From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada's involvement in the war in
Afghanistan is highly controversial with the Canadian
public
[1], with polls repeatedly showing
Canadians opposed to continued
military participation in Afghanistan.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Canadian
public opinion
2009
- December 2009 Angus Reid poll: The majority
66% of Canadians oppose sending any more troops to Afghanistan
despite the recently reported plans by the United States and
Britain to do so. Only a minority 28% would support sending any
more troops. The majority 53% of Canadians also continue to oppose
the country's involvement in military operations in Afghanistan,
while 42% support it. At the time of the poll, the number of
Canadian soldiers killed in the war stood at 133.[8]
- December 2009 Ekos poll: The majority 52% of
Canadians oppose another extension of the military operations in
Afghanistan past 2011 even if the Americans requested it, and only
32% would support it. The majority of Canadians believe that the
Canadian military forces in Afghanistan detained and handed people
over to Afghan authorities while the government of Canada was aware
that there was a strong possibility that these people would be
tortured: The majority 61% of Canadians believe that people
detained by Canadian military forces in Afghanistan and handed over
to Afghan authorities have been tortured. Of those that believe
Afghan detainees were tortured, the majority 83% believe that the
government of Canada was aware of the strong possibility that this
would happen. The plurality 41% of Canadians are dissatisfied with
the federal government's level of transparency and disclosure on
the issue, while only 24% of Canadians are satisfied by it.[9]
[10][11]
- November 2009 Angus Reid poll: The majority
53% of Canadians want a public inquiry to be launched to determine
what the Canadian government and military knew about reports of
prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, while only 36% disagree with
one.[12]
- November 2009 Harris-Decima poll: The majority
51% of Canadians believe Richard Colvin's testimony that Afghans
detained and handed over by Canadian military forces to Afghan
authorities were likely abused and that Canadian government
officials were well aware of it. In stark contrast, only 25%
believe the Harper government's contention that the Canadian
diplomat's claims are flimsy and not credible. Fully 70% of
Canadians say it is unacceptable that Canadian forces would hand
over detainees if it is likely they would be tortured.[13][14]
- November 2009 Leger Marketing poll: The
majority of Canadians do not think that sending Canadian military
troops to Afghanistan is morally the right thing to do, and only
30% think it is. Almost half of Canadians, 45%, say the military
campaign in Afghanistan is not driven by Canadian morals or values,
and at least another two in 10 Canadians say that the military
campaign in Afghanistan is morally wrong. The poll was conducted in
late October, before the most-recent torture allegations came to
light.[15]
- October 2009 Innovative Research Group poll:
The majority 76% of Canadians oppose keeping any Canadian military
forces in Afghanistan beyond 2011: 53% want to end the military
mission "and concentrate exclusively on humanitarian work and
reconstruction", and 23% want Canada to "end to all of its
activities, military and non-military" and "get out"
completely in 2011. Only a minority 15% support having the military
stay in some form past 2011. According to the online poll
commissioned by the Canadian
Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, 50% of Canadians oppose
having troops in Afghanistan, while support was at 45%.[16][17]
- October 2009 Harris Decima poll: The majority
56% of Canadians oppose the government's commitment to having
troops in Afghanistan, up from 54% in May. Only 9% "strongly
support" it, while twice as many, 21% of Canadians
"strongly oppose" having troops in Afghanistan. The
majority 86% of Canadians want the troops to be out of Afghanistan
before or by the current end date in 2011: The plurality 45% of
Canadians believe Canada should stay until the current end date in
2011 but not extend past it, while 41% want Canada to bring the
troops back early before 2011. Only a minority 10% of Canadians
support keeping military troops in Afghanistan past 2011. The
plurality 49% of Canadians support ending the military mission and
replacing it with a civilian mission, while 40% oppose a civilian
mission after 2011. In a dichotomy
between voter groups, only among Conservative voters was there
majority support for having troops in Afghanistan.[18
]
- October 2009 Angus Reid poll: The majority 56%
of Canadians oppose Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan,
an increase in opposition to the war from 52% in July. A minority
37% support the military involvement, a drop in support from 43% in
July. At the time of the poll, the number of Canadian soldiers
killed by the war stood at 131.[19]
- September 2009 Ekos poll: The majority 52% of
Canadians oppose Canadian military participation in Afghanistan,
while only 33% support it - the lowest level of support that has
been measured by Ekos between 2001 and 2009.[20][21]
- September 2009 Leger Marketing poll: Canadians
massively want Canada to leave the combat role in Afghanistan. The
82% majority of Canadians want Canada to end its combat role and
either focus on training and development only or bring the Canadian
troops home as soon as possible: 45% of Canadians want Canada to
end the combat role and "provide help in training and development
only" and 37% of Canadians want their troops to just "leave
Afghanistan as soon as possible". Only 12% thought Canadian troops
should "stay in combat roles until the war is won", while 6% did
not know or refused to answer.[22]
- July 2009: Angus Reid poll: The majority of
Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan. 52% of
Canadians oppose the military operation, while only 43% support it.
Strong opposition to the military operation reaches 31%, while
strong support was markedly lower at only 17%. Only 38% of
Canadians think their country did the right thing in sending
military forces to Afghanistan. 40% feel they do not have a clear
idea of what the war in Afghanistan is about, but the majority 60%
do.[23][24]
- July 2009: Ekos poll: The majority 54% of
Canadians oppose Canada's military participation in Afghanistan,
while support for the mission has fallen to just one in three, at
34%. On a vote
intention basis, only within Conservative Party supporters was
there a slight majority in support at 51%. In every other voter
group, (Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc, undecided,) the majority oppose
Canadian military participation in Afghanistan. On the day the poll
was released, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in the war
reached 125.[25][26]
[27]
- July 2009: Ipsos Reid poll: When presented
with four options for what should happen after the current mission
ends, the majority 52% of Canadians said Canadian troops should
leave Afghanistan, 27% said Canada should only stay if in a
non-combat role, while only 14% said the mission should be extended
as is in its current role, and 7% said they did not know. Changing
or ending the current mission prior to 2011 was not an option
available to respondents in the Ipos-Reid poll.[28][29]
- June 2009: Pew Global: One in two Canadians
(50%) want U.S. and NATO military troops to be removed from
Afghanistan "as soon as possible", while 43% want them kept there
until the situation has stabilised. 7% did not know.[30] The
majority 55% of Canadians disapprove of U.S. President Obama
sending additional troops to Afghanistan, while 42% approve.[31]
- May 2009: Angus Reid poll: Half of Canadians
are adamant about ending the Afghan mission before 2011, and the
vast majority of Canadians, 84%, want the country's military
presence in Afghanistan to wane by 2011. 51% of Canadians want the
bulk of the troops to be withdrawn before 2011. 33% think the bulk
of the troops should be withdrawn in 2011. Only 7% would keep
Canadian troops in Afghanistan past 2011. The majority of
Canadians, 57%, continue to disagree with the government's latest
extension from February 2009 to 2011. At the time of the poll, the
number of Canadian soldiers killed in the war stood at 118.[32]
- May 2009: Harris-Decima poll: The majority 54%
of Canadians continue to oppose the government's commitment to
having troops in Afghanistan, while 39% support it. Almost 90% of
Canadians want their troops out of Afghanistan before or by the
scheduled end date in 2011. 40% of Canadians want the troops
brought back early while 46% say they should be withdrawn in July
2011. Only 8% think the mission should continue past July 2011. 54%
of Canadians do not think the additional increases in U.S. troops
will succeed, while 41% do.[33]
[34]
- April 2009: Harris-Decima poll: A majority of
Canadians are opposed to the government's commitment to have troops
in Afghanistan. Overall, 55% of Canadians oppose the military
mission in Afghanistan, while only 40% support it. The depth of the
opposition is particularly notable: Three times more Canadians are
strongly opposed to the mission (27%) than strongly support it
(9%). 37% of those that support the mission would withdraw that
support if the controversial Afghan law affecting women's rights is
enacted.
[35][36]
- March 2009: Ipsos Reid poll: Half, 50%, of
Canadians want their soldiers to return to a "peacekeeping only"
role in the world. The question used by Ispos Reid and the
percentages for other possible responses were not disclosed.
According to the survey, Canadians support deployment of troops
when it is "an observation and monitoring role over a more
aggressive one for the military". The Ipsos Reid study for the Department of
National Defence was conducted in March 2009 but was only found
released on a federal government website and reported to the public
6 months later in September 2009.[37]
- February 2009: Angus Reid poll: A majority 52%
of Canadians continue to disagree with the government's latest
extension of the military mission in Afghanistan until 2011, and
half of Canadians would end the mission. 48% of Canadians want the
bulk of Canadian troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan before the
year 2011, that is, before the government's announced withdrawal at
the end of its latest extension into the end of 2011. 35% thought
that the bulk of the troops should be brought home in 2011. Only 7%
thought the bulk of the troops should remain in Afghanistan past
2011. At the time of the publication of the poll, 112 Canadian
soldiers had died in the war.[38][39]
- February 2009: Angus Reid poll: 65% of
Canadians say no to keeping troops in Afghanistan should President
Obama request it, while only 20% said yes.[40]
- January 2009 - Ekos poll: 55% of Canadians
oppose an extension of the mission in Afghanistan if requested by
President Obama, while only 30% support it.[41][42]
2008
- December 2008: Angus Reid poll: A majority 58%
of Canadians continue to disagree with the government's latest
extension of the military mission in Afghanistan until 2011, up
from 56% the previous month, and Canadians want a quicker end to
the Afghan mission. A majority 53% of Canadians want the bulk of
the troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan before the year 2011,
that is, before the government's announced withdrawal at the end of
its latest extension into the end of 2011. Only a minority 30%,
down from 33% the previous month, thought that the bulk of the
troops should stay in Afghanistan until 2011 at which point they
should be withdrawn. Only 8% thought the bulk of the troops should
remain in Afghanistan past 2011. At the time of the publication of
the poll, 106 Canadian soldiers had died in the war.[43][44]
- November 2008: Angus Reid poll: A majority 56%
of Canadians continue to disagree with their government's proposed
extension of the military mission in Afghanistan until 2011, and a
majority 53% of Canadians call for the bulk of Canadian troops to
be withdrawn from Afghanistan even before 2011. 33% think the bulk
of the troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011. Only 7%
would agree to any further extension past 2011.
[45]
[46]
- September 2008: Strategic Counsel poll: The
majority 61% of Canadians oppose sending troops to Afghanistan,
while only a minority 35% support it. Forming the largest group of
respondents, 33% of Canadians "strongly oppose" sending troops to
Afghanistan. These numbers show the highest level of opposition and
the lowest level of support in the 12 times that Strategic Counsel
has asked Canadians this question since May 2006.
[47]
- September 2008: Angus Reid poll: The majority
of Canadians continue to oppose an extension past February 2009 of
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. 59% of Canadians disagree
with their government's proposed extension of the mission past
February 2009, while only a minority 34% agree with it.
[48] The vast majority of
Canadians, 75%, continue to believe that Canada is shouldering too
much of the burden on NATO's mission in Afghanistan, while only a
small minority 14% disagree with that view.
[49]
- September 2008: Environics poll: The number of
Canadians who disapprove of their country's military action in
Afghanistan is at its highest point since Canada became involved in
the war in 2002. The majority 56% of Canadians disapprove of their
country's military action in Afghanistan, while only a minority 41%
approve of it. Almost two-thirds of Canadians, 65%, say the mission
is not likely to be successful, while only 28% think it is likely
to be successful. The majority 54% of Canadians disagree with an
extension of the mission past February 2009, while a minority 41%
agree with it.
[50][51]
- August 2008: Harris Decima poll: The majority
of Canadians believe their country is paying too high a price in
blood and treasure for its military involvement in Afghanistan and
do not want to stay longer in Afghanistan. 61% of Canadians believe
the cost of the military mission in lives and money is
unacceptable, while only 32% think it is acceptable. The majority
57% of Canadians do not want to stay longer in Afghanistan, while
only a minority 33% agree with an extension.[52]
- July 2008: Angus Reid poll: The majority of
Canadians believe their government was wrong to lengthen their
country’s military mission in Afghanistan. 58% of Canadians
disagree with their government's proposed extension of the mission
past February 2009, while only a minority 36% agree with it.
