Government to uphold it's commitments to the mission, which isn't going to happen with the current Administration, and their 'commitment' to destroying Iraq/the UN/themselves. So, for the time being we should wait where it's safe... much like the Taliban are doing now on that Pakistani Border, taking out anyone who get's within their sniper/suicide bomber range... smells like a trap, and one I don't think we can 'muscle' our way out of, atleast not now with the world as fragmented as it is in terms of political will.

Still this would be so much easier if oil wasn't so important, before we start blaming the government for all of this, we should be willing to take some blame for creating the massive demand for the black gold. Just look at how much plastic surrounds us, and how much gas it took to get it all to your door. We all take part in creating the demand that sent our governments to decide this was the 'correct' course of action. Reduce, reuse, recycle, respect; Think globally, act locally... and all that jibba jabba.

[AD]

59% of Canadians didn't understand the mission in the first place, so how can they understand how it's changed to what's happening now?

The military and Liberal governments screwed up by not educating the public enough about the mission.

And Afghanistan is so far away from Canada physically and culturally that the mission and the state of affairs there isn't really something 59% of Canadians can understand at all.

But, such is the will of the people. That's too bad. Wonder what would have happened if the good guys gave up and retreated in WWII?

[SmoothedShredder]

But, such is the will of the people. That's too bad. Wonder what would have happened if the good guys gave up and retreated in WWII?

We'd probably have a facist as the Head of the White House.

Heard a relevant quote the other day... I know what I make of it, But You? ...

"Even if you're not interested in war, war is interested in you."

I don't want the forces to leave... but I can't reconcile it with increased losses, and all the war drums sounding in the world in those places right near by like India, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq... perhaps signalling a retreat would send a bad sign... but a retreat to Kabul would be a half way, 'Canadian Comprimise' IMO, and perhaps would signal the world community to maybe stop ramping up the violence... maybe.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

AD, I understand your experience among and sympathy with the Afghans, and it makes all the sense in the world that this would be frustrating. But if this is all about getting these particular bad guys, why not go for the jugular and bring this war to Saudi Arabia, and help them weed out the fundamentalists from deep within their ranks?

On another note, and a bit less facetiously, I might ask whether the people who are doing the work there - the fighting and killing and policing and all that - have a good understanding of things either, given that they're in daily contact with the people they're ostensibly to serve and whose lives they're supposed to be making better. I hope so, though I wouldn't expect them to be doing much than following orders, which have taken a rather more aggressive turn than what Canada's military has been known for in the past. And even in WWII, I don't think people really had much of a grasp on what fascism was (if they did, surely people would have continued fighting tendencies towards it afterwards); I think they were just doing what their governments told them to do (coupled with atavistic pride about their countries of origin having been invaded back).

It doesn't help, of course, that Afghanistan has a longheld reputation of being a place that armies get hopelessly mired in before they inevitably give up - the Persians, the Greeks, the British, the Russians, and now us; some of that must have trickled into people's thinking about all this as well, I think.

Truth is, imo, the US fucked things up and left everyone else to pick up the pieces.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

We'd probably have a facist as the Head of the White House.

By some definitions, there is one!

Traditional fascism was predicated on corporatism, militant capitalism, and unswerving devotion to leadership. It was also (cf. Ernst Nolte) recognisable by its mirror-imaging from its sworn enemy, which at the time was communism - similar ideologies, similar methods, similar mutual hate. What does it look like when the enemy is now defined according not strictly by politics but by religion?

But "fascist" as a term is now so overdetermined that it's pretty much useless as an analytic term.

[SmoothedShredder]

Yeah, I kinda was going for that. But the power trudgengly does change hands every decade or so, there and here, and hopefully that's enough to keep things going until we can properly transfer power to a more useful United Nations. And live a more effective and fair local->global democracy.

Going to take a while though... I can't even agree with my friends about what to get on a pizza... and I always go with "Whatever you want."

[AD]

AD, I understand your experience among and sympathy with the Afghans, and it makes all the sense in the world that this would be frustrating. But if this is all about getting these particular bad guys, why not go for the jugular and bring this war to Saudi Arabia, and help them weed out the fundamentalists from deep within their ranks?

Because (as I forgot to mention in my first post) it's not just a war. It's rebuilding and reconstruction. That needs to be done in Afghanistan. The poppies are growing in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia. The Taliban are still hurting people in Afghanistan. The border with Pakistan is ridiculous. Bin Laden (while mostly an Idea now) is supposedly in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Cutting and running isn't good for this area. I don't expect the Canadian military to be half-assed about this mission, regardless of what an irrelevant poll says.

