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, PDF & Email

 

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

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share