[53]
- July 2008: Ipsos Reid poll: Only a minority
29% of Canadians are "fairly content" about Canada's participation
in the war in Afghanistan. The remaining 71% of Canadians are
either "really upset", "really angry", or "resigned" about Canada's
participation in the war. The plurality, 37% of Canadians, are
"really upset but not able to do anything about it, so I keep it
bottled up until I can"; 29% are "fairly content because it/they
really don’t affect or matter that much to me"; 24% are "resigned
pretty much not to do anything since there’s no sense making any
noise because nothing ever happens as a result"; and 10% are
"really angry and I’m for sure going to/already doing something
about it".[54]
- May 2008: Angus Reid poll: The majority of
Canadians believe their government was wrong to lengthen their
country’s military mission in Afghanistan. 54% of Canadians
disagree with their government's proposed extension of the military
mission past February 2009, while only a minority 41% agree with
it.
[53]
- March 2008: Environics poll: The majority 54%
of Canadians disapprove of their country's military action in
Afghanistan, while only a minority 44% approve of it.
[50]
- March 2008: Angus Reid poll: The majority of
Canadians believe their government was wrong to lengthen their
country’s military mission in Afghanistan. 58% of Canadians
disagree with their government's proposed extension of the military
mission past February 2009, while only a minority 37% agree with
it.
[53]
- February 2008: Strategic Counsel poll: The
majority 61% of Canadians oppose an extension past February 2009,
while only a minority 35% support one.
[55]
- February 2008: Angus Reid poll: The majority
58% of Canadians disagree with an extension of the military mission
past February 2009, while only a minority 36% agree with it.
[56]
- January 2008: Ipsos Reid poll: Only a minority
35% of Canadians approve of the so-called Manley Panel's
recommendations for Canada's troops in Afghanistan. Ipsos Reid
characterizes this result as "Canadians Receive Manley Plan
Cautiously".[57]
- January 2008: Strategic Counsel poll: The
majority 56% of Canadians oppose sending troops to Afghanistan,
while only a minority 39% support. The overwhelming majority 78% of
Canadians think the combat role should end, while only a small
minority 17% think the combat role should continue. The plurality
47% of Canadians want the troops to return as soon as possible.[58]
2007
- December 2007: Angus Reid poll: The majority
61% of Canadians disagree with an extension of the military mission
past February 2009, while only a minority 28% agree with it. The
majority 53% of Canadians want an early withdrawal of their troops
from Afghanistan even before February 2009, while only 39%
disagree.
[56]
- October 2007: Environics poll: Fewer than
half, 45%, of Canadians support the current mission, a plurality
43% of Canadians want Canadian troops to be brought home even
before the mission is scheduled to end in February 2009, and only
one in three think that the mission is likely to be successful in
the end.[59]
- October 2007: Ipsos Reid poll: Only a small
minority 14% believe Canada should continue in its current role,
while 40% believe Canada should switch to a training capacity, and
the plurality 44% of respondents believe troops should be brought
home in 2009. The remaining 2% of respondents said they did not
know. Ipsos Reid, the only polling firm with results markedly
different from those of all the other polls around the same time,
took these results and combined the first two figures to suggest
that a majority 54% of Canadians want Canada to stay in
Afghanistan, while 44% do not. They chose not to, however, combine
the last two figures in exactly the same way to show that an
overwhelming 84% majority of Canadians believe Canada should not
continue in its current role, while only a small minority 14%
do.
[60] A report from a senior
defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations reveals
that the firm Ipsos Reid was under contract from the Canadian
Department of National Defence over the period from September
19-21, 2006 to March 20-22, 2007.[61] The
Conference of Defence Associations itself had a five-year funding
agreement with the Department of National Defence, effective from
April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2012.[62][63][64]
- September 2007: Angus Reid poll: Over
two-thirds of Canadians do not want Canada to extend the Afghan
mission past its scheduled end date in February 2009. The majority
68% of Canadians disagree with an extension of the military mission
past February 2009, while only a minority 20% agree with one. The
majority 56% of Canadians also think that Canada should leave
Afghanistan early, even before the mandate ends in February 2009,
while only 35% disagreed. Two-thirds, 67%, of Canadians also
believe Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of NATO's
mission in Afghanistan.[65]
- August 2007: Angus Reid poll: Nearly 1 in 2
Canadians, 49%, think the NATO mission in Afghanistan has been
mostly a failure. Only 22% of Canadians think it has been mostly a
success.[66]
- August 2007: Ipsos Reid poll: In a statistical
tie within the poll's 3.1% margin of error, 51% of Canadians
support the mission while 45% oppose it.
[60]
- July 2007: Strategic Counsel poll: The
majority 59% of Canadians oppose sending troops to Afghanistan,
while only a minority 36% support.[67][68]
- July 2007: Decima Research poll: The majority
67% of Canadians believe the number of casualties have been
unacceptable, while only 25% said the number of killed and wounded
was acceptable. At the time of the poll, Canada had lost 66
soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan.
[69][70
][71
]
- July 2007: Angus Reid poll: The majority 63%
of Canadians disagree with an extension of the military mission
past February 2009, while only a small minority 16% agree with it.
A plurality 49% of Canadians think their country should withdraw
its troops from Afghanistan even before their mandate ends in
February 2009. The majority 58% think Canada is shouldering too
much of the burden.
[56]
[72]
- July 2007: Ipsos Reid poll: In a statistical
tie within the poll's 3.1% margin of error, 50% of Canadians
support the mission while 45% oppose it.[73]
- June 2007: Decima Research poll: The majority
two-thirds 67% of Canadians want the military mission in
Afghanistan to end in Feb. 2009, while only a small minority 26%
think it should be extended past Feb. 2009.[74][75]
- May 2007: Strategic Counsel poll: The majority
55% of Canadians oppose the military mission in Afghanistan, while
a minority 40% support it. Only 6% say they strongly support it,
while 4 times as many, 24% say they strongly oppose it. There was
almost two-to-one support for negotiation with Afghanistan's
Taliban insurgents. A majority 63% of Canadians think that it is a
net good idea to negotiate with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents,
while only a minority of 32% think it is a net bad idea.
[76]
- May 2007: Angus Reid poll: 50% of Canadians
think Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before
their mandate ends in February 2009. The majority 55% think Canada
is shouldering too much of the burden.
[72]
- May 2007: SES Research poll: The majority
two-thirds of Canadians think their country's presence in
Afghanistan makes Canada more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The
majority 55% said Canada should pull out of Afghanistan if
casualties continue, while 39% said casualties are an unfortunate
but necessary part of the military. At the time of the poll, Canada
had lost 54 soldiers and one diplomat to violence in
Afghanistan.[77]
- April 2007: Strategic Counsel poll: The
majority 57% of Canadians oppose the military mission in
Afghanistan, while a minority 36% support it.
[76]
- April 2007: Ipsos Reid poll: Almost two-thirds
of Canadians say the country's troops should be brought home from
Afghanistan on schedule in February 2009. The majority 63% of
Canadians want the troops brought home on schedule by February
2009.[78]
- April 2007: Angus Reid poll: The majority 52%
of Canadians think Canada should withdraw its troops from
Afghanistan before their mandate ends in February 2009. The
majority 64% think Canada is shouldering too much of the
burden.
[72][79]
Dichotomy
between Conservative and other voters
In the October 8-12, 2009 poll by The Canadian Press / Harris
Decima, in which the majority 56% of Canadians opposed having
Canadian troops in Afghanistan, only among one group of
respondents, Conservative voters, was there majority support (56%)
for having troops in Afghanistan.[18
]
In all other voter groups, strong majorities oppose having
Canadian troops in Afghanistan. The majority 60% of Liberal, 64% of
NDP, 78% of Green, and 86% of Bloc voters oppose keeping Canadian
troops in Afghanistan. Among those that "strongly oppose" are 21%
of Liberal, 32% of NDP, 40% of Green, and 23% of Bloc voters. The
highest level of "strongly support" came from Conservative voters
at only 16%. Only 9% of Liberal voters "strongly support" having
troops in Afghanistan.[18
]
The highest level of support for another extension involving
military troops also came from Conservative voters, but at only 15%
support. Strong majorities in all voter groups, Conservative voters
as well, oppose extending the mission again: 81% of Conservative,
86% of Liberal, 92% of NDP, 94% of Green, and 93% of Bloc voters
oppose an extension involving military troops.[18
]
Similarly, only among Conservative voters was there a majority
in favour of having a civilian mission after 2011. The majority 61%
of Conservatives favoured ending the military mission in 2011 and
replacing it with a civilian mission.[18
]
In the July 8-14, 2009 Ekos poll, in which the majority 54% of
Canadians opposed the Canadian military participation in
Afghanistan, only among one group of respondents, Conservative
voters, was there majority support for the military participation
in Afghanistan at 51%.
[27]
In all other voter groups, majorities oppose Canada's military
participation in Afghanistan. The majority 58% of Liberal, 72% of
NDP, 65% of Green, 77% of Bloc, and 51% of undecided voters oppose
Canada's military participation in Afghanistan.
[27]
In the April 2-5, 2009 Harris Decima poll in which the majority
55% of Canadians opposed having troops in Afghanistan, only among
one group of respondents, Conservative voters, was there majority
support (58%) for having troops in Afghanistan.
[35]
In all other voter groups, clear majorities oppose having
Canadian troops in Afghanistan. The majority 57% of Liberal, 60% of
NDP, 61% of Green, and 77% of Bloc voters oppose keeping Canadian
troops in Afghanistan. Among those that "strongly oppose" are 26%
of Liberal, 35% of NDP, 33% of Green, and 34% of Bloc voters. The
highest level of "strongly support" came from Conservative voters
at only 14%. Only 8% of Liberal voters "strongly support" having
troops in Afghanistan.
[35]
In the December 2-8 2009 Ekos poll that found the majority 52%
of Canadians opposed to yet a third extension, only among one group
of respondents, Conservative voters, was there more support than
opposition for an extension. The plurality 46% of Conservative
voters support extending the military operations again past 2011,
while 36% of Conservatives oppose another extension. In every other
voting group, however, the majority oppose an extension: 56% of
Liberal voters, 60% of NDP voters, 61% of Green Party voters, 69%
of Bloc Quebecois voters, and 53% of undecided voters all oppose
yet an extension.
[10]
Likewise on the issue of torture by Afghan authorities, only
among Conservative voters do a majority, 54%, think that no
detainees handed over by Canadian forces were tortured by Afghan
authorities. Almost half, 46%, of Conservative voters, however, do
think that detainees were tortured. In every other voting roup, the
majority believes that detainees have been tortured by Afghan
authorities: 69% of Liberal, 71% of NDP, 70% of Green, 77% of Bloc,
and 57% of undecided voters think that detainees have been tortured
by Afghan authorities.
[10]
Issues affecting
Canadian public opinion
Human cost
of the war
Among the issues affecting Canadian public opinion on the war,
the human cost of the war is often at the forefront.
[1]
[80]
A survey in August 2008 found that 61% of Canadians believe the
cost of the military mission, in both lives and money, is
unacceptable, while only 32% found it acceptable. The majority 57%
of Canadians did not want to stay longer in Afghanistan, while only
a minority 33% agreed with an extension.
[1]
Canadian
deaths
Canadian soldiers in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
In the past eight years that the Canadian military has been in
Afghanistan, 138 Canadian soldiers have been killed in the war or
in support of the war in Afghanistan, with the vast proportion of
the deaths occurring from 2006 onward.
| Year |
Number |
| 2002 |
4 |
| 2003 |
2 |
| 2004 |
1 |
| 2005 |
1 |
| 2006 |
36 |
| 2007 |
30 |
| 2008 |
32 |
| 2009 |
32 |
| 2010 |
- |
| 2011 |
- |
| Total |
138 |
One senior Foreign
Affairs official, one journalist, and three Canadian aid
workers have also been killed by the war in Afghanistan.
