The survey, conducted only a week after the Conservative majority endorsed the expansion of bombing in a House of Commons vote on March 24, also found that public support for the Iraq mission has plunged since Canadian air strikes first began last November.
The Commons motion the Conservatives passed in March also endorsed a government decision to extend Canada’s Iraq mission by a year, to March 2016. The entire opposition benches—the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Green Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and Independent MPs—voted against the government motion.
At least 19 Conservatives were absent for the vote, but Chief Government Whip John Duncan’s (Vancouver Island North, B.C.) office later declined to say why so many government MPs did not vote.
“Some members were unable to be in Ottawa due to a variety of reasons, including official Parliamentary travel, funerals, serious medical issues, etcetera, so in order to respect confidential medical information, we will not be commenting on where individuals were at the time,” an aide to Mr. Duncan told The Hill Times.
Fully 55 per cent of voting-age Canadians oppose the Syrian air strikes, while those who oppose the broader Iraq mission now outnumber those who support it, the Forum poll shows.
Only 39 per cent of respondents to the March 31 survey expressed approval for the broader Iraq mission, compared to 66 per cent support last November, about the same time Canadian air strikes began after the Conservative majority in the House of Commons endorsed the original mission on Oct. 7.
Nearly half of the respondents, 48 per cent, now oppose the Iraq mission, with Conservative Party voters the most supportive at 71 per cent.
Conservative supporters are also the most likely to back the bombing missions into Syria. Sixty-two per cent favour expansion of the air war against Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL) north of the Iraq border, where ISIL forces are reportedly re-grouping after being targeted in well over 1,000 air strikes by U.S. led bombing strikes in Iraq over the past six months.
The Forum survey asked respondents: “Do you approve or disapprove of extending the Iraq mission into Syria?”
NDP supporters were most likely to oppose expansion of the bombing into Syria, with 72 per cent against the move. Sixty-five per cent of Liberal supporters oppose the air strikes in Syria, where a four-year-old civil war under Bath Party President Bashar al-Asaad has claimed more than 220,000 lives.
The devastating civil war has also been the breeding ground for ISIL, allowing it to flourish with a range of Islamic and secular factions rebelling against President al-Assad and his regime, condemned for its actions during the civil war and earlier atrocities.
Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) told the Commons that his government did not seek the Syrian government’s consent to conduct the air strikes and, like the U.S., which had earlier extended its bombing missions against ISIL into Syria, Canada was depending on a founding article of the United Nations that allows nation states to act in self-defence without UN Security Council consent in the face of an imminent attack.
The Forum results suggest Mr. Harper and the Conservatives may be wrong if they are expecting Canadians to turn to the Conservative Party in a general election this year if security and alarm over possible Islamic State terrorist attacks in Canada becomes a major ballot-box issue.
The death of Special Forces Regiment Sgt. Andrew Doiron, shot mistakenly by ally Kurdish peshmerga troops as he and three other special force soldiers were returning from a night operation, could have been a tipping point, said Forum Research president Lorne Bozinoff.
“Before our mission started, support was high, but now it has waned, possibly due to the unfortunate death of Sgt. Doiron,” said Mr. Bozinoff. “With an election approaching, this issue will be a test of who the true Conservative believers are.”
As well, since the spring sittings of the Commons began in January, the opposition parties have accused the government of misrepresenting the operations of nearly a company of Canadian special force soldiers in Iraq. The Oct. 4, 2014, Commons motion endorsing the original deployment stated that the House ‘notes’ the soldiers were to serve as advisers to Iraqi security forces, while also assisting them, and that they would not engage in ground combat operations.
Canadian Armed Forces officers briefing news media in February disclosed the Canadian troops were not only on operations near Islamic State combatant lines, targeting air strike targets with laser-beam guidance, but also had at least twice engaged Islamic State fighters and killed them after the ISIL fighters apparently shot at the Canadians while they were on operations.
The Canadian Armed Forces has confirmed to The Hill Times that the air strikes are “combat operations” because Canadian CF-18 fighter jets are bombing enemy targets on the ground, but in a series of responses to emailed questions, the CAF denied the soldiers guiding the air strikes to targets were part of the combat operations.
Former Canadian army colonel Pat Stogran, who commanded a Canadian infantry battalion attached to the U.S. 101 Airborne Division in Afghanistan in 2002, said the Canadian soldiers taking part in the air strikes are part of the combat operations.
“Regarding ground troops designating targets, yes they are definitely part of the combat operations,” Mr. Stogran, now an outspoken advocate for veterans, said in response to emailed questions from The Hill Times.
“Moreover, the operations (in which) we have engaged our CF-18s are considered ‘air operations’ only by the ill-informed and the disingenuous professionals,” said Mr. Stogran.
“There is no aerial campaign, they are attacking ground targets,” said the retired colonel.
The Forum Research telephone survey, an automated interactive voice response survey of 1,239 Canadians aged 18 and over, had a margin of error of three per cent 19 times out of 20.
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com/
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment