- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFP,
I am calling you on a case of allowing yourself to be befuddled by a statistics crime foisted on us by our friends at Canwest media. Put simply the Vancouver Sun article is incorrect.
Before you cite any poll you have to find two important things: population size and significance. In this report Ipsos-Reid does not report the population size but according to the report the poll, conducted for CanWest News this week, has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.
Thus the the report is problematic since a change of two points (plus or minus) means absolutely nothing. Statistically the two numbers are the same. The problem for the author is that a story saying “polls show no change” won’t get your byline above the fold and sadly the editors seem unwilling to call this writer on his ignorance of statistics/ willingness to mislead for a byline (pick one).
Of interest the writer refers to changes from the last poll. According to Ipsos-Reid their last poll on this subject was reported on March 4th. Now let’s look at the regional data from the two polls: on March 4th the following was reported “Ontario, B.C. and Alberta offered much stronger support for the Afghan mission. A clear majority of Ontarians (63 per cent), Albertans (58 per cent) and British Columbians (55 per cent) said troops should stay in Afghanistan”. The March 25th version said: "Support softened significantly in Ontario and British Columbia, dropping eight points in each province, down to 57 and 52 per cent, respectively." Not to be a stickler but a change from 63 to 57 and from 55 to 52 seems a lot like changes of 6 and 3 points respectively and given that the plus/minus on each is 3.5 % (for each number meaning a total uncertainty of 7%) means that these numbers also show no significant difference either. Perhaps the Canwest writer is referring to a different poll by a different company (Strategic Council did a poll in the meantime) and yes those results differ significantly, the problem is that the Strategic Council Poll asked totally different questions (i.e the polls are not directly comparable).
Put simply, anyone who looks at the data with an open mind and a smattering of statistics can clearly see that the Canwest story is a put-up that lacks any statistical credibility. The report is a credit to every Editor who chose psychology over statistics in university and a demonstration of why some news editors need to be sent back for remedial math lessons.
LFP et al.,
I checked out the primary source material and will take this opportunity to point out that I was wrong in part of my last note. The Ontario and BC figures quoted are correct in the news article. The numbers I used were for a different question.
It would seem that the author of the article in the Sun took poetic licence with the wording of the original Ipsos-Reid question from the second poll and I misinterpreted which numbers were being compared to which....my bad!
Cheers
Ahh... numbers and polls...reminds me of horseshoes. Polls or not my guess is the people would be pretty much divided on this issue in Canada. Simply put this writer is concerned with the security & combat, seek & destroy mission our military is on. I want our Peacekeeping role back. I want our troops risking their lives for Peacekeeping and not forced Peacemaking! My opionion and that of a lot of Canadians. Watch this sentiment grow.
LFP,
I'm sure everyone would love to get old style peacekeeping back but that is not what the world is looking for right now. During the cold war it was easy since most of the conflicts were two sided with each side being a nation-state. That simply is not the case anymore. Most of the conflicts that require outside (read Canadian) help are internal and/or sectarian violence in failed states. It isn't a case of standing between two warring nations while they get their negotiators to pound out an agreement, instead it is about protecting civilians and international human rights. The players aren’t armies of tanks and artillery pieces but loose bands of insurgents and armed hooligans who are looking for an opportunity to kill and loot in the name of their cause.
Without security & combat patrols and armed boots on the ground the world bodies never could have stopped the killings in the Balkans. As another example look at Darfur, all the platitudes in the world have done nothing to stop the slaughter. As for the unarmed peacekeepers from the African Union that have been allowed into the country, the Janjaweed find them to make excellent hostages and fine target practice.
Regarding Afghanistan specifically, I can't believe that you could ever approve of the Taliban which would hang a child for flying a kite and stone a woman for not covering herself completely. Even more troubling for us (after all we did get involved) is that it served as a safe haven for international groups that meant us harm. As for your line “lengthy occupation” and comparing our presence to that of the Russians, that shows a remarkable lack of historical perspective. The Soviet Union (not Russia) invaded Afghanistan and then tried to run the country. It did not allow free elections, it did not allow freedom of religion, it was looking for a colony and to control pipeline routes in the region. The parallel to current action simply does not exist. In this case the Taliban was overthrown by a Western coalition (including significant support from Afghan forces that were resisting the Taliban) led by the Americans and an AFGHAN government VOTED FOR BY ITS ENTIRE POPULATION including WOMEN has taken over. Sadly after decades of warfare and occupation, the nation-state is not ready to stand on its own feet without help. Western forces are doing a good, honest and commendable job there and are supported by the overwhelming majority of the populace.