In July 2007, two-thirds of Canadians believed the number of
casualties that Canada had suffered in Afghanistan was
"unacceptably high". Only 25% found the number of killed and
wounded to be acceptable. At the time, Canada had lost 66 soldiers
and one diplomat.[70
][71
] The number of casualties has more than doubled
since.
Disproportionate
contribution in lives
Canada has sacrificed a disproportionate number of lives to the
war in Afghanistan compared to other NATO and coalition countries,
including the U.S. itself, both on the basis of lives lost per
domestic capita and on the basis of casualty rate of troops in
Afghanistan.
[81][82
][83
]
[84][85]
By as early as the end of summer 2006, Canadians were bearing
the brunt of coalition casualties in Afghanistan.
[80]
[84]
[86]
[87] A study by defence researchers
found that:
[80]
[84]
- A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar was six times more
likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving
in Iraq.
- Canadians accounted for 43% of all coalition military deaths
from February to September 2006 (not including 5 deaths from
accidents).
- Canada had suffered more deaths from hostile action in
Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally, with two in five of the
non-U.S. deaths.
- A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was three times more likely to
be killed in hostile action than a British soldier in
Afghanistan.
- A Canadian soldier in Kandahar was 4.5 times more likely to be
killed in hostile action than an American soldier in
Afghanistan.
In September 2006, UK statistician Sheila M. Bird,
vice-president of Britain's Royal Statistical Society and
author of a similar risk assesment study, noted that Canadian
soldiers were facing twice possibly four times the risk of death
that British soldiers faced in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She
emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely"
riskier than what Americans face in Iraq and stated that what the
Canadians are confronting is "as dangerous as what the Russians
were facing 20 years ago." The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat
in 1989 after a nine-year campaign.
[87]
[80][88]
A study by Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire
stated that the lower level of lethality for U.S. troops in
Afghanistan than in Iraq, as well as its decline between 2005 and
2006, were primarily because the United States had
"successfully "convinced" NATO member countries (especially
Canada and Britain) to increasingly bear the brunt of the combat in
southern Afghanistan, experiencing far greater lethality
ratios."
[89]
Table: Lethality ratios in Afghanistan, 2006 (soldiers killed
in-theater / 1,000 troop level in-theater)
[89]
| Country |
Deaths per
1,000 troops |
| Canada |
14.4 |
| United Kingdom |
6.3 - 9.8 |
| NATO |
5.0 |
| United States |
4.45 |
| Soviet Union (1980s) |
12.5 |
An analysis in October 2007 by Professor Sheila Bird of Cambridge University for Danish newspaper
Politiken
continued to show a Canadian casualty rate disproportionately
higher than those of other countries: For the period from May 2006
to about October 2007, Canada's casualty rate was 17 per 1,000
troops, while Britain's was 9 per 1,000 troops, and Denmark's was 7
per 1,000 troops.
[90]
A 2007 study by the Department of
National Defence also found that Canadian soldiers operating in
Kandahar were at significantly higher risk of dying compared to
their British and American counterparts.
[91]
Canada's disproportionately high casualty rates, the highest of
all NATO and coalition countries as a proportion of troops in
Afghanistan, have also been noted by the government-commissioned
Manley panel report released in February 2008, as well as by other
observers.
[81][82
]
[91][92]
Subsequent to March 2008, only one other country has lost more
lives on a per domestic capita basis than Canada. (Denmark, with a
population of only 5.5 million people, lost a 13th soldier in
Afghanistan in March 2008 when Canada's toll was at 78).
A February 2009 comparison of troop deaths relative to domestic
population size showed that Canada had 3.2 soldiers killed per
million population, far ahead of the United Kingdom at 2.3 per
million, and the United States at 2.1 per million population. Other
major European NATO countries such as France, Germany, and Italy
were entirely out of the top 10.[83
][93][94]
Table: Canadian deaths per capita compared to the U.S. and U.K.
(as of February 2009)
| Country |
Deaths per
million capita |
| Canada |
3.2 |
| United Kingdom |
2.3 |
| United States |
2.1 |
NATO officials have also reported that Canadians have suffered
more deaths per capita than any other foreign contingent serving in
Afghanistan.
[95]
In April 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated:
|
|
“ |
"Canada has had, per capita, by far the highest casualties
in Afghanistan."
|
” |
| |
— Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April
2, 2009 interview on Britain's Sky TV
[96]
[97]
|
Again in October 2009, the CBC reported that
"the Afghan mission is taking a much bigger toll on Canadian
forces, proportionately speaking, than the other major coalition
nations." Analysis from the U.K. Medical Research Council's
Biostatistics Unit showed Canadian troops consistently being killed
at a higher rate than American and British troops in the three year
period from May 2006 to May 2009.[98]
[99]
Table: Canadian deaths compared to the U.S. and U.K. (May 2006 -
May 2009)
[99])
| Country |
Deaths per 1,000 personnel
years
May 1, 2006 - November 11, 2007 |
Deaths per 1,000 personnel
years
November 12, 2007 - May 17, 2009 |
| Canada |
15.7 |
12.2 |
| United Kingdom |
8.9 |
6.5 |
| United States |
4.9 |
4.1 |
The disproportionate toll paid in Canadian lives is reflected in
public opinion
regarding Canada's share of the burden.
Civilian deaths in
Afghanistan
The war in Afghanistan has caused the deaths of thousands of
Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military
action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands more
Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement,
starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and
lawlessness resulting from the war.
Afghan civilians
killed by Canadian forces
Canadian forces operating in Afghanistan have directly killed at
least 16 Afghan civilians and 2 Afghan police officers, and wounded
numerous others, just in incidents around Canadian convoys,
checkpoints, and security cordons. Of the 16 Afghan civilians
killed by Canadian forces in these "force protection" incidents, 6 have
been children. However, the number of Afghan civilians that have
been killed by Canadian artillery or mortar bombardment or other tactics during
operations has not been reported and is not known. The number of
Afghan civilians that have been indirectly killed or wounded by
Canadian soldiers calling in airstrikes by American
or other forces has not been reported and is also not known.
A military convoy amid other traffic in Afghanistan.
- On March 14, 2006, Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan
fatally shot a civilian in a taxi that had come too close to their
patrol. Lt.-Col. Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force
Afghanistan, was quoted as saying that Canadian troops had fired at
roughly 10 Afghan vehicles in the past month. The dead man's
relatives were incensed that the Canadian troops left him after the
shooting, with one saying, "The Canadians even insulted the dead
body. They didn't take him to the hospital or the base. They just
threw him on the side of the road." A Canadian Forces medic had
treated the wounded man at the scene, but said he didn't consider
the victim's injuries to be life-threatening at the time.[100][101]
- On August 22, 2006, Canadian soldiers killed a 10-year-old boy
and injured a teenage boy on a motorcycle when they failed to heed
warnings to stop as they approached a security cordon at Camp Nathan
Smith, about two hours after a suicide bomb attack. The attack
outside the base occurred just days after a Canadian and NATO
aerial and assault in nearby Panjwaii.[102]
- On August 26, 2006, Canadian soldiers shot and killed an Afghan
National Police officer and injured 4 other police officers in a
truck after they opened fire in response to warning shots. About 45
minutes later on the same day, two other police officers on a
motorcycle were shot and wounded as they approached the same
position about 25 km west of Kandahar city.[103]
- On December 12, 2006, a Canadian soldier on guard duty at a
checkpoint outside the provincial governor's palace shot and killed
a locally famous Afghan senior citizen who was approaching the
palace on motorcycle. The man, 90 year-old Haji Abdul Rahman, an
elderly former teacher and frequent visitor to the palace, had come
to pay a visit to his old pupil: Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.
[104][105
]
- On February 17, 2007, Canadian soldiers shot and killed an
unarmed Afghan civilian as the man wandered in the middle of the
road chanting to himself near the village of Senjray, about
12 km west of Kandahar city. Soldiers mistakenly believed he
was a suicide bomber because he had not heeded repeated warnings to
stay away and had what looked like wires protruding from his
jacket. Those wires turned out to be pieces of twine that bound the
victim's jacket together.
[106][107
]
[108]
[109][110]
- On February 18, 2007, Canadian troops mistakenly gunned down an
Afghan National Police officer, 31-year-old Gulab Shah, and a
homeless beggar after their convoy had been ambushed in Kandahar City.[111] In
a separate incident, on February 12, 2007, an Afghan army officer
was wounded after being hit by Canadian gunfire as his convoy came
across a disabled Canadian Nyala vehicle.[107
]
[108]
- On February 27, 2007, Canadian soldiers killed an Afghan
civilian and wounded another when their vehicle failed to heed
signals to stop as they approached a security cordon around an
armoured vehicle that had broken down on the road. The Canadian
Forces had sent a message in the previous week to troops to use
more restraint before opening fire to avoid killing civilians.
[106]
[108]
- On October 2, 2007, Canadian forces killed an Afghan boy,
Esmatullah Zia, and seriously wounded his 12-year-old brother,
Ahmed "Sorkai" Zia, while they were riding on a motorcycle. The
shooting by a Canadian "combat logistics patrol" occurred as a
Canadian convoy travelling through Kandahar city to bring supplies to forward
bases of battle groups in Panjwaii and Zhari. Both boys were shot in the head. The
soldier involved in the shooting was badly shaken and was taken off
the convoy before it left the city.
[112] One of the boys' uncles,
Haji Muhammad Eisah, said:
"Whenever they think they want to shoot someone they can.
Nobody can ask anything about it. ... We don’t expect them to kill
our people, those Canadians, Americans and foreign people. It would
be good if they left our country."
[112]
- On November 15, 2007, Canadian troops in a convoy travelling
through the city of Kandahar killed an Afghan man and seriously
wounded another when a taxi approached their convoy and ignored
visual signs to stop.[113]
- On April 3, 2008, one person was killed and three others
injured when a Canadian military convoy opened fire on a vehicle
from private security company Compass. In October 2007, Canadian
soldiers opened fire on on a Compass vehicle, injuring seven
Afghans and prompting a review of Canadian convoy protocols.[114]
- On July 28, 2008, a husband and wife and their two young
children were returning home in a taxi in Panjwai district, Kandahar province when the children,
four-year-old Maraka and her two-year-old brother Tor Jan, were
killed by Canadian forces in a passing convoy. The father was also
wounded in the incident. There are conflicting reports as to
whether their vehicle was moving when the convoy passed. According
to the children’s father in an interview with UNAMA,
the taxi had parked on the side of the road when they saw the
convoy, but after the first two vehicles had passed, the third
vehicle opened fire.[115][116
][117
]
- On September 20, 2008, an Afghan civilian was killed by the
Canadian Forces after the fruit truck he was a passenger in failed
to stop as it came too close to a Canadian convoy that was
travelling through the city of Kandahar.[116
][117
]
- On July 17, 2009, Canadian soldiers shot and killed an Afghan
civilian and wounded three others after the car they were in failed
to heed orders to stop as it approached them.[118]
- On July 22, 2009, Canadian soldiers accidentally killed a young
girl in Afghanistan's Panjwaii district after a warning shot they
fired at an incoming motorcycle ricocheted off the ground and hit
her instead. An hour later on the same day, Canadian soldiers in
Dand district south of Kandahar City opened fire on a vehicle
travelling toward them. The car had been carrying members of the
Afghan national police. One Afghan police officer suffered serious
gunshot injuries, two others suffered less serious injuries.[119]
- On October 2, 2009, Canadian soldiers on patrol killed two
Afghan boys aged 14 and 16 that were on a motorcycle. The boys were
going from their home village of Zangabad to see a friend in the Panjwaii
district centre. They rounded a corner in the vilage of Pay-e-Moluk
when they came upon the Canadian soldiers conducting a shura (meeting) near a mosque with
village elders. The soldiers, surprised by the sudden appearance of
a motorcycle coming toward them, said they shouted and used visual
warnings and a warning short before shooting the driver and
passenger down. Although attempts were made to treat them, both
boys died within forty minutes of the shooting. An investigation by
the Canadian military's National Investigation Service was
ordered.[120]
Civilian deaths from
Canadian actions
Only a small fraction of the civilian deaths inflicted by the
US-led military forces in Afghanistan occur in the context of "force
protection" incidents like the ones above. The vast majority
are caused by airstrikes and other military actions. Of
the civilian casualties the UN
Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed to
U.S.-led military forces in the first six months of 2009, only 4.5%
were killed in the context of force protection incidents while
95.5% were killed by airstrikes (64.5%) and "other tactics"
(31%).