Dinner time. Caribou.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

It's rebuilding and reconstruction. That needs to be done in Afghanistan.

Gotcha - you're absolutely right there, and this used to be what we were famous for around the world. Now it seems we've started down a different sort of path, the Red Shirts for America's Kirk (that that word is Gaelic for "church" is an unintended irony).

[AD]

I don't think it's that even. To do the work you've gotta be safe. The insane practice of suicide bombings has made the Canadians more defensive, and like the saying goes, the best defence is a good offence. Take 'em out before they take you out.

Scary shit over there right now, glad I'm safe in the... arctic.

This could deserve a whole new thread, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Suicide Bombers - They Blow My Mind. How nuts is that?

AD

[Birdy]

really, really nuts. completely unfathomable.

considering that's what our troops are up against, scares me to no end.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This just in:

Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't

By JIM KRANE Associated Press Writer

© 2006 The Associated Press

QALAT, Afghanistan — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

According to an Associated Press count, based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, at least 2,800 people have been killed nationwide so far this year. The count, which includes militants and civilians, is about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.

The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, told Pentagon reporters last month that while the Taliban enemy in Afghanistan is not extremely strong, their numbers and influence have grown in some southern sections of the country.

President Bush has been criticized for his handling of the war and is trying to contain the damage ahead of midterm elections this fall. On Friday, Bush acknowledged setbacks in the training of Afghan police to fight against the Taliban resurgence but predicted eventual victory.

Frist said asking the Taliban to join the government was a decision to be made by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai's spokesmen were not immediately able to be reached for comment.

Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida accompanying Frist on his trip, said negotiating with the Taliban was not "out of the question" but that fighters who refused to join the political process would have to be defeated.

"A political solution is how it's all going to be solved," he said.

Frist said he had hoped the U.S. would be able to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan soon. But he said the 20,000 U.S. troops in the country are still needed to support the NATO alliance, which will assume direct control over most military operations here.

"We're going to need to stay here a long time," Frist said.

The senator said he was warned to expect attacks to increase. There appears to be an "unlimited flow" of Afghans and foreigners "willing to pick up arms and integrate themselves with the Taliban," he said.

He said the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of the country is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."

Frist and Martinez flew to this dust-blown mountain city 220 miles south of Kabul during a one-day stop in Afghanistan on a regional tour that includes stops in Pakistan and Iraq.

The pair had intended to visit a new $6.5 million hospital built by the United Arab Emirates, but a group of wounded Taliban fighters were recuperating there, including a midlevel commander, and U.S. commander Lt. Col. Kevin McGlaughlin canceled the visit because of security concerns.

In violence Monday, a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a NATO convoy in the capital Kabul, wounding three foreign soldiers and three civilians, while a roadside bomb in the eastern Paktia province killed three Afghan soldiers and wounded three others, officials said.

Maj. Luke Knittig, a military spokesman, said he could not disclose the nationalities of the NATO soldiers who were wounded. The attack came two days after another suicide bomber killed 12 people and wounded more than 40 outside Afghanistan's Interior Ministry.

In the southern province of Helmand, five civilians were killed when their vehicle hit a mine on a road usually used by NATO and Afghan forces, said Ghulam Muhiddin, the governor's spokesman.

Suspected Taliban on a motorbike, meanwhile, killed two policemen and wounded two others in Gereshk district, he said. NATO-led troops killed three militants in Nawzad district.

[The Chameleon]

I tend to agree with the 59% at this point. Those soilders have encountered far more resistance in the recent deployments in the south than they had in Kabul... also, our NATO ally, who spearheaded the mission in the first place, has since gone AWOL (to Iraq), outside of a few friendly fire attacks... George Bush has done nothing but fan the flames of fanatics... on both sides... but definately, at this stage of the Mission, we are in a full on quagmire... retreat to Kabul, work on reconstruction, and focus on being ambassadors instead of continuing to fight a foe that the Russians, Americans, and Chinese couldn't even defeat. And lets work on fixing 'our side' before we worry about populations vehlemently opposed to our brand of democracy, and effectively defending themselves on their hometurf. Our troops should take a defensive position where our causalities will be minimal, or if you prefer less than they have been the last 4 months, like it was before we moved our battalions South. And work on pressuring the American Government to uphold it's commitments to the mission, which isn't going to happen with the current Administration, and their 'commitment' to destroying Iraq/the UN/themselves. So, for the time being we should wait where it's safe... much like the Taliban are doing now on that Pakistani Border, taking out anyone who get's within their sniper/suicide bomber range... smells like a trap, and one I don't think we can 'muscle' our way out of, atleast not now with the world as fragmented as it is in terms of political will.

