Canadian soldiers fighting in southern Afghanistan are three times as likely to be killed as British troops and four times more likely to die than American GIs, according to a report by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent think-tank.
The claim has also been supported by a separate study for Canada's Department for National Defence, which said its country's servicemen were "at significantly higher risk" in Kandahar than UK troops in neighbouring Helmand or US forces along the Pakistan border to the north-east.
The casualty toll has now become a major political issue which could topple Canada's minority government.
Ottawa has threatened to end its military involvement in Afghanistan from next January unless other Nato countries deploy at least 1000 combat troops and transport helicopters.
Ottawa has a 2500-strong contingent in the Taliban heartland, but only 1000 of them are fighting soldiers, with the others in supporting and supply-chain roles.
Canada's military death toll stands at 78 from its front-line units, compared with 87 British soldiers from a "bayonet strength" of more than 3000 and a total garrison of 7800. The Americans have lost 415 soldiers from a total of 28,000.
Since the US-led invasion to topple the Taliban regime in 2001, a total of 698 Nato, US and allied soldiers have died.
The biggest contingent in the country is American, while the smallest ranges from Austria with three soldiers to Georgia with just one token representative in uniform.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article