[121]
In the case of airstrike incidents, UNAMA Human Rights found
that significant civilian casualties most often resulted when
airstrikes were called in to support ground forces in "troops in
contact" situations during operations.
[121]
The number of Afghan civilians that have been killed as a result
of Canadian actions (calling in airstrikes, artillery barrages)
during military operations involving Canadian soldiers or special
forces is not known. However, Afghan civilians have been killed by
airstrikes during Canadian-led military offensives with air support
from American or other forces, such as in the case of Operation
Medusa in September-October 2006:
- On September 8, 2006, the Globe and Mail reported that
at least 14 civilians had died in one airstrike incident that took
place during the Canadian-led offensive Operation Medusa against insurgents in
the district of Panjwai. Haji Agha Lalai, a provincial
council member closely allied with the foreign troops in Kandahar,
said a fighter jet bombed three compounds near the village of
Zangabad at 4 p.m. September 3, 2006, killing seven Taliban
fighters, but also killing one elderly man and 13 women and
children. According to an ISAF statement, the air strikes were a
response to a fierce firefight in which Taliban fired from inside
the compounds. Besides this well-documented bombing near Zangabad,
there were also several other unconfirmed incidents during the
Canadian-led offensive in the district. Doctors that examined
injured people reaching Kandahar's Mirwais Hospital said their head
wounds, shrapnel cuts and other injuries were consistent with
blasts and explosions.[122][123]
- CTV News reported that in one of the worst incidents of
innocent civilians being killed, 31 people were killed in an
incident in October 2006 during the Canadian-led offensive Operation
Medusa in Panjwaii district of Kandahar province, including 20 members of
one family. Brigadier Richard Nugee, chief spokesperson for NATO's
International Security Assistance Force, was quoted saying: "I
believe the single thing that we have done wrong - and we are
striving hard to improve on next year - is killing innocent
civilians."
[104] A joint Afghan-NATO
investigation into that incident has never been publicly released,
but was reported to have determined that 31 civilians were killed
in the incident. Nugee said that NATO commanders have gone over the
incident and the report "in very fine detail", and said, "While it
has not come out publicly, it has made quite an impact on this
headquarters."[124][125]
Financial cost
of the war to Canadian taxpayers
In October 2008, Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget
Officer, Kevin
Page, released a detailed assessment of the price tag for
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan in a report entitled the "Fiscal Impact of the Costs
Incurred by the Government of Canada in support of the Mission in
Afghanistan".
The report determined that the Afghan mission has to date cost
Canada an estimated $7.7-billion to $10.5-billion, with
$5.9-billion to $7.42-billion spent on military operations,
$800-million to $2.08-billion in veterans' benefits, and slightly
under $1-billion in aid. The study did not include the cost of
diplomatic efforts, the cost of danger pay for soldiers, or the
cost of billions of dollars of military equipment bought under
accelerated procurement.
[126]
[127]
The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report estimated that the
total cost to Canadian taxpayers of Canada's involvement in
Afghanistan will be $13.9-billion to $18.1-billion by 2011, again
excluding the cost of diplomatic efforts, the cost of danger pay
for soldiers, and the cost of billions of dollars of military
equipment bought under accelerated procurement.
[126]
[127]
This estimates the financial cost to Canadian taxpayers of an
extension past February 2009 at $5.6-billion to $6.8-billion, again
excluding the cost of diplomatic efforts, the cost of danger pay
for soldiers, and the cost of billions of dollars of military
equipment bought under accelerated procurement.
Kevin Page, the parliamentary budget officer, emphasized, both
in the published report and during the news conference that
accompanied its release, that his report's estimates may "likely
understate the costs of the military operations".
Two other recent studies have come up with even higher estimates
for the financial cost of the war to Canadians.
A yet-to-be-released study by security analyst David Perry,
former deputy director of Dalhousie University Centre for
Foreign Policy Studies, estimates that the Afghan war will cost
Canadians to $22 billion in Defence Department expenditures alone,
both in money actually spent on the mission and future payments to
rebuild equipment and provide long-term care for veterans. This
$22-billion estimate excludes the cost of aid to Afghanistan and
the cost of the mission for all other federal departments such as
the RCMP and Foreign Affairs.[128]
[129]
The study will be included in an upcoming edition of the
International Journal published by the Canadian International
Council. In September, some of the study's findings were
presented and discussed at a conference on maritime affairs
attended by military leaders and analysts from Canada, the U.S. and
several Asia-Pacific nations. According to retired Commodore Eric
Lerhe, who included some of the study's figures in his presentation
at the conference:
"This is an important work and bang on with the
numbers."
The breakdown of the $22-billion cost estimate for the military
operations in Afghanistan is as follows:
- $7-billion for the cost of waging the war. This is the
incremental cost from late 2001 to 2012. It includes everything
from ammunition and fuel to the salaries of reservists and
contractors. It does not include the salaries of regular force
military personnel.
- $11-billion for the estimated future bill for Veterans Affairs and DND for
long-term health care of veterans and related benefits, including
having to deal with post traumatic stress disorder among troops.
Veterans Affairs Canada predicts an increase of 13,000 Canadian
Forces members to its client base by 2010. Using U.S. estimates,
between 10 to 25 per cent of returning veterans may experience
mental health problems as a result of their overseas deployment.
U.S. studies estimate that country's long-term health care and
disability costs for its Iraq and Afghan veterans to be between
$350-billion to $650-billion.
- $2-billion for the purchase of mission-specific equipment. That
includes everything from Leopard tanks, howitzer artillery, six Chinook
helicopters, counter-mine vehicles to aerial drones. Defence
officials argue that such equipment will be used on future missions
beyond Afghanistan. The figure did not include the latest $95
million lease for additional aerial drones.
- $2-billion for the replacement of the military's LAV III fleet. "This fleet is
going to be worn out pretty soon from the wear and tear of
Afghanistan and will have to be replaced," said Mr. Perry.
- $405 million for repair and overhaul costs.
In October 2008, a study by the Rideau
Institute, an independent think tank, estimated that the Afghan
mission has already cost Canadians $17.2-billion to date, counting
ammunition, equipment, military salaries, health care, disability
and death benefits and economic aid projects. The study estimated
that the mission will cost Canadians an additional $11.1-billion
over the next three years if the mission is extended until the
December 2011.[130]
[131]
The Rideau Institute study estimates that the war in Afghanistan
will directly cost Canadian taxpayers $20.7-billion by the end of
2011, while the loss to the Canadian economy from wounded or killed
soldiers will cost Canada $7.6 billion, placing the total cost of
the war to Canadians at more than $28-billion.[132][133]
Repeated
cost overruns
2006
In June 2006, the Conservative government's Foreign Affairs
Minister Peter
MacKay told the Commons Defence Committee that the total
expenditures by Canadian taxpayers to date in the war-torn country
amounted to $2.3-billion - $1.8-billion in military costs and
$500-million in development costs - and that Canada would spend a
total of $3.85-billion for the mission: $3.05-billion in military
costs by 2009 and $810-million in development costs up to 2011.
[134]
[135]
In September 2006, the Conservative government re-iterated the
estimate of military expenses in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2009
at $3.05 billion.
[136]
However, later in the fall, Defence Minister Gordon
O'Connor informed ministry officials the military costs in
Afghanistan between 2001 and 2009 would have to be revised up to
$3.9-billion, nearly a billion dollars more than the $3.05-billion
estimate given by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay just a few months
earlier.
[136]
In November 2006, the military costs for the mission in
Afghanistan were reported to have reached $2.2 billion, up from
$1.8 billion in June, or nearly $1.6 million per day of the
mission, while the development costs up to May 2006 were reported
to have reached $466 million. The military costs were projected to
reach about $4 billion by the planned end of the mission in
February 2009 - revised up from $3.05 billion in June - while the
development costs were expected to reach $1 billion by 2011 -
revised up from $810-million in June. The total cost of the
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was revised up from
$3.85-billion in June to around $5-billion.[137
]
It was also reported in November 2006 that the Canadian Forces
had spent over $1 million on funeral services for soldiers killed
in Afghanistan. At that point in time, the number of soldiers
killed in Afghanistan was 42.[137
]
2007
In January 2007, it was reported that the Defence Department
estimated that it would spend almost $1 billion on operations in
Afghanistan in the next fiscal year, more than doubling the
spending for military operations in Afghanistan from prior
years.
[138]
[139]
By the end of January 2007, the government again revised its
estimate for the military component of the costs from 2001 to 2009
in Afghanistan - this time increasing another $400-million to
$4.3-billion. Estimates of the total cost for the military
operations from 2001 to 2009 were revised up by $1.3 billion
between June 2006 and January 2007 alone.
[136]
In March 2007, it was reported that the total cost of mission
from 2001 to 2009 was now projected at $5.5-billion, revised up
another $600-million from November 2006. Development costs to 2011
were reported at $1.2-billion, revised up from the $1-billion in
November 2006, itself a revision up from the government's figure of
$810-million in June 2006. Over $802-million was spent in the
2006-2007 fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, making it the most
expensive year since the deployment began.
[136]
In comparison, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay had reported in June 2006
that a total of $1.8-billion had been expended over the course of
the previous four and a half years - an average of $400-million a
year. The $802-million spent on military operations in the
2006-2007 fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 effectively doubled the
previous spending average.
In May 2007, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the House of
Commons that the incremental cost of the military component of the
mission had reached $2.6-billion.
[140][141
]
In November 2007, Defence Minister Peter MacKay disclosed to the House of
Commons defence committee that the incremental cost to National
Defence of the Afghan military mission had again risen steeply and
had reached a total of $3.1-billion, up from $2.6 billion in May. A
spokesperson for Mr. MacKay said that the extra costs were due
mainly to additional tanks and force protection expenses.
[140][141
][142]
2008
In February 2008, it was reported that the total cost of
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was estimated to reach
$6.3-billion by the end of February 2009.[143][144]
In another estimate in February 2008, former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy,
president of the University of Winnipeg provided
the estimate that $7.8-billion had been spent in the 6 years Canada
had been in Afghanistan.[145]
In March 2008, the La Presse
newspaper obtained government documents under the Access to
Information Act that indicated that the Afghanistan mission would
run $1-billion over budget in the 2007-2008 fiscal year ending
March 31, 2008. The government did not deny the report, but said
that it was one of a number of assessments being made. These
documents indicated that the mission had cost Canadian taxpayers
over $7.5-billion since 2001 - double what had been budgeted.[146
]
The Defence Department said the projected cost for military
component of the Afghanistan mission through 2009 had been $4.5
billion, but was adjusted to $5 billion because of the additional
equipment purchases.[146
] It said the upward revision did not count as a
cost overrun. The $4.5 billion figure itself, however, was a
$200-million increase over the January 2007 estimate of $4.3
billion
[136], itself a $400-million
increase from the November 2006 estimate of $3.9 billion
[136][137
], itself an $850-million increase from the June
2006 estimate of $3.05 billion.
[134]
[135]
For the March 31, 2008 end of the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the
Conservative government eventually reported the incremental cost of
the military component of the Afghan mission to be at around
$3.8-billion, up $700 million in four months from $3.1-billion in
November 2007.[147]
This figure meant that since Defence Minister Gordon
O'Connor's figure of $2.6-billion in May 2007, over $1.2
billion was spent in incremental cost on military operations in
Afghanistan in the 2007-2008 fiscal year, making it again the most
expensive year since the deployment began.