Still this would be so much easier if oil wasn't so important, before we start blaming the government for all of this, we should be willing to take some blame for creating the massive demand for the black gold. Just look at how much plastic surrounds us, and how much gas it took to get it all to your door. We all take part in creating the demand that sent our governments to decide this was the 'correct' course of action. Reduce, reuse, recycle, respect; Think globally, act locally... and all that jibba jabba.

[color:gray]Yeah I agree with you on this. I really think that our only role in the Afghan Quagmire should be "Peacekeeping" as directed by the UN. And if the UN leaves so do we. No matter the consequence.

Really it is not our nation, our war or our society. Yeah, the Taliban was evil, but so is the current state of affairs. Really no better and probably more dangerous.

All in all it is not our place to force a change in society or shove democracy down a nations throat.

I think that a defensive postion that maintains a modicum of social order is the only role Canada should play. We should not be out on rekon missions and trying to round up Taliban or insugents. Our postion should only be reactive and protective.

The sad news is that in some parts of the world democracy doesn't work and isn't the way. Especially in a part of the world that has never had it in thier history. And if democracy is to happen, only the people of the nation can make it happen, by thier own initiative. It can not be imported and proped up by nations like us and the US.

It's time to pack it up before we totally discrage this country's good name.

[AD]

a sad, defeatist, outlook on things.

how are you going to peacekeep when there's no peace?

how do you know the current state of things is 'evil'? did you hear karzai when he was in canada not 2 weeks ago? sure he doesn't have much power, but he has a voice and a vision that many many afghans share.

why should we be anywhere in a defensive position? what good does that do? just stand around until someone blows themself up beside you?

we should definitely be out on recon missions and rounding up taliban. our position should be proactive and protective.

how do you know democracy can't work there? pretty rich. it hasn't worked yet, but the people want it. it's happening, but slowly. 5 years ago there wasn't a constitution.

time to pack up? f that.

[Hal Johnson]

They hate our freedom!!

[SmoothedShredder]

a sad, defeatist, outlook on things.

how are you going to peacekeep when there's no peace?

how do you know the current state of things is 'evil'? did you hear karzai when he was in canada not 2 weeks ago? sure he doesn't have much power, but he has a voice and a vision that many many afghans share.

why should we be anywhere in a defensive position? what good does that do? just stand around until someone blows themself up beside you?

we should definitely be out on recon missions and rounding up taliban. our position should be proactive and protective.

how do you know democracy can't work there? pretty rich. it hasn't worked yet, but the people want it. it's happening, but slowly. 5 years ago there wasn't a constitution.

time to pack up? f that.

Hmmm... I guess I got some facts misinterpreted... the US is still in Afghanistan, and actually doing most of the work. It's the other NATO allies who aren't willing to chip in... but still I believe the reluctance eminates from the hessitation from the NATO allies to follow the United States into war... ESPECIALLY since they used lies and deception to go into Iraq after everyone was already committed to Afghanistan. Perhap the States was hoping that NATO would be more responsible in Afghanistan and they could divert the resources to fighting in Iraq (another reason for the NATO allies to be wary)... well it's not going so well, and I don't think it's the best place for CANADIAN troops to be doing all of the grunt work, especially when command cannot get on the same page. The real world results of escallating causalites, the strong public opinion, and political infighting on this issue suggest to me that perhaps a step back to entrench and take a defensive stance on the positions we've already hold, and increase our reconstruction efforts there instead of putting our soilders in harms way without the full support of our allies. FTR I think going to Afghanistan was something that needed to be done, it wasn't a sure thing we would win, but a response was appropriate to the attacks... we're not doing well, and mismanagement was definately part of it... time to go back to the drawing board, and count the chips that we did win this round...

Send troops into a war we know we aren't doing enough to win... F-that.

Canada slams NATO's Afghan role

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Monday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canada's Defence Minister is confronting those NATO countries with troops deployed in relatively stable parts of Afghanistan — including Germany, France, Spain and Italy — saying they must lift the restrictions that prevent their soldiers from taking on the more dangerous tasks being shouldered by Canadians.

