National Bureau of Economic Research;
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.
The PDF is here.
h/t
This only makes sense. I have never been so appalled and disgusted by a political leader, and that is saying something, as I was when Jack Layton, the day after 6 Canadian soldiers died from an IED, stood in front of cameras and said we need to withdraw from Afghanistan now.
Put yourself in the shoes of those who planted the bomb, if you can stomach it. One day after murdering 6 soldiers, a political leader from that country says pull out now. Are you more likely to increase your efforts…or stop.
In my opinion, Layton and his ilk are directly responsible for Canadian deaths.
“In my opinion, Layton and his ilk are directly responsible for Canadian deaths.”
How about the ~55% of Conservative Party of Canada supporters who have consistently opposed the Afghanistan mission for over two years now? Are they directly responsible for Canadian deaths too?
Of course not, butt touque. So shaddup.
Regardless of whether the 55% number is correct, they aren’t standing in front of a mike and saying we should run away with our tails between our legs. Why anyone asks the opinion of Jack Layton is beyond me.
So, the propaganda is working. Taliban Jack will be so PROUD! eeee!
“How about the ~55% of Conservative Party of Canada supporters who have consistently opposed the Afghanistan mission for over two years now? Are they directly responsible for Canadian deaths too?”
Got proof of that drive by smear?
I call BS
I wonder how the islamo-fascists will respond during the US Presidential election campaign. Will they keep quiet or try harder?
One can argue either waym, but their desire surely must be for a democrat, better even, Obama. What course of action is best for them to achieve this? I would suggest quietude, although it goes against their psycopathic, hoimicidal, impulses. I’d expect they’d just wait 12 months while the US relinquishes all the gains it has made, then it will move in an slaughter all those who have allied themselves with the US.
after a google search of your statement, yes it is indeed BS. A poll in 2006 showed 55% against.
That is not 55% of conservatives, as you stated, and also horribly skewed by Quebec which polls in the high 70% against.
Never let the truth get in the way of good trolling
try some of this on for size
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/9-2007%20-%20Afghanistan%20and%20the%20Polls.pdf
Over the period from March 2006 to
July 2007 Strategic Counsel conducted
eleven polls. The average “Support” level
reported was 41.1%, with support in
Quebec, at 27.6%, running well behind
that in the Rest of Canada at 45.4%.
Good evidence for the Doom and
Gloom Headlines, maybe?
Maybe not.
The ten Ipsos-Reid polls over
essentially the same period (March 2006
to August 2007) showed an average
“Support” level running at 51.5%–some
ten points higher than the parallel
Strategic Counsel polls, and with
“Support” in Quebec at 36.5%–some 8.9
points higher than the Strategic Counsel
number of 27.6%, and at 57.5% in the
Rest of Canada—some 12.1 points
higher than the Strategic Counsel
number of 45.4%
Interestingly, Ipsos-Reid also did a
series of tracking polls (polls which ask
the same question at periodic intervals
so that opinion movement over time can
be tracked) under contract for DND over
the period from Sep 19-21, 2006 to Mar
20-22, 2007, which showed clearly how
changes in the specific wording of a
question can produce sharply different
results.
The baseline, plain vanilla, question
was “Overall, would you say that you
strongly support, somewhat support,
somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose
Canada’s activities in Afghanistan?”
That question got an average support
level of 51%, with 19.4% of respondents
“Strongly Supporting,” and 31.6%
“Somewhat Supporting” the mission.
Those opposed amounted to 45.8%, with
21.8% “Strongly Opposed,” and 24%
“Somewhat Opposed” to the mission.
The Quebec numbers were less
supportive than those in the “Rest of
Canada”, with an average support level
of 33.2%, with 7.4% “Strongly
Supporting” the mission, and 25.8%
“Somewhat Supporting” the mission, for
a total opposition level of 64.2%.
Change the question to include a
statement of purpose for the mission,
however, and the results go up, in some
cases dramatically.
Change the question to emphasize
the combat mission, to “Would you say
that you strongly support, somewhat
support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose Canada’s military operations in
Afghanistan such as helping to secure
the environment for the civilian
population through activities that
include combat,” and the support level
rises 11.8 percentage points over the
“plain vanilla” question, to an average of
62.8%.
Change the question to emphasize
the diplomatic dimension, to ‘Would you
say that you strongly support, somewhat
support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose Canada’s diplomatic work in
Afghanistan, such as helping the Afghan
pe opl e re – bui l d go v e rnment
institutions,” and the average support
level soars 29.6 percentage points over
the “plain vanilla” results to 80.6%.
Change the question to emphasize
the development mission, to “Would you
say that you strongly support, somewhat
support, somewhat oppose, or strongly
oppose. Canada’s development and
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan,
such as helping to train teachers, build
health clinics, and clear landmines” and
the average support level climbs further
to 85.4%, 34.4 percentage points above
the “plain vanilla” level.
So—what can we conclude from the
way that differences in question wording
can drive the numbers?
We can probably conclude that those
Canadians who are opposed to the
Afghanistan mission will, no doubt, find
comfort in the Strategic Counsel question
and results.
And that those, like the Conference of
Defence Associations, who support both
our troops and our mission, will take
comfort in the robust wording of the
Ipsos-Reid question, which leaves no
doubt whatsoever that we are speaking
of the role of the Canadian Forces in
Afghanistan as one which is to help “to
secure the environment for the civilian
population through activities that include
combat.”
No pussyfooting there!
I guarantee you that if we were faced with the current media mindset and ideological stance in 1940, there would be a large European Germany, a new Roman Empire and numerous Japanese colonies.
Sensationalism, a lack of ethics, an overestimation of their own importance, and an attitude of defeat at all costs pervades the fifth estate nowadays, and we all suffer for it.
Data Dump Stats are for the ignorant, or in the infamous words of the Teflon Don “Its easier to fix a Poll than a Horse Race”
The Dem’s (Hillary & Obama) have changed their Iraq position more times than Spitzer dropped his shorts. The, behind the curtain, Polls indicate that the US supports the BUSH position with all its warts.
The MSM will be spoofing their previous criticism and try to Claim that the Bush Iraq policy has had bi-partisan support from day one.
Which is why I and others feel perfectly justified In citing thelikes of Jack Layton and many in the MSM as traitors.
They are traitors …. not just in thought but in deed.
Lending aid and comfort to the enemy through moral support and the act of undermining the resolve of the public.