OTTAWA — Analysts say two generations of peace have left many Canadians with no yardstick to measure combat deaths, which means each casualty in Afghanistan hits hard.

"What you have here is a population that has been so long distanced from war that it has really no internal frame of reference on how you go about dealing with the fact that in war people get killed," said Brian MacDonald, a retired artillery colonel.

"As a consequence, there is then a very powerful reaction on each individual death.

"The actual casualty rates that we have been suffering by historic perspectives are quite light, but people don't know that because they have no personal yardstick against which to measure it."

Since 2002, there have been 32 military deaths in Afghanistan, with five coming in the last weekend.

Jim Fergusson, a professor at the University of Manitoba's Centre for Defence and Security Studies, pointed out that on July 1, 1916, during the First World War, the British army lost 60,000 killed and wounded, including almost an entire regiment from Newfoundland.

"We are obsessed with four or five deaths," he said.

Losing five soldiers in less than 48 hours stands out for Canadians today, but even the Korean War, a small conflict by world standards, provided worse days.

In the battle of Kapyong on the night of April 24-25, 1951, 10 Canadians were killed and 23 injured.

Even peacekeeping produced high death tolls from time to time, but people discounted that because of the mystique of peacekeeping, said Jack Granatstein, a historian and author.

In August 1974, the Syrians shot down a Canadian plane near the Golan Heights, killing nine Canadian peacekeepers.

"There wasn't a peep in Canada,' said Granatstein.

"We have persuaded ourselves that we're peacekeepers only and the idea that we're actually fighting in a war is almost alien to us."

The latest Afghan deaths, including that of a soldier killed when an American jet mistakenly strafed a Canadian unit, are likely to be reflected in public opinion polls at home, Granatstein said.

"We are very casualty-sensitive in this country."

Fergusson, however, said he doubts opinion polls will shift much because neither supporters of the Afghan mission nor opponents are likely to be moved by anything short of a major disaster.

The friendly fire incident may provoke some short-lived anti-American sentiment, the analysts said.

David Wilkins, the American ambassador to Canada, offered his condolences and sympathy to the families of the dead and wounded.

"There will be a full and thorough investigation and we will share the results of that investigation," he said in a statement Monday.

Friendly fire is an unfortunate fact of war, the analysts said.

"It is very much a part of warfare," said Granatstein. "As much as you try to prevent it, as much as you exercise care, it happens, the same way that car accidents happen."

Some have complained that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is evolving into a deadly war from what was supposed to be a mission to stabilize the country.

Lewis MacKenzie, a retired general who led peacekeepers in the Balkans, said the mission hasn't changed, but the tempo has.

To keep things stable, NATO forces have to pursue those who would destabilize things.

Fergusson said things changed more than 18 months ago, when NATO decided to move into the boondocks from the region around Kabul and began to butt head-on against the Taliban.

He also predicted, though, that fighting will tail off as soon as winter moves in. He said the Taliban will go to ground as snow closes the mountain passes that form its supply line.

Spring may bring renewed fighting, however.

Meanwhile, he said, the Canadian government has to do a better job explaining the mission and the problems it faces.

"Creating democracy is not an easy business," he said. "We in the West like quick solutions. These things aren't open to quick solutions."