Despite these numbers from his own ministers, in April 2008,
Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that the cost
of the Afghan mission was only about $500 million a year above the
military's usual costs, saying at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit
in Bucharest "I think the cost ... probably amounts to about a
billion a year, but probably half of that would be consumed
anyway."[142]
In September and October 2008, when it became known that a
report detailing the cost of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan
was about to be released, numerous news sources reported that the
Conservative government had apparently, at some unspecified point
in time, previously estimated the total cost of the six-year
mission to date at under $8-billion.[148][149][150] The
drastically higher revised estimate of $8-billion does not seem to
have been widely reported to the public before this however, and
one report confirms that the government only revised their public
estimate to just under $8 billion when they knew that the
Parliamentary Budget Officer was about to report.[142]
In October 2008, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released the
"Fiscal Impact of the Costs
Incurred by the Government of Canada in support of the Mission in
Afghanistan" and reported that the Afghan mission has so far
cost Canada an estimated $7.7-billion to $10.5-billion, consisting
of $5.9-billion to $7.42-billion spent on military operations,
$800-million to $2.08-billion in veterans' benefits, and under
$1-billion in aid. The study did not include the cost of diplomatic
efforts, the cost of danger pay for soldiers, and the cost of
billions of dollars of military equipment bought under accelerated
procurement.
The $7.7-billion to $10.5-billion figure, that the parliamentary
budget officer suggested could well be understated, places the most
detailed estimate to date at 2 to 3 times the government's June
2006 total cost projection of $3.85-billion. The military component
of this estimated cost to date, $5.9-billion to $7.42-billion to
October 2008, is also 2 to 3 times the government's June 2006
estimate of $3.05-billion by 2009.
[126]
[127]
The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report estimated the total
cost to Canadian taxpayers of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan
would reach between $13.9-billion and $18.1-billion by 2011, again
excluding the cost of diplomatic efforts, the cost of danger pay
for soldiers, and the cost of billions of dollars of military
equipment bought under accelerated procurement. This places the
financial cost to Canadian taxpayers for an extension past February
2009 at $5.58-billion to $6.8-billion.
[126]
[127]
The report also detailed how the Defence Department's actual
spending for Afghanistan exceeded planned spending in each and
every year of the mission, with budget overshoots each year ranging
from never less than 29.35% to as high as 310.26%.
[127]
2009
In June 2009, the Treasury Board placed the price tag for
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan for 2009-2010 and
2010-2011 at $1.35-billion higher than the Defence Department had
projected a year before.
[151]
For fiscal year
2009-2010, the Treasury Board estimated that the military mission
would cost Canadians $822-million, an estimate over three times
higher than the $261-million price tag presented by the Defence
Department in April 2008.
[151]
For fiscal year 2010-2011, the Treasury Board estimated that the
military mission would cost Canadians $943-million, an estimate
over six times higher than the $150-million price tag presented by
the Defence Department in April 2008.
[151]
The Treasury Board further estimated that the military mission
would cost an additional $178-million in fiscal 2011-12, when
Canadian troops are expected to pull out of combat roles in
Afghanistan - the first time that any figures for that year had
been made available by the government.
[151]
On June 24, 2009, the Defence Department, which had until then
been refusing to provide updated cost estimates requested by NDP
members of parliament, admitted that it had wrongfully cited
national security to withhold the information and released its
latest figures.
[152]
The new Defence Department estimates, higher than the Treasury
Board numbers, revealed that the cost of the military operations
for 2009-2011 to Canadian taxpayers would now be almost
$2.6-billion higher than the cost it had previously put forth a
year before.
[152]
For fiscal year 2009-2010, the Defence Department estimated the
war would cost Canadians $1.513-billion, a cost 84% higher than the
recent $822-million figure from the Treasury Board - and almost six
times higher than the $261-million figure the Defence Department
had given one year ago.
[152]
For fiscal year 2010-2011, the Defence Department estimated the
war would cost Canadians $1.468-billion, a cost 56% higher than the
recent $943-million figure from the Treasury Board - and almost 10
times higher than the $150-million figure the Defence Department
had presented one year ago.
[152]
|
|
“ |
"It seems to me, unbeknownst to Canadians, the costs and
projections for this mission in Afghanistan are spiralling out of
control without any public disclosure or opportunity for public
debate on this."
|
” |
| |
— NDP defence critic Jack Harris, June
2009
[152]
|
The military also revealed additional costs of the military
operation in Afghanistan beyond 2011, the deadline for the
withdrawal of Canadian troops from the current combat operation in
Kandahar. For fiscal year 2011-2012, the Defence Department
estimated the cost to taxpayers would be $779-million, a cost 338%
higher than the recent $178-million figure from the Treasury board,
and a cost that had not been mentioned in the information released
by the Defence Department in April 2008.
[152]
The figures released by the Defence Department also revealed for
the first time further costs of the war in Afghanistan in "future
years" beyond 2011-2012, that it pegged at over half a billion
dollars, or $540-million.
[152]
A defence official described the post-2011 figures as costs
associated with closing out the mission, bringing equipment back to
Canada, and restoring it to it pre-war state. However, NDP defence
critic Jack Harris rejected that explanation, saying that with
estimates for post-2011 costs of $1.2-billion the Defence
Department "obviously has significant plans for the military in
Afghanistan beyond the mission end date of July 2011."
[152]
Cost of the extension
past February 2009
The latest extension past February 2009 increased a seven-year
military involvement in Afghanistan by an additional 2 years and 10
months to the end of December 2011.
The October 2008 report by Canada's independent Parliamentary
Budget Officer determined that the Afghanistan mission had to date
cost Canada an estimated $7.7-billion to $10.5-billion, and
projected that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers of Canada's
involvement in Afghanistan will be $13.9-billion to $18.1-billion
by 2011.
[126]
[127] According to these
numbers, an extension past February 2009 would cost Canadian
taxpayers $5.6-billion to $6.8-billion, including the long-term
costs of caring for physically and emotionally damaged soldiers,
but excluding the cost of diplomatic efforts, the cost of danger
pay for soldiers, and the cost of billions of dollars of military
equipment bought under accelerated procurement.
[151]
The October 2008 study by the Rideau
Institute estimated that an extension past February 2009 to
December 2011 would cost Canadian taxpayers $7.5-billion. The study
estimated the full economic cost to Canadians of an extension to
December 2011 at $11.1 billion.[153]
Lack of
transparency
In May 2006, the Polaris Institute, an Ottawa-based
independent think tank, estimated the cost of the military
operations in Afghanistan at more than $4.1 billion for the 4.5
year period from the fall of 2001 to April 2006.[154] By
comparison, in June 2006, the Conservative government's Foreign
Affairs Minister Peter
MacKay told the Commons Defence Committee that the total
expenditures by Canadian taxpayers to date in the war-torn country
amounted to $2.3-billion, a significantly lower figure than the
estimate put forth by the Polaris Institute.
[134]
[135]
In April 2008, despite the previous month's La Presse report of a $1-billion
budget overrun and despite his own government's numbers showing an
incremental cost of over $1.2 billion for the fiscal year just
ended, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that the cost
of the Afghan mission was only about $500 million a year above the
military's usual costs, saying that "I think the cost ... probably
amounts to about a billion a year, but probably half of that would
be consumed anyway."[142]
However, when it became known in September 2008 that a report
detailing the cost of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was about
to be released, the government drastically revised the estimate of
the cost of the war to date to $8 billion.[142]
In March 2008, the Conservative government, backed by the
Liberals, voted to extend Canada's military operations in
Afghanistan by another 3 years until 2011, even though the
financial and human costs remained shrouded in the fog of war. Only
in the waning hours of debate did the members
of Parliament even begin to consider the question of financial
cost, with published reports that the war was $1-billion over
budget.[155
]
Senator Colin Kenny, head of the Senate security and defence
committee, said that they failed to ask substantive questions such
as what the ramifications might be on the federal treasury.[155
] He stated:
|
|
“ |
"This war is going to take a lot more money than this
government is prepared to admit."
|
” |
In September 2008, the researcher of a study that put the
military cost of the war in Afghanistan at $22-billion condemned
the lack of transparency. According to security analyst David
Perry, a former deputy director of Dalhousie University's Centre
for Foreign Policy Studies:
[129]
"The Liberals were much more transparent in the funding they
were providing."
In October 2008, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that
the Afghan mission had so far cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated
$7.7-billion to $10.5-billion, excluding the cost of diplomatic
efforts, the cost of danger pay for the thousands of soldiers in
Afghanistan, and the cost of billions of dollars of military
equipment bought under accelerated procurement.
[126]
[127]
In presenting his report, "Fiscal Impact of the Costs
Incurred by the Government of Canada in support of the Mission in
Afghanistan", Kevin Page, Parliament's independent budget
officer stated:
|
|
“ |
"There's a lack of transparency and also some inconsistency
in the numbers. I think it makes it very difficult to do effective
oversight when you don't have the kind of transparency and the
right accounting practices."
|
” |
His report suggests Canadians have been kept in the dark about
the true costs of the Afghanistan mission, and he made clear that
he was deliberately frustrated in his search for accurate and
complete information from federal departments, prompting him to
condemn the lack of openness around the mission and to emphasize
that the real financial cost could actually be much higher. .[156
]
In condemning the lack of transparency, he stated[156
]:
|
|
“ |
"Budgetary
transparency for Parliamentarians and Canadians needs to be
improved."
"Although Canada is in the seventh year of the mission,
Parliament has not been provided with estimates by successive
governments on the fiscal costs incurred by all relevant
departments."
"Budget and Estimates reporting to Parliament on Canada's
mission in Afghanistan have not met any appropriate standard or
best practice."
"When compared with international experience, Canada appears
to lag behind the best practices of other jurisdictions in terms of
the quality and frequency of war cost reporting to their respective
legislatures."
|
” |
In 2009, the Defence Department censored out the projected costs
for the next three years of military operations in Afghanistan from
information requested by NDP members of parliament under
the Access to Information Act,
claiming that releasing them would violate national security.
Citing Section 15 of the Access to Information Act
which allows an exemption in "the defence of Canada or any
state allied", the military refused to provide the requested
estimates on the cost of the war even though they had released the
very same information in April 2008 when the NDP had made an
identical request.
[151]
On June 24, 2009, after the story broke in a Canwest
News Service article, the Defence Department admitted that it
had wrongfully cited national security to try to withhold the cost
to Canadian taxpayers. Among the information the Defence Department
finally released, post-2011 cost estimates were described by a
defence official as costs associated with closing out the mission,
bringing equipment back to Canada, and restoring it to it pre-war
state. NDP defence critic Jack Harris rejected that explanation,
saying that estimates for post-2011 costs of $1.2-billion indicated
the Defence Department "obviously has significant plans for the
military in Afghanistan beyond the mission end date of July
2011."
[152]
- "They obviously have some plans, so lay it on the table and
let the Canadian people decide whether we want to be involved in
this or not."
Also noting that the Defence Department numbers were "so
astoundingly different from those from Treasury Board," he
said:
- "They're not coming clean with the people of
Canada."
Military
concerns about the costs of the war in Afghanistan
There is growing concern inside the ranks of the military about
the real cost of Canada's involvement in the Afghan conflict.
[129]
In January 2007, it was reported that Canada's navy was out of
money for basic operations as the military diverted resources to
the war in Afghanistan.
[138]
[139] [157]
[158]
Peter Haydon, a retired naval officer now with the Centre for
Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax, stated:
|
|
“ |
"Afghanistan is eating money like you wouldn't believe. The
demand for money is being transferred through the whole military
system. Afghanistan is a huge financial drain."
|
” |
Dan Middlemiss, a political science professor who teaches
defence policy at Dalhousie University in Halifax, stated:
|
|
“ |
"I think the big picture here, if I have to make one, is
that Afghanistan has become so all-absorbing of time, energy and
resources for everyone that there's nothing left over."
|
” |
At a security and defence forum meeting in 2007, security
analyst David Perry, former deputy director of Dalhousie
University Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, argued that if
the real costs of the Afghan war are not "transparent there is no
way of knowing their real impact on the Canadian military's future
force structure."
