Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Pakistan Poll Finds Widespread Disillusionment

New polling in Pakistan reveals a public that holds unfavorable views of the United States as well as of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and wants to see an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Print Friendly

 

Inter Press Service

The recent Wikileaks dump of war-related documents has brought little new to the debate over Washington's ongoing military involvement in Afghanistan, but allegations that Pakistan's intelligence services are aiding the Taliban has brought renewed attention to U.S. concerns over its reliance on Islamabad in battling Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

New polling data released Thursday appeared to confirm that Pakistanis share the U.S.'s uncertainty about their country's relationship with Washington, while, at the same time, holding unfavourable views of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The poll, conducted in the spring of this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, confirms that the U.S.'s overall image in Pakistan remains negative with only 17 percent of respondents having a favourable view of the U.S., 59 percent describing the U.S. as an enemy and only 11 percent viewing the U.S. as a partner.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban also received low marks from Pakistanis.

Eighteen percent of Pakistanis viewed al Qaeda favourably, up from nine percent in 2009, and 15 percent view the Taliban favourably, up from 10 percent in 2009.

Despite the small increases in public support for al Qaeda and the Taliban, large numbers of Pakistanis continue to express concern over the possibility of extremist groups taking control of their country.

Fifty-one percent of respondents were worried about an extremist takeover, but that number has dipped from 69 percent when the same poll was conducted in 2009.

The survey's results appear to suggest that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly negative about the U.S., al Qaeda, the Taliban and their own government.

"Pakistanis remain in a grim mood about the state of their country. Overwhelming majorities are dissatisfied with national conditions, unhappy with the nation's economy, and concerned about political corruption and crime," read the report.

"Only one-in-five express a positive view of President Asif Ali Zardari, down from 64 percent just two years ago," it continued.

Very few Pakistanis are happy with the economy, with 78 percent describing the current economic situation as somewhat or very bad. Eighty-four percent were dissatisfied with the current national situation.

Of the extremist organisations respondents were asked about, Lashkar-e-Taiba – the group most active in Kashmir and widely blamed for the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks – garnered the most mixed response from the Pakistani public.

Only 35 percent of respondents expressed a negative view of Lashkar-e-Taiba, 25 percent expressed a favourable view and 40 percent had no opinion.

Despite widespread negative view towards extremist groups, Pakistanis were in support of many of the harsh laws and punishments with which the Taliban is often associated.

Eighty-five percent supported segregation of men and women in the workplace; 82 percent were in favour of stoning adulterers; 82 percent were in favour of whipping or cutting off hands as punishment for theft; and 76 percent supported the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

While the Pew poll's results suggest that few Pakistanis have positive views towards extremist groups such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, support for U.S. involvement in the fight against extremists has declined over the past year.

The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is widely unpopular, with 65 percent of Pakistanis wanting the U.S. and its NATO allies to withdraw as soon as possible. Relatively few respondents were concerned that a U.S. withdrawal could lead to instability in Pakistan if it resulted in a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

"The U.S., on the one hand, very much wants to have Pakistan on its side and wants it to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and sees Pakistan as a very strategic country," said Pakistani political analyst Pervez Hoodbhoy on Wednesday at the Institute for Policy Studies.

"Because of the historical way the U.S. has dealt with Pakistan, there's a deep resentment within the people and the establishment. Over these years, as the Islamisation of Pakistan has become more pronounced, anti-Americanism has grown," he continued.

Only 25 percent of respondents expressed concern that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be bad for Pakistan, 18 percent thought a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan would be good, 27 percent said it wouldn't matter, and 30 percent had no opinion.

"The U.S. will not leave Afghanistan. It will move to the north. The skies over south Afghanistan will be filled with drones. They U.S. is not going to let al Qaeda once again become what it was earlier on. Now, of course, this will result in a deterioration of U.S.-Pakistan relations. There are people in my country who are calling for open war against the United States," said Hoodbhoy.

Interestingly, Pakistanis are widely in favour of improving relations with the U.S., with 64 percent wanting to improve the relationship. However, only 17 percent view the U.S. favourably and eight percent have confidence in President Barack Obama.

While the dissatisfaction with the U.S. involvement in the fight against extremists has grown over the years, the poll found that Pakistanis still consider their longtime historical rival, India, to be the greatest source of worry.

Fifty-three percent of Pakistanis identify India as the greatest threat to Pakistan while only 23 percent picked the Taliban and three percent chose al Qaeda.

Eli Clifton writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to IPS Right Web. He  blogs at www.LobeLog.com.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share