Finally, a major complaint that you and Councillor Richter seem to share is that Canada is advertising its good work in Washington and FOR SHAME is using advertising language that sells well in the US. As any good marketer will tell you, use the language that sells to your target demographic. In Washington that means emphasizing that we are making a difference and are finally doing our share after years of neglect in the international community.
The reality is that Canada has talked like a heavyweight but has had the presence of a flyweight in international affairs over the last decade and our partners and neighbours have noticed. Now we are actually putting actions to our words the Canadian government wants the American decision-makers to know what we are doing. In a US market that means advertisement and it means talking their language. I'm sure if the campaign was being planned for a Unicef event they would emphasize all the schools and hospitals they have rebuilt. But today we are advertising to regain the hearts and minds of our biggest trading partner and as such we are talking their language...Boots on the Ground! Sounds like a good approach to me.
Regards
They can say whatever they want about polls, what I and a lot of others I've discussed it with say is 'get the hell out of Afghanistan if your job description is now 'active combat' as was stated on the news.
Canada has always been known as a fair, just and peaceful nation, how about we keep it that way.
You live in a dream world. The role "active combat" or "peacekeeper" is not for us to decide. It depends, rather, on the situation on the ground. What *is* for us to decide is if we want to rebuild Afghanistan. If we go there and nobody wants to fight us, we can peacefully help rebuild Afghanistan. However, if we go there to do that but some parties decide to attack us then we are involved, de facto, in armed combat. Unless we decide to retreat from both the fighting *and* the rebuilding.
PS: "Peacekeeper" is a role that usually presumes intervention in a clearly delineated conflict between two other sides. When *we* become one of the sides involved in the conflict, we cannot do "peacekeeping".
I can't think of any conflict in which Canada acted as a peace keeper, that compared to the circumstances in any of the other conflicts. So the role of peacekeeper cannot be clearly defined in my opinion.
Anyone who has the least amount of empathy for their fellow man, must object to the cruelty imposed upon the Afghanistan people by the Talaban. Therefore I don't see Canada's role as neutral at all, but rather as being protective of a people who could not protect themselves.
Canadians can easily still be loosely called peace keepers though, much like our local police forces protect Canadians from criminal elements here in Canada. They are certainly not neutral, but we don't hesitate to call them keepers of the peace.
I think that the objections to the presence of our troops in Afghanistan runs deeper that what, or how, we define the role of peacekeeper. There are some people who just cannot sit back and watch while a group of thugs kick someone senseless. There are others who will intervene and try separating the combatants (Soon to be victims themselves?). Others see it as none of their business.
Unfortunately the world is much too small today for Canada to stand back and watch a force such as the Talaban apply their brutality. The dangers of any escalation beyond the local area of this conflict needs only a little imagination. A few men, a stack of money, the right weaponry, and 9/11 could take a back seat easily compared to the next event if left to chance.
Carter, I just heard on CNN that an estimated 100,000 plus innocent Iraqui's have been killed in this murderous onslaught. Many are now saying that they were far better off before all the troops came over.
You say I live in a 'dream' world, I'd rather have my own thoughts on this war than your one sided, misguided, opinion. You act as if we have no choice.....shake your head and think again.
Cognitive dissonance. Yes, you would rather have your own thoughts. Fine. Have them.
My opinion, by the way, isn't "one-sided". It is just *decided*. And it's hardly misguided. Anyone who thinks that a military situation half way around the world is dictated by some people sitting in Canada somewhere saying, "I think Afghanistan isn't a war situation, it's really a peacekeeping one..." is seriously misguided. A military situation is very simply dictated: if somebody shoots at you, it's no longer about peacekeeping.
I mean, you can stamp your feet and cry all you want that the Taliban are supposed to be playing the peacekeeping game - "Okay, Taliban, you guys stay on your side of the demilitarized zone, and the other guys [insert name] stay on their side of the demilitarized zone!" - but the Taliban simply may not want to play in that sandbox.
yadda,yadda,yadda You're wasting your time trying to convert me carter, go work on someone that is a 'follower' not a leader.
This week the 4000th young American man or woman lost thier life at war in Iraq. I guess Carter feels that only 81 young Canadians killed in Afghanistan is probably much better? Not to mention the hundreds and thoosands of civilians in the name of democracy! BS...
Commenting by HaloScan