[129]
In January 2008, the head of the army warned that the service
was stretched almost to the breaking point and replacement stocks
of equipment for Afghanistan had long been used up, destroyed by
the enemy, or undergoing repairs. In the army's business plan,
commander Lt.-Gen.
Andrew Leslie warned that much of the force's combat vehicle
fleet was in need of repair as a result of operation in the harsh
Afghan terrain or from excessive use in training in Canada for the
war in Afghanistan.
[129]
The general's business plan was written not long after the
release of the Defence Department's 2008-2009 Report on Plans and
Priorities which also raised concerns regarding the impact of the
Afghan war. In that report, the army pointed out that
[129]:
|
|
“ |
"Afghanistan has consumed the resources of both our first
and second lines of operation."
|
” |
In March 2008, after the Conservative government, backed by the
Liberals, voted to again extend
Canada's military operations in Afghanistan, the head of the Senate
security and defence committee, Senator Colin Kenny, said that they
had failed to ask substantive questions such as what the
ramifications might be on both the federal treasury and on a
military that increasingly relies on reservists and equipment under
stress from continuous combat.[155
]
In October 2008, when Canada's parliamentary budget office
released its report on the costs of the war in Afghanistan, retired
Col. Michel Drapeau, a military analyst, said that he was
flabbergasted by the sheer size of the costs of the mission. He
described the report as "very sobering," and was concerned about
the vague nature of reporting the true costs of the mission.
Retired Col. Michel Drapeau stated: [159]
"You have to wonder what decision and what figures our
government and parliament were using to deploy troops."
One-year
operational break needed after Afghanistan
On March 9, 2009, the head of Canada's army, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie told
the Senate defence committee that the Canadian Forces had been
strained by the mission after over seven years in Afghanistan and
would require at least one year to regroup from it.
[160]
[161]
"In the mid-term and beginning in July 2011, we will have to
explore the possibility of taking a short operational break, that
is well-organized and synchronized, of at least one year," he
said.
[160]
[161]
The head of the army stated that the break of at least a year
from operations was needed because the military is suffering from
shortages of personnel, particularly experienced senior officers,
as well as equipment. At the time, Canada had fewer than 100
soldiers deployed around the world in other operations than
Afghanistan.
[160]
He said the army is facing "huge challenges" and that by the
time 2011 rolls around, a small number of Canadian soldiers will
have served on their fifth mission to Afghanistan, while many
hundreds will be on the fourth, third and second rotations.[162]
Lt.-Gen. Leslie also told senators that more than 70% of
equipment used on military bases across Canada to train soldiers
for deployment to Afghanistan is out of service at any given
time.
[160]
[161]
|
|
“ |
"This situation is extremely serious because the number and
types of equipment that have to be repaired and replaced continues
to increase at a rapid pace, and their use is much greater than
planned when they were originally purchased."
|
” |
| |
— Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, head of
Canadian army, March 2009
[160]
[161]
|
He stated that the military is now using all its equipment in
"extremely demanding" conditions resulting in time-consuming
maintenance and repair being needed.
[160]
Vehicle repairs, for example, are not able to keep up to the
rapid pace because the military lacks skilled mechanics and
technicians, and as more vehicles break down,
fewer are available for training soldiers for deployment to
Afghanistan.
[160]
[161]
Leslie reported that as a result of the Canadian army having
been "run hard now for seven years" in Afghanistan, "our vehicle
breakage rates are now far higher than I've ever seen them".[163]
The head of the army described the army's fleet of armoured
vehicles, battered by the demands of the Afghanistan mission, as
being in a state of "crisis", and citing figures from February
2009, reported that[163]:
On March 10, 2009, Canada's top military commander also said
that the war in Afghanistan is causing the Canadian army to run
through equipment faster than it can maintain it. Gen. Walter
Natynczyk, chief of defence staff of the Canadian Forces,
stated that army vehicles are
breaking down at a high rate due to the amount of action they are
seeing in the war in Afghanistan.
[161] He also added that:
"We've added a lot more heavy armour to vehicles and that's
put an additional strain on them and that's why some of them are
breaking down at an accelerated rate."
Abandonment
of Canada's commitment to UN peacekeeping
Military spending for the war in Afghanistan has almost
completely crowded out Canada's spending on UN peacekeeping, according to
researchers.
[131]
|
|
“ |
"The first consequence of our current deployment in
Afghanistan is that Canada is currently at a historic low in its UN
peacekeeping contribution."
"The UN has stopped coming to Canada for contributions, knowing
that the answer will undoubtedly be no, with a finger pointing to
Afghanistan."
|
” |
| |
|
In fiscal year 2006-2007, under the new Conservative government
of Stephen
Harper, Canadian government spending on UN peacekeeping through its Department of
National Defence dropped sharply to its lowest level in at least a
decade, to only $8.5 million, including equipment and
personnel.
[131]
In stark contrast, in that very same year, the Canadian
government's spending on Afghanistan increased by a "whopping"
$1-billion, the Rideau Institute
reported in "The Cost of the war and
the End of Peacekeeping: The Impact of Extending the Afghanistan
Mission".
[131]
While the Canadian government's spending on Afghanistan
increased yet again by another half a billion dollars in fiscal
year 2007-2008, its spending on UN peacekeeping
remained depressed in fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, staying
at least 83% lower than it had been the year before the war in
Afghanistan started in 2001.
[131]
|
|
“ |
"Most Canadians would probably be shocked to learn that the
federal government has all but eliminated Canada's role in United
Nations peacekeeping."
|
” |
| |
|
In testimony to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in
March 2007, Professor Walter Dorn of the Canadian Forces College and Royal Military College of
Canada, observed that while Canada had often ranked number one
in UN peacekeeping contributions since Lester B. Pearson proposed the
concept, was the number one peacekeeper in 1991, and remained in
the top 10 in the 1990s, by 2007, Canada had fallen to a low of
59th place in the world in peacekeeping, with only 55 soldiers
deployed under the UN blue flag.[164]
[165]
In that year, the Republic of the
Gambia and the Republic of
Malawi, both smaller, significantly poorer third-world nations (168th and 160th
respectively on the Human Development Index),
placed ahead of Canada in peacekeeping personnel contributions.[166][167][164]
While Canada used to contribute on average 10% of UN
peacekeeping forces, the figure had dwindled to a mere 0.1%.[164]
The reorientation of Canada's military under the U.S.-led war in
Afghanistan is seen to have essentially abandoned Canada's 50-year
commitment to UN peacekeeping since Canadian Prime
Minister Lester B. Pearson founded the modern
concept and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957.
[131]
|
|
“ |
"While extremely expensive for the military, the Afghanistan
campaign has also meant the effective cancellation of Canadian
peacekeeping."
|
” |
| |
— Rideau Institute study, October
2008
[131]
|
Length of the
war
Already Canada's longest involvement in any war, surpassing even
the length of World War II, by the end of 2011, Canada will have
been involved in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan for a decade -
about the length of its involvement in both world wars put
together.
By May 2010, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan will have
surpassed even the length of official U.S. participation in the Vietnam War, 8 years
and 5 months.[168]
Table: Length of Canada's participation in major overseas
wars.[169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177]
Repeated
extensions
In May 2006, with rapidly increasing Canadian casualties in
Kandahar and increasing public misgivings about the war, the
military mission in Kandahar was scheduled to come to an end in
February 2007.
[178]
[179]
[180]
A poll that had been just released by the Strategic Counsel on
May 6 showed that the majority 54% of Canadians opposed Canada's
military involvement in Afghanistan, with almost half of those
"strongly opposed" to the involvement. The polling firm
stated: "There is starting to be greater opposition to the
Afghanistan initiative - and this is a real source of weakness for
the government."
[47]
[181][182]
On May 15, 2006, despite the Canadian public's majority
opposition to the war - and the much higher rate of death for
Canadian troops in Kandahar - the new Conservative minority
government of Stephen Harper, in office just three
months, introduced a motion to extend the Canadian military mission
in Kandahar past its end date of February 2007, by not just one
year, as had been the case previously, but by two years to February
2009.
[178]
[179]
[180]
|
|
“ |
"Opposition to the war has dramatically increased over the
last two months and it would appear that the Harper government is
trying to entrench our military in Afghanistan before even more
Canadians reject this mission."
|
” |
| |
|
MPs were given only a short notice of only about 36 hours and an
emergency 6-hour debate, to take place from 3 pm to 9 pm, before
the vote at 9:15 pm. Liberal, NDP, and Bloc members said MPs needed
more time to properly go over the extension's details before being
rushed to any decision, accusing Harper of playing politics with
soldiers' lives by forcing a vote on less than two days notice.
[178][183
]
[184]
NDP leader Jack
Layton said on May 16, a day before the debate and vote:
"What we don't know is the nature of the extended mission.
Canadians have not been told about it. MPs have not been told about
it, yet they're going to be asked to vote on it after a few
speeches on the House of Commons."
The main opposition Liberal party, divided over the issue, was
also without a leader, in the midst of a leadership race, and
headed by an interim leader.
[178]
[179]
[180]
[185]
On May 17, still faced with unexpected opposition from the other
parties, Harper declared early in the six-hour debate that he would
unilaterally extend the military assignment for one year anyway if
the Commons balked at his two-year extension.
[179]
In the end, the Conservative motion was passed by a narrow
margin of 149 to 145 votes, with 124 out of 125 Conservative MPs
voting for the two-year extension, supported by a small group of 24
out of 102 Liberal MPs, and one independent MP. Liberal leadership
candidate Michael Ignatieff argued in favor of
the two-year extension during the debate, and he and Scott Brison were the
only two leadership candidates to vote for the extension. Stephane Dion, who would become leader in
December 2006, Ken
Dryden, and other leadership candidates voted against the
extension. 66 Liberal MPS, 50 Bloc MPs, and all 29 NDP MPs voted
against the extension. 12 Liberals, one Conservative, and one Bloc
member were absent or abstained.
[178]
[179]
[180][183
][186]
The following year, in the summer of 2007, Harper began laying
the groundwork for a further extension beyond 2009, once again
despite repeated polls indicating Canadians to
be opposed.
[184][187]
Table: Cost in lives of each extension
| Period |
End date at time |
Cost in lives[188] |
| 2002 - 2005 |
year-at-a-time |
8 |
| 2006 deployment to Kandahar |
Feb. 2007 |
36 |
| First extension past Feb. 2007 |
Feb. 2009 |
64 |
| Second extension past Feb. 2009 |
Dec. 2011 |
30 (to date) |
| Total to date |
- |
138 |
In February 2008, the Harper Conservative minority government
gave notice that it was preparing a motion to once again extend
Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, and that the motion
would have a confidence vote in March, threatening a
federal election if not passed.[189][190]
On March 13, 2008, the Conservative confidence motion
to extend the mission again, this time by two years and 10 months
to the end of 2011, passed by a vote of 198-77 with the party-whipped support of most of the
Liberal opposition, and opposed by the NDP and the Bloc
Québécois.
[191][192]
Newfoundland MP Bill Matthews was the only Liberal caucus member to stand against
the extension, saying that he wanted to be consistent with his 2006
opposition to an extended mission and felt there were too many
unanswered questions about costs of the campaign. A Liberal
spokesperson said the party whip would "make whatever
decision needs to be made" about those who missed the vote, or
opposed the motion.
[191]
The head of the Senate security and defence committee,
Senator Colin Kenny,
also criticized the process, saying that the MPs passing the motion
had failed to ask substantive questions such as what the
ramifications might be on both the federal treasury and on a
military that increasingly relies on reservists and equipment under
stress from continuous combat.[155
]
Two days after the Conservative motion to extend the mission in
Kandahar by two years and 10 months was passed by the Conservatives
and Liberals, thousands of Canadians
marched on March 15, 2008 in protest against Canada's continued
military involvement in Afghanistan.
