Perceptions of War
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PERCEPTIONS OF WAR By CHRISTINE OLDFIELD B.A., University of Alberta, 2003 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS In HUMAN SECURITY AND PEACEBUILDING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. ______ Susan Brown Academic Supervisor ______ Alejandro Palacios Academic Lead, MA Human Security and Peacebuilding ______ Dr. Gregory Cran, Director School of Conflict and Peace Management ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY November 2008 © Christine Oldfield, 2008 ISBN:978-0-494-50421-5 Perceptions of War 2 Abstract The objective of this research is to examine governmental messaging during times of international conflict, specifically Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, as it relates to public perception. This paper will test the effectiveness of government messaging during a specific time of high-risk international deployment. The first section is a quantitative analysis from the various forms of public feedback. In order to measure the public’s responses to messaging, comparisons of the responses before and after the government’s release of a message have been evaluated. The second section comprises of a qualitative analysis to determine the correlation, if any, between the results from the public feedback and the government messaging. It is hoped that the findings of this research will contribute to an understanding of how messaging can be used to influence the public’s views and confidence, particularly if is related to a high risk and possibly unpopular activity. Perceptions of War 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: PROJECT OVERVIEW …………………………………………04 Purpose of Project.................................................................................................04 Overview………………………………………………………………………08 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………...09 CHAPTER THREE: PROCESSES AND METHODOLOGIES……………………13 Research Methods………………………………………………………………13 Design Model……………………………………………………………………14 CHAPTER FOUR: THREE PHASES………………………………………………...15 Phase One: Operation Enduring Freedom……………………………………………15 Global Security and the War on Terror………………………………………..15 Canada’s Initial Response………………………………………………………16 Canada’s Out of Iraq……………………………………………………………22 Phase Two: International Security Assistance Force…………………………………28 Canada’s Lead in ISAF…………………………………………………………29 Canada to Kandahar: Paul Martin’s Decision…………………………………31 The 3D Approach………………………………………………………………..36 Phase Three: Kandahar………………………………………………………………...39 Task Force Afghanistan…………………………………………………………43 Move to a Conservative Government……………………………………………46 Stephen Harper’s Campaign for Support……………………………………….48 Debating Afghanistan…………………………………………………………...50 Mission Clarification……………………………………………………………54 Humanitarian Values……………………………………………………………55 Language Critics………………………..……………………………………….58 Proposed Extension……………………………………………………………...60 Message Clarification…………………………………………………………....62 Perceptions of War 4 CHAPTER FIVE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES…………….66 Initial Reactions………………………………………………………………….66 Mid-Term Reaction……………………………………………………………...68 Current Reactions………………………………………………………………..69 Trend analysis of public perceptions……………………………………………70 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………72 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………….76 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………..81 TIMELINE………………………………………………………………………………90 Perceptions of War 5 CHAPTER ONE Project Overview Purpose of Project The purpose of this study is to contribute to an understanding of whether the messaging used during times of international conflict has the capability to influence the public’s views and confidence, particularly if is related to high risk and possibly unpopular activities. Canada made the decision on October 7, 2001 to contribute to the international forces in the campaign against terrorism. Jean Chretien made the announcement to deploy the Canadian Forces (CF) as an alliance member in support of the United States, laying the foundation for Canada’s principal theatre of operations in the wider US-led "global war on terror." Canada’s commitment would begin rather modestly in the relatively safe area of Kabul, but would be severely tested with the CF transfer to Kandahar. Kandahar is a country that appears caught up in a complex stability operation that combines elements of counter insurgency and reconstruction in what Sean Maloney has described as a "post-Apocalyptical environment in the wake of ... a twenty-five year 'civil war'." The move to Kandahar transformed Canada’s involvement into a long term commitment to a post-conflict reconstruction combined with counterinsurgency warfare. Not only is the Afghanistan mission Canada’s largest troop deployment since the Korean War, Afghanistan is Canada’s single largest recipient of aid funding, and the initiative has also spanned the terms of three Prime Ministers. Government justification for the mission varied depending on the party in power and events on the ground, however, all three Perceptions of War 6 governments stressed that Canada’s mission would secure national interests and project humanitarian values; however, the first priority for all governments in addressing this crisis has been to protect the safety and security of Canadians. Over the course of the mission, Canada’s involvement gradually moved towards reconstruction efforts, both by providing military assistance towards stabilization and securing the country and by increasing the development funding distributed. Canada was one of 51 countries committed to the 2006 Afghanistan Compact, a comprehensive international program of aid to Afghanistan’s security, governance and development. For the years 2002-2011, Canada has authorized $1.2 billion in international assistance to Afghanistan. That country now receives more Canadian aid than any other, about 3% of all Canadian aid during the period under review. Furthermore, events in Afghanistan, and the expected outcomes, was seen to directly affect Canada’s security, its reputation in the world, and its future ability to engage the international community in achieving objectives of peace, security and shared prosperity. Informed and fair-minded Canadians may have differed on the policy choices before them, but, none doubted that the future of Afghanistan mattered to Canada for either security or humanitarian motives. Various justifications for Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan have been offered to the public. “Afghanistan has been depicted as an exercise in national security, the fulfillment of multilateral obligations, a humanitarian mission, and an attempt to rebuild a failed and fragile country.” After the 2008 external panel review of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley affirmed: “While public support for Canadian troops is strong, Canadians have been uncertain about Canada’s evolving mission in Afghanistan. To put things bluntly, Governments from the start of Canada’s Afghan involvement have Perceptions of War 7 failed to communicate with Canadians with balance and candour about the reasons for Canadian involvement, or about the risks, difficulties and expected results of that involvement. Almost the only Government accounts that Canadians have received have come from the Department of National Defence. Important issues of Canadian diplomacy and aid in Afghanistan have scarcely been acknowledged and seldom asserted in public by ministers or officials responsible.” There was a small, although important, percentage of Canadians who oppose participation in any form of conflict because of a philosophical objection to the use of armed force however, amongst this small percentage are those who would also support participation in traditional peacekeeping. There are those who support traditional or more "robust" peacekeeping, but only if authorized directly by the United Nations. There are those who support non-UN peacekeeping coalitions or regional bodies (including NATO), if the objective is to address a significant humanitarian disaster, such as in Kosovo or Sudan. These are all significant moral, legal and practical factors affecting how Canadians have approached the legitimacy of conflict participation and resolution.1 The task of managing the public’s perception and maintaining public support for government initiatives in Afghanistan has been complicated by the apparent lack of clarity about Canada’s motives, coupled with the variety of motivations and tolerance levels of Canadians for involvement in high risk, military operations undoubtedly complicated. The Canadian military deployment to Afghanistan developed into three phases: from October 2001 to August 2003 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), from September 2003 to August 2005 as part of the International Security Assistance Force 1 Collins, Robin, POLLING THE AFGHANISTAN INTERVENTION QUESTION IN AID OF POLICY-MAKING. July 16,2007 Retrieved at http://www.igloo.org/shortpieces/pollingt . Perceptions of War 8 (ISAF) mission in Kabul, and from August 2005 to present in Kandahar province in an integrated approach known as the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kandahar. Each of these quite different stages will be assessed within the broader context of three respective overarching missions: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)/International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kandahar. The objective of this research is to examine governmental messaging during times of international