i think what people are saying with this is that, while they might not fully support military action, or may be uneasy about it if they do tentatively support it, they take the position that if we're going to fight this fight then we should fight it at full strength.

i mean, you've got 47% supporting total withdrawal and 60% supporting the continued use of jets. contradiction? not entirely, if the people that are supporting the jets are taking the position of "if we're going to fight them, let's go in full strength and get it over with and then come home right after."

see, that then brings up the question of whether that is a reasonable position. and, nobody informed of the position on the ground will argue that this can be done quickly.

honestly? i don't think this is an election driver, either. pollsters are still polling around the narrative put in place by the previous government - security, taxes and "strong leadership". that's not going to be the narrative of this government, and won't be the polling questions that will be relevant over the next four years. none of these issues were at the top of the list of any voters' survey.

but, if you take that step back from the data and think about it for a second, it's obvious. there's little reasons to think canadians would want this fight. but, we understand that they're bad guys, too. so, we're approaching it like toilet cleaning duty. we don't like it. we wish there was a better way. but, we know it's necessary.

what that means is that the government's task is to convince people that the pivot it's putting in place is the most practical way to deal with the issue. i think it's already halfway there, but it does seem to be losing the messaging on the planes - and i think that's largely because the media isn't "getting it". it's being presented as a pacifist way out, rather than a pragmatic tactical shift to best accomplish the goal of taking them out and then taking ourselves out.

(link to globe article lost)