[193]
The following year, in the fall of 2009, Conservative cabinet
ministers, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to
the foreign affairs minister, began signalling that a Conservative
motion for another mission past 2011 would be tabled in the House of Commons of
Canada.
[194]
|
|
“ |
"I always thought we’d be there (just) two more years, two
more years, two more years, and guess what?"
|
” |
| |
|
Partial
acknowledgements of public opinion
In September 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged for the
first time that the Canadian public has no appetite for keeping
military forces in Afghanistan past 2011. He also added that
Canadian military leaders, though not acknowledging it publicly,
feel that a decade of war is enough as well. He stated: "You
have to put an end date on these things."
[197]
[198]
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Harper's comments show
that "he knows now that Canadians want to leave in
2011."
[197]
In fact, numerous polls before, during, and
after that time repeatedly showed that Canadians were opposed
to the extension past February 2009 into 2011, and wanted to leave
in February 2009, and not in 2011.
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[50]
[53]
[53]
[53]
[55]
[56]
In September 2009, Harper stated again: ""By 2011, when this
military mission ends, our Canadian soldiers will have served there
a decade on the front lines, much longer than during either of the
world wars."[199]
Disproportionate share of
the burden
See also: Disproportionate
contribution in lives
A U.S. Congressional report dated July 22, 2009 stated that
forces from Canada, Britain, the U.S., and the Netherlands "bear
the brunt of the fighting", and that "the inequity of
burden-sharing in combat operations ... is a factor in domestic
opposition to the conflict in states that carry the greatest combat
burden".
[200]
Polls in 2007, 2008, and 2009 have clearly shown that the
majority of Canadians feel that Canada is shouldering too much of
the burden of NATO's mission in Afghanistan.
Table: "Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of NATO's
mission in Afghanistan"
[201]
[202]
[203]
[204]
[205]
| Date |
Agree |
Disagree |
Not sure |
| Feb 2007 |
65% |
18% |
18% |
| Apr 2007 |
64% |
19% |
17% |
| May 2007 |
55% |
19% |
25% |
| Jul 2007 |
58% |
18% |
24% |
| Dec 2007 |
71% |
19% |
11% |
| Jan 2008 |
76% |
15% |
9% |
| Mar 2008 |
75% |
15% |
9% |
| May 2008 |
75% |
15% |
10% |
| Jul 2008 |
73% |
16% |
11% |
| Sep 2008 |
75% |
14% |
11% |
| Nov 2008 |
72% |
18% |
10% |
| Dec 2008 |
76% |
17% |
7% |
| Feb 2009 |
69% |
12% |
19% |
| May 2009 |
75% |
17% |
8% |
Since 2008, about 3 in 4 Canadians believe that Canada is
bearing too much of the burden in Afghanistan.
|
|
“ |
"I think Canadians understand, per capita, that we are
paying more than our fair share."
|
” |
| |
— retired general Lewis MacKenzie,
September 2008[206]
|
Public protests against Canada's continued involvement in the
war
- On March 18, 2006, thousands of Canadians took part in anti-war
demonstrations protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
Toronto, some 1,000 to 1,500 protesters converged opposite the U.S.
consulate before marching through the city's downtown core. In
Montreal, about 1,200 people braved the cold to march against the
wars. In Ottawa, dozens of demonstrators gathered two blocks from
Parliament Hill and later at the National Gallery to protest the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Several hundred protesters marched
through downtown Halifax. A protest in Vancouver also attracted
hundreds.[207][208]
At that time, the number of Canadian soldiers
killed in Afghanistan stood at 10.
- On Saturday October 28, 2006, thousands of protesters opposed
to Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan rallied in 40
cities and towns. Under the slogan "Support our troops, bring 'em
home", as many as 500 demonstrators marched through downtown Ottawa
to Parliament Hill to protest the military mission and demand the
return of Canadian troops. Several hundreds of protesters in
Toronto, almost 500 in Montreal, 200 in Halifax, 100 in Edmonton,
more than a 100 in Calgary, and as many as 600 in Vancouver, along
with protesters in over 30 other cities and towns, also took to the
streets. Themes of the demonstrations included demands that the
troops be brought home from Afghanistan and demands that the
mission of the Canadian Forces in that country shift from a combat
role to a peace keeping and humanitarian presence.
Placards expressed such sentiments as "Build Homes Not Bombs,"
"Drop Tuition Not Bombs" and "Is This Really Peacekeeping".
[209]
[210]
At that time, a total of 42 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat had
so far been killed in Afghanistan.
[209]
[210]
- On February 23, 2007, hundreds of Canadians braved wind, rain,
and snow to take part in rallies in cities across Canada to protest
their country's military operation in Afghanistan, urging their
government to bring Canadian troops home. In Vancouver, about 600 people rallied and
marched through the downtown core. In Toronto, hundreds of protesters held a rally
outside the U.S. consulate. Nearly 500 people marched through
downtown Montreal. About
200 people gathered in front of city hall in Halifax.
Demonstrations also took place in Edmonton, Quebec City, and St. John's,
Newfoundland.[211
]
At that time, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
stood at 44.[211
]
- On Saturday, March 17, 2007, demonstrators held rallies across
Canada in protest of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. In
Toronto, about 200 people held a demonstration outside the U.S.
consulate. In Halifax, about 100 people marched through city
streets, ending with a peace rally at a park. Protests also took
place in Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Winnipeg.
[212]
At that time, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
stood at 45.
[212]
- On Saturday October 27, 2007, rallies took place in 22
different Canadian cities to protest against the Canadian military
mission in Afghanistan. In Montreal, around 300 protesters marched
despite heavy rain, many of them carrying colourful banners and
chanting anti-war slogans. In Toronto, more than 300 people took part in a
march beginning at the U.S. consulate. In Halifax, around 200
demonstrators marched through the city, ending with a rally at
Victoria Park, while a protest in Ottawa also numbered around 200. The protesters
deplored the deaths of Canadian soldiers and the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians in
the war.[213][214][215]
[216]
At that time, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
stood at 71.
[216]
-
Canadians taking to the streets to call for the troops to be
brought home from Afghanistan in a rally on March 15, 2008. At that
time, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan stood
at 80.
[193]
- On Saturday March 15, 2008, thousands of protesters filled
streets across Canada to speak out against Canada's military
mission in Afghanistan. Rallies took place in 20 cities countrywide
in a call for the government to recall the troops from Afghanistan
and instead adopt a peacekeeping role, which protesters said is
Canada's true calling.[217] In
Toronto, 3,000 Canadians
rallied outside the provincial legislature at Queen's Park before
marching through busy downtown streets in a three-hour
demonstration. In Montreal, hundreds of protesters waved flags
and sang as they marched through the city's downtown core. The mass
of people stretched for several city blocks.
[193] In Ottawa, several
hundred people marched on Sussex Drive for a protest on Parliament
Hill.[218] The
Conservative government, backed by the Liberals, had just two days
before passed a motion to again
extend the military operations in Afghanistan.
[193]
- "I'm here because I'd like our government to divert all
that spending and all those brains to find peaceful solutions.
Young men and women are getting killed. Innocent people in
Afghanistan are getting killed," said protester Maureen Adelman,
74.
[193]
At that time, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
stood at 80.
[193]
- On Saturday October 18, 2008, hundreds of Canadians marched in
rallies held in 16 different cities across Canada to protest the
country's military involvement in Afghanistan. In Toronto, more than 300 people
gathered at Queen's Park to send Prime Minister Stephen Harper a
clear message: Bring our troops home, now.[219] In
Montreal, hundreds of
people turned out to demand Canadian troops be brought home and to
shine a light on the dollars-and-cents costs of a growing defence
establishment.[220] In
Ottawa, around 150 people marched at a rally on Parliament Hill
demanding that Prime Minister Stephen Harper bring the troops
home.[221]
[222][223]
At that time, a total of 97 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat had
so far been killed in the war in Afghanistan.
[222]
- On Saturday December 20, 2008, Canadians in Montreal and
Toronto threw shoes at posters of George Bush in front of their
respective U.S. consulates during protests against the U.S.
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and against Canada's
involvement in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. In Toronto, the
spirited crowd took to chants like "Give Harper the shoe!", and
passing cars honked horns in solidarity.[224]
At the time of the protest, the death toll of Canadian soldiers
stood at 103.
See also
References
-
^
a
b
c Almost two-thirds of Canadians
say Afghan mission too costly, poll suggests
- ^
Canada needs post-2011 Afghan
strategy, experts; critics
- ^
Afghanistan victory depends
on winning over communities - ally
- ^
Polls and
Afghanistan
- ^
NATO chief bemoans limits on
troops in Afghanistan
- ^
Peacekeeping Then, Now and
Always
- ^
Ekos-ting on fumes
- ^
Canadians Decline Expanded
Role in Afghanistan
- ^
Potential Trouble Brewing for
Conservatives as Canadians are Accepting the Colvin account -
December 10, 2009
-
^
a
b
c Potential Trouble Brewing for
Conservatives as Canadians are Accepting the Colvin account - Broad
Dissatisfaction with Federal Transparency
- ^
Richard Colvin winning
detainee war with Tories
- ^
Canadians Want Inquiry on
Afghan Allegations
- ^
Tories not believed in Afghan
torture case: Poll
- ^
Canadians not buying
government denial of claims Afghan detainees tortured:
Poll
- ^
Most Canadians feel sending
troops to Afghanistan not morally right thing to do: poll
- ^
Support for Canada’s role in
Afghanistan below 50%: poll
- ^
Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute
polls
- ^
a
b
c
d
e Harris Decima poll October
2009
- ^
Support for Afghan Mission
Drops in UK, Canada
- ^
EKOS Bonus Round: Is "Meh" an
option?
- ^
Ekos poll September 23-29,
2009
- ^
Leger Marketing poll September
22-25, 2009 - Canadians Massively Want Canada to Stop Combating in
Afghanistan
- ^
Britain, Canada Differ from
U.S. on Afghan War
- ^
Americans Still Support
Afghanistan Mission; Canadians and Britons Do Not
- ^
Most Canadians oppose
military role in Afghanistan
- ^
Canadian soldier killed in
Afghanistan
-
^
a
b
c Decisive opposition to
Canada's Afghanistan mission
- ^
Canadian opposition to Afghan
mission mounts as death toll of soldiers grows
- ^
Most Canadians want troops
home from Afghanistan: poll
- ^
25-Nation Pew Global Attitudes
Survey, 2009, p.22 (PDF p.26) Opposition to War in
Afghanistan
- ^
25-Nation Pew Global Attitudes
Survey, 2009 p.39 (PDF p.43)
- ^
Half of Canadians Adamant
About Ending Afghan Mission Before 2011
- ^
Four in 10 say end Afghan
mission early, poll finds
-
^ U.S. officials want Canada to
stay in Afghanistan
-
^
a
b
c Majority Opposed to Afghan
Mission, Many Concerned about New Law
- ^
Rape law saps support for
Afghan mission: poll
- ^
Go back to peacekeeping;
Canadians tell DND in increasing numbers:poll
- ^
Half of Canadians Would End
Afghan Mission
- ^
Almost Half of Canadians Would
End Afghan Mission Before 2011
- ^
Canada’s love affair with
Barack Obama
- ^
Obama will seek Afghanistan
troops elsewhere, MacKay says
- ^
Canadians feel the love for
Obama, but are lukewarm to his plans: poll
- ^
Canadians Want Quicker End to
Afghan Mission
- ^
Canadians Question Afghanistan
Mission
-
^
a
b Canadian Majority Wants Troops
Out of Afghanistan Before 2011
- ^
a
b Canadians Would Leave
Afghanistan Before 2011
-
^
a
b
c Strategic Counsel poll
results September 2008, p. 32
-
^
a
b Only a third of Canadians
agree with Afghanistan mission extension
-
^ Only a third of Canadians
agree with Afghanistan mission extension—PDF
-
^
a
b
c Public support for Afghan
mission lowest ever: poll
- ^
Canadian soldier killed,
seven injured in Afghanistan
- ^
Almost two-thirds of
Canadians say Afghan mission too costly, poll suggests
- ^
a
b
c
d
e
f More Canadians Oppose
Afghanistan Extension
- ^
Pent Up Or Fed Up?