It's a problem that one former Canadian military leader says threatens the future of the 57-year-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization — an alliance founded on the principle that an attack against one of its members is an attack against all.

Canadian troops are paying the ultimate price with a frequency that has caused many at home to question Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Trooper Mark Andrew Wilson, killed in a roadside bomb explosion this weekend, was the 40th Canadian soldier to die in the conflict.

But some of the large European countries with troops in the safer northern and western regions will not allow their soldiers to move into the danger zones when they are needed, even on a temporary basis. And some are not permitted to fight at night.

Related to this article

Articles Related Articles

The Globe and Mail

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Sunday that he has raised Canada's concerns about those restrictions — called caveats — with the countries that have imposed them. Although he did not name them directly, it was clear Mr. O'Connor was referring primarily to Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

The Defence Minister also said he spoke with representatives of those countries that are sharing Canada's deadly burden in the south — the United States, Britain, the Netherlands, Romania and Estonia — when he attended a NATO meeting in Slovenia at the end of September.

“For about an hour and a half, I grabbed together the counties that are in the south with us to talk about our common challenges,†Mr. O'Connor told The Globe and Mail in a telephone interview. “In the meeting I encouraged them to lobby other NATO members to remove their restrictions.â€

Provincial Reconstruction Teams, like the one Canada has sent to Kandahar province, should not be expected to move about, he said.

Battle groups, however, should be given the freedom to travel to another province if there is a crisis, even for a day or two, until the danger has abated, he added.

“If we were in desperate straits, according to the caveats, they can't move south,†Mr. O'Connor said.

Those countries, such as Canada, that have troops in the south and east do not have those types of restrictions and could easily move to the north or west if there is a problem, he said.

“This is very difficult for the [uN-mandated International Security Assistance Force] commander,†he said. “He has some forces he can move around and some he can't. That's not the ideal when you are engaging the insurgents.â€

Asked if he thought the reluctance on the part of some countries to let their troops go to the more dangerous regions may be fed by fears that their troops could suffer casualties, the minister gave a gruff chuckle and said: “Well, that's your interpretation.â€

Retired Canadian major-general Lewis MacKenzie, a former commander of United Nations peacekeepers in Bosnia, said he supports Mr. O'Connor in his demands that other countries pull more weight.

“I heartily endorse the pressure that is being brought to bear and I hope it's ratcheted up,†he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Mr. MacKenzie pointed out that Article 5 of the treaty that created NATO after the Second World War says “an attack against one is an attack against all.â€

So when member countries are involved in a joint operation, they “are not supposed to provide troops with asterisks and caveats after them,†he said, calling the restrictions a stake aimed at the heart of NATO.

“I think the alliance is threatened, seriously threatened,†Mr. MacKenzie said.

In publicly calling out those countries that are not contributing, Mr. O'Connor has to exercise diplomacy, he said.

But Canada has earned the right to talk tough about this issue, he said. “We've got influence. It's paid for with the blood of our soldiers and the gold of our taxpayers, so it bloody well gives us influence.â€

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said he agrees that the caveats should be lifted. But he said yesterday that the Conservative government should have made sure this was done before Canada's commitment in Afghanistan was extended last spring to 2009.

“For Mr. O'Connor to be saying that today,†Mr. Dosanjh said, “shows complete ineptitude on the part of this government in the way they negotiated with NATO in terms of their rush to extend the mission.â€

[AD]

William, I think this is the first time we've disagreed on politics!

Oh well. At least we both know the Sens rule.

I can't wait til I can become a citizen of Google.

[SmoothedShredder]

I agree. It was a disagreement. I respect that. Anyone see Colbert loving up the OHL last night in the second segment? That was some funny shit. Colbert loves the OHL... didn't see that coming! He even said Ottawa 67's a couple of times noting he had "no idea what the hell it was".

[SmoothedShredder]

So it seems:

a) There's a Dutch dude now heading the NATO mission in Afghanistan

The forces have pulled back from the 'friction zones' and the soilder death rates have declined

c) There has been more focus on reconstruction efforts and solidifying 'relationships' in places where they have already conqured or if you prefer, removed the Taliban presence/control.

I'm haven't read if they are buying all the poppy crops from the Farmers in the SouthWest, but I think it's a great idea. I mean sure opium gets a bad rap in the ole' Drug Heiarchy, but compared to some of the synthetic stuff we got over here and use in Hospitals all the time, it's probably quite tame... I read the idea in another thread on this board, and thought it was a really good idea.