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

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.