-
^
a
b Strategic Counsel poll
results February 2008
- ^
a
b
c
d Canadians Reject Extending
Afghan Mission
- ^
Country Still Split On
Mission
- ^
Poll results January
2008
- ^
Environics' Focus Canada
survey numbers (from September-October)
- ^
a
b Canadians split on Afghan
mission, poll shows
- ^
Conference of Defence
Associations Commentary 9—2007
- ^
Think tank's funding tied to
getting good press
- ^
The Conference of Defence
Associations’ secret contract with the Department of National
Defence
- ^
Five-Year Grant Agreement
between the Canadian Department of National Defence and the
Conference of Defence Associations
- ^
Canadians think Afghans are
benefitting but troops should come home soon
- ^
Western Europe, Canada see
Afghanistan mission as a failure
- ^
Poll results January 2008 and
earlier
- ^
Most Canadians oppose
Afghanistan mission: poll
-
^
Support for Afghan
intervention waning: poll
- ^
a
b Troop deaths alarm public: Poll
- ^
a
b Rising Discomfort with
Casualties
- ^
a
b
c Few Canadians Want Afghan
Mission Extended
- ^
Half (50%) Of Canadians
Support Canada’s Role In Afghanistan
- ^
Get troops out of Afghanistan
in 2009: poll
- ^
Vast majority wants Afghan
mission to end on schedule: poll
- ^
a
b Canadians support talks with
Taliban: poll
- ^
Poll suggests most concerned
about Afghanistan
- ^
Canadians want the troops
home from Afghanistan on time, poll says
- ^
Canadians Want Troops Out of
Afghanistan
-
^
a
b
c
d Canadians in Afghanistan face
greater death threat
-
^
a
b Pull out of Kandahar unless
allies pitch in, Manley report urges
- ^ a
b
Manley panel report
p.26
- ^
a
b The war in Afghanistan: Hold
your nerve
-
^
a
b
c Cdns bearing brunt of Afghan
coalition casualties
- ^
Afghanistan: Bringing
Canadian troops home
-
^ Canadians killed at much
higher rate than NATO allies: report
- ^
a
b Risk of death soars for
Canada's troops
- ^
Afghanistan deadlier for
coalition troops than Iraq: study
-
^
a
b Relative lethality - Survival
odds for civilians and occupiers in Afghanistan and Iraq
-
^ Danish Afghanistan losses in
line with British
-
^
a
b Bearing the burden: ISAF
casualties in Afghanistan
- ^
Global Support for the War in
Afghanistan is Plummeting -- So Why Aren't Americans Talking About
It?
- ^
Denmark tops Afghan per capita
KIA figures
- ^
Denmark lost most soldiers in
Afghanistan
-
^ Afghanistan: Canada Must
Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy
-
^ Harper 'deeply troubled' by
Afghan move to limit women's rights
-
^ This is antithetical to our
mission in Afghanistan
- ^
Canadian forces pay higher
price
-
^
a
b Period 9: Recent military
fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq by cause and
nationality
- ^
Cdn troops fatally shoot
Afghan man in taxi
- ^ Canadian soldiers fatally
shoot taxi driver
- ^ Bullet fired by Canadian
soldier kills Afghan boy
- ^ Cdn. troops mistakenly kill
Afghan police officer
- ^
a
b NATO hopes to lower Afghan
civilian deaths
-
^
Media blind to Afghan civilian
deaths
- ^
a
b Canadian troops kill another
Afghan civilian
- ^
a
b Afghans killed as Canadians
attacked
-
^
a
b
c 2007 Civilian casualty report
by NATO forces in Afghanistan
-
^ Canadian troops kill unarmed
Afghan civilian
- ^ Two unarmed Afghans killed by
NATO troops
- ^ Canadian troops kill Afghan
civilian, officer
-
^
a
b One Afghan boy killed,
brother wounded by Canadian troops
- ^ Canadians investigated in
Afghan civilian death
- ^ Canadian convoy fires on
security-firm vehicle in Afghanistan, killing one
- ^ UN Assistance Mission in
Afghanistan - Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed
Conflict, 2008
- ^
a
b Canadian troops kill Afghan civilian
- ^
a
b Canadian fire kills Afghan
civilian
- ^ Afghan civilian killed as car
nears Canadian bomb team
- ^ Afghan girl killed, likely by
errant Canadian bullets
- ^ Teens killed by Canadian
soldiers on patrol in Afghanistan
-
^
a
b July 31, 2009 UNAMA Human
Rights - Afghanistan - Mid-Year Bulletin on Protection of Civilians
in Armed Conflict, 2009
- ^ Civilian deaths reported in
Operation Medusa
- ^ Civilian deaths reported in
Operation Medusa
- ^ Too many civilians killed by
NATO in Afghanistan in 2006, official says
- ^ Too many Afghan civilians
killed by NATO forces: official
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f Canada's Afghanistan mission
tally 10.5 billion dollars so far
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g Fiscal Impact of the Costs
Incurred by the Government of Canada in support of the Mission in
Afghanistan (October 2008)
- ^ What is the price tag of
war?
- ^
a
b
c
d
e
f Afghan war costs $22B, so
far: study
- ^ Afghan war cost over
$20-billion, claims think tank
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h The Cost of the war and the
End of Peacekeeping: The Impact of Extending the Afghanistan
Mission
- ^ War in Afghanistan to cost
Government $20.7 billion, UN Peacekeeping abandoned: Rideau
Institute Report
- ^ Cost of Afghan mission double
Conservative estimate: think-tank
-
^
a
b
c Canada to spend $3.5-billion
on Afghan effort (original reference)
-
^
a
b
c Canada to spend $3.5-billion
on Afghan effort
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f Military expenses in
Afghanistan have ballooned well above expectations
- ^
a
b
c Afghanistan, by the
numbers
-
^
a
b Canadian navy enacts
cost-cutting measures (original reference)
- ^
a
b Canadian navy enacts
cost-cutting measures
-
^
a
b Afghan mission costs up
sharply (original reference)
- ^
a
b Afghan mission costs up
sharply
- ^ a
b
c
d
e
Afghan sticker shock
- ^ Afghan motion a confidence
matter (original reference)
- ^ Afghan motion a confidence
matter
- ^ Finding Canada's place in the
world - We need a new map, Lloyd Axworthy argues
- ^
a
b Afghan mission $1B over budget
- Conservatives attempt to explain report of overrun for
2007-08
- ^ The political cost of
Afghanistan
- ^ Cost of Afghan mission being
kept secret
- ^ Harper agrees to release of
Afghan war cost report
- ^ Cost of Afghan mission to be
released Thursday
- ^
a
b
c
d
e
f Treasury Board pegs Afghan
tab $1.35B higher
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i Canada's ballooning Afghan war
cost no longer national secret
- ^ The Cost of the war and the
End of Peacekeeping: The Impact of Extending the Afghanistan
Mission, p.2
- ^ Afghan mission has cost $4.1B
and counting: report
- ^
a
b
c
d Motion to extend Afghan
mission passes
- ^ a
b
Afghan costs stir
uproar
- ^ Afghan costs leave navy up
the creek (original reference)
- ^ Afghan costs leave navy up
the creek
- ^ Afghan mission will top $18B
by 2011: report
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h Military will need break when
Afghan mission ends: Canadian army chief
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f
g Top soldier says Afghan
action wearing out equipment
- ^ Soldiers may get one-year
break in 2011: Forces
- ^ a
b
Army running on empty
- ^ a
b
c
d
e
War Is Peace
-
^
a
b Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Development
- ^ Troop and Other Personnel
Contributions to Peacekeeping Operations 2007
- ^ Human Development Report
2009
- ^ U.S. involved in Iraq war
longer than it was in World War II
- ^ Canada and the Second World
War, 1939-1945
- ^ Canada and the War in the Far
East
- ^ Archives - Canada and the
First World War
- ^ Canada and the First World
War
- ^ Chronology of the Canadian
Advance in Korea
- ^ Afghanistan: A timeline of
Canadian involvement post-9/11
- ^ Canada & The South
African War, 1899-1902
- ^ Canada & The South
African War, 1899-1902 - Units
- ^ The South African War was
Canada’s first overseas conflict
-
^
a
b
c
d
e MPs narrowly vote to extend
Afghanistan mission
- ^
a
b
c
d
e Canada Votes to Extend
Mission in Afghanistan
- ^
a
b
c
d Harper says Afghan debate
important for Canada
-
^ Council of Canadians urges MPs
to oppose longer mission in Afghanistan
- ^ Most Cdns. oppose Afghanistan
deployment: poll
- ^
a
b MPs vote to extend Afghan
mission
-
^
a
b The Afghan debate: Where the
parties stand on the deployment of troops
-
^ Mr. Harper Goes to War -
Canada, Afghanistan, and the Return of "High Politics" in Canadian
Foreign Policy
- ^ Hansard May 17, 2006
vote
- ^ Canadians balk at extending
Afghanistan mission
- ^ Ottawa Citizen searchable
database of Canadian casualties in the war in Afghanistan
- ^ onfidence vote on Afghan
mission expected for March
- ^ Tories seek to extend Afghan
mission to 2011 in confidence motion
-
^
a
b Conservatives, Liberals extend
Afghanistan mission
- ^ House votes in favour of
extending Afghan mission
-
^
a
b
c
d
e
f Rallies held across Canada to
protest Afghan mission
-
^ Troops to stay in Afghanistan
after 2011: MacKay
-
^ Afghan Journal - Lifting the
veil on conflict, culture and politics
- ^ Stepping back and looking
forward on Afghanistan
-
^
a
b Harper says 2011 'end date'
for Afghanistan mission
-
^ Military commitment in
Afghanistan over by 2011: Harper
- ^ Harper marks eight years of
sacrifice in Afghanistan, affirms 2011 deadline
-
^ NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of
the Transatlantic Alliance - July 2, 2009 p.2 (PDF p.5)
-
^
Gender Gap Grows Over Afghan
Mission p.6
-
^ Canadians Disagree with
Extending Mission in Afghanistan until 2011, p.7
-
^ Only a Third of Canadians
Agree with Afghanistan Mission Extension, p.7
-
^ Canadian Majority Wants Troops
Out of Afghanistan Before 2011, p.7
-
^ Half of Canadians Adamant
About Ending Afghan Mission Before 2011, p.9
- ^ Most believe Afghan mission's price too high:
poll
- ^ Canadian Peace Protests Mark
Third Anniversary of Iraqi Invasion
- ^ North American protests mark
third anniversary of Iraq war
-
^
a
b Thousands turn out to protest
Canada's participation in Afghanistan
- ^
a
b Protesters demand withdrawal
from Afghanistan
- ^
a
b Canadians protest Afghanistan
mission
-
^
a
b Rallies in Canada and U.S.
protest Iraq war, Afghan mission
- ^ Jour de
manifestation
- ^ Anti-war activists hold peace
rallies across Canada
- ^ Hundreds participate in
protest against Afghan war
-
^
a
b Canadians protest war in
Afghanistan, call for troop pullout
- ^ Canadians rally against
extended Afghan mission
- ^ Protesters seek end to Afghan
combat mission
- ^ End Afghan war, protest
demands
- ^ Peace activists demand Canada
leave Afghanistan
- ^ Demo wants Afghan exit -
Protest calls on PM to bring troops back to Canada
-
^
a
b Protesters want Canadian
troops out of Afghanistan
- ^ Anti-war protesters target
Canadian military mission in Afghanistan
- ^ Anti-war protesters target
U.S. consulate
External
links
- Rethink
Afghanistan, a ground-breaking documentary focusing on
key issues surrounding the war in Afghanistan:
- Part 1: Troops · Part 2: Pakistan · Part 3: Cost of the War · Part 4: Civilian Casualties · Part 5: Women · Part 6: Terrorism
Wikis
Search
