I doubt that very much. Sounds like a conceit. Sounds like sport team fan talk.

I doubt that very, very much. If they cared for the people of Afghanistan, they wouldn't be occupying their country and killing them on orders from the Pentagon. I think the soldiers (they're certainly not "ours". We have no ownership of the Canadian Forces. We pay for their indulgences, but we have no say in their use) care more about their institution and their place in it. Afghanistan is a prop.

You don't buy all that crap about "Canada the Peacekeeper", do you? Our national rhetoric may say one thing, but our realpolitik involvments in many imperialist causes goes ignored. Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, for example. Or the Boer war.

Good for what? Sandbagging the Red River?

Our "allies" (co-conspirators) are obviously smarter than our simpering scumbag government. 

Who's "us"? I'm not occupying Afghanistan. And I think that describing the criminal occupation as a "burden" reinforces colonialist attitudes towards the occupied, and shifts the narrative where we portray ourselves as the victims of those ungrateful natives. Like the Americans think they were the victims of the Vietnamese.

Canada has a history of joining in military ventures of its imperial master, whomever that happens to be at the time. And Canada has a bad habit of being eager cannon fodder for futile operations the masters themselves wouldn't go anywhere near. So Canada romps off stupidly to South Africa, to Flanders, to Dieppe, to Afghanistan, all hoping to please the King, who doesn't really give a shit what "sacrifice" one of its' two-bit provincial vassal thinks it made.