http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e94fe0b4-0ade-46a0-be73-35f8345b7d7f

Chris Wattie

National Post

November 4, 2004

Canadians are more aggressive than their own government and even most Americans when it comes to sending soldiers into harm's way, a new public opinion poll finds.

A poll conducted for the Dominion Institute and the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute suggests an overwhelming majority of Canadians are willing to commit our troops to a wide range of overseas missions, even when it means possible Canadian casualties.

"Despite our reputation as the peaceable kingdom and seeing the Americans as sort of pre-emptive warmongers, Canadians are very comfortable with a more muscular use of our military," said Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute.

"This [poll] suggests there's a bit of a disconnect between our elites' opinion of Canada's military and its role in the world ... and most Canadians' gut reaction -- that our military is there to be used."

The poll, which is to be released today, found that more than three-quarters of those surveyed supported sending the Canadian Forces abroad in five of six hypothetical situations.

An overwhelming 92% of respondents supported Canadian troops being deployed to assist a nation struck by famine; 84% said they should be sent to uphold international law; 79% said our military should be used to bring peace in a civil war; 78% supported using them to liberate hostages; and 73% favoured sending in the army to destroy a terrorist base.

Only a hypothetical mission to ensure Canada's oil supply was not supported by a majority of those polled, with 47% supporting such a mission for our military.

Canadians' opinions on the use of military force were more aggressive even than most Americans, who were asked the same questions by a U.S.-based think-tank on foreign policy in 2002.

Canadians were more likely than Americans to support sending in the troops in three of the categories (assisting in a famine, upholding international law and ending civil wars), and were tied with U.S. respondents in their willingness to use the military to free hostages.

Americans were more likely to favour military action to destroy terrorist camps (92%) and to protect oil supplies (65%).

The survey, conducted by the Toronto-based Innovative Research Group, contacted 500 people between Oct. 21 and 28, and is considered accurate within 4.38 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

The poll found Canadians were willing to commit soldiers overseas even in instances where our national interests or the lives of Canadian citizens were not at risk.

They were also undeterred by the prospect of Canadian troops suffering casualties, with a majority of respondents saying they would still support a deployment abroad even if there is the potential for soldiers to lose their lives.

"Most Canadians seem to understand what the military is for -- to put themselves in harm's way," Mr. Griffiths said. "Whether we have the [military] capability to back this up is another question. [But] maybe there are some glimmers of hope here for the military."

The federal Liberals have come under fire for starving the Canadian Forces of funds and saddling them with ageing or possibly faulty equipment.

The government has yet to sign a contract for a replacement for the 43-year-old Sea King helicopters, and a $750-million deal to buy four used British submarines has been questioned after a fire broke out on one sub, HMCS Chicoutimi, while it was sailing from its British base to Canada, killing one crew member.

Sean Maloney, a professor at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., said the public appears to be ahead of the government in understanding how best to use our military.

"The Canadian people seem to have a general understanding that military force is an important tool of governments ... in this increasingly dangerous world," he said. "They don't seem to be swallowing the fantasies of the 'soft power' crowd -- they have a much more realistic outlook."

Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, last month ruled out any future Canadian contribution to U.S.-led operations in Iraq, and Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, has said Canada will not take up a U.S. request that it send CF-18 fighter-bombers to provide air cover for anti-terrorist missions in Afghanistan.

Despite repeated United Nations calls for intervention in the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, the government has so far offered only two staff officers and a promise of used body armour and helmets to equip African peacekeepers.

Canada sent only a small contingent to Haiti last year after that Caribbean nation threatened to descend into anarchy and did not replace the troops when they left after six months.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108296072460
Feb. 13, 2005. 01:01 PM
More troops to Afghanistan
Humanitarian projects big part of role

MUNICH, Germany (AP) — Canada will nearly double the number of troops it has in Afghanistan by this summer and is considering sending a combat brigade to the Kandahar region early next year, Defence Minister Bill Graham told The Associated Press today.
Canada currently has some 600 troops serving in the Afghan capital of Kabul with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, and plans to put a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in the southern city of Kandahar by August, Graham said.
The PRT, which aims to boost stability while working on humanitarian projects such as building schools and clinics, would be part of an overall expansion of peacekeepers into the southern region later this year.
"Canada will be there for establishing a PRT in Kandahar in August, that will be the first step," Graham told AP on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. "We will have the 600 in Kabul still, so that means we'll be up to the 1,000 to 1,100 range."
At a NATO defence ministers' meeting in France on Thursday, Canada expressed willingness to take a leading role in the Kandahar area. Graham said that could include adding a brigade of between 700 and 1,200 troops to the region in spring 2006, ready to take part in combat operations, in addition to the PRT.
"If we were to put the additional brigade in, obviously it would be part of Operation Enduring Freedom," he said, using the name of Washington's anti-terrorism drive in Afghanistan.
If the combat brigade is sent in, Graham said the Kabul-based peacekeepers would likely come home, although those being sent to Kandahar would remain.
He emphasized, however, that the exact Canadian role in Kandahar will depend on many factors, including the stability of the region, and it "is something that is being fleshed out at this time."
Canada supports the U.S. push to integrate the NATO mission in Iraq with the U.S.-led mission currently fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but is still studying how closely the two forces should be fused, Graham said.

gotta make sure that gets put in there. Wouldn't want the folks at home to think we were actually, you know FIGHTING, or anything like that. Not like those mean ol' Americans, or scary, scary Brits. Oh no! Not us! Nobody EVER shoots at us.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/02/14/930500-sun.html

Operation Kandahar
AP

MUNICH, Germany -- Canada will nearly double the number of troops it has in Afghanistan by this summer and is considering sending a combat brigade to the Kandahar region early next year, Defence Minister Bill Graham told The Associated Press yesterday. Canada currently has some 600 troops serving in the Afghan capital of Kabul with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, and plans to put a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in the southern city of Kandahar by August, Graham said.

Maj. Scott Lundy, spokesman for the Edmonton-based Land Force Western Area, confirmed "discussions are underway to mount a PRT in the Kandahar province as early as August."

Lundy added he was not in a position to confirm where those soldiers would come from, but said he may learn more from Ottawa today.

The PRT, which aims to boost stability while working on humanitarian projects such as building schools and clinics, would be part of an overall expansion of peacekeepers into the southern region later this year.

"Canada will be there for establishing a PRT in Kandahar in August. That will be the first step," Graham told AP on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. "We will have the 600 in Kabul still, so that means we'll be up to the 1,000 to 1,100 range."

At a NATO defence ministers meeting in France on Thursday, Canada expressed willingness to take a leading role in the Kandahar area.

Graham said that could include adding a brigade of between 700 and 1,200 troops to the region in spring 2006, ready to take part in combat operations, in addition to the PRT.

"If we were to put the additional brigade in, obviously it would be part of Operation Enduring Freedom," he said, using the name of Washington's anti-terrorism drive in Afghanistan.

If the combat brigade is sent in, Graham said the Kabul-based peacekeepers would likely come home, although those being sent to Kandahar would remain.

He emphasized, however, that the exact Canadian role in Kandahar will depend on many factors, including the stability of the region, and it "is something that is being fleshed out at this time."

Canada supports the U.S. push to integrate the NATO mission in Iraq with the U.S.-led mission currently fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but is still studying how closely the two forces should be fused, Graham said.

Seven Canadian soldiers have lost their lives since the Afghan mission began in February 2002.