Small Wars Journal

Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 Pakistanis View U.S. as Enemy

Thu, 07/29/2010 - 7:26pm
Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 Pakistanis View U.S. as Enemy - Robert Burns, Associated Press.

Comments

Fida (not verified)

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 2:09pm

Lamhoon...60 years!!

If possible read, arundhati roy's book, "Field Notes on Democracy - Listening to Grass Hoppers", then see it for yourself who is out to destroy whom in India. She won the Booker Prize in 1997 for another book.

And please don't try frame me "as well fed army officers or their cousin" - i am NOT.

omarali50

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 1:08pm

Fida, and I would say the India-centric version is a mistake and has been for 60 years. This zero-sum competition with India has mortgaged the future of 1.5 billion people and distorted economics, politics and culture in both countries, but more so in Pakistan. At its core, this version is saying "we cannot provide peace or security or development to our own people, but look how successfully we have made sure that India cannot provide the same to ITS people either. WE may not get anywhere, but by god, neither will India". Building JF-17 thunders and Al-Khalid tanks seems like the cat's whiskers when you are a well fed army officer (or their cousin, as the case may be) but what if we had never gone down this disastrous path? The possibilities stagger the mind....
Lamhon ney khita ki thi, saddiyon ney saza payee (moments erred, centuries suffered..)

Fida (not verified)

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 12:53pm

Omer, here is my pick...this version is very "india centric" and an old narrative. Anyways, thanks for correcting me for the urdu proverb; i was not knowing i have "ahley zubaan" on this blog!!

omarali50

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 11:38am

My apologies for the long comment, but this is a piece I wrote 3 years ago (and I swear not a word has been changed since then). I decided not to publish it, so this is the "raw form", not polished for publication. Fida sahib can figure out where he fits in this scheme (btw, the Urdu proverb is "zubaan e khalq ko nakkara e khuda sumjho" not "nakkara e khuda hoti hai", its a minor difference and I am being pedantic) ..
Based mostly on traffic on our blog and other email exchanges, here are some versions of what is happening in Pakistan. As you can see, most are pessimistic, but even the pessimists dont agree on what they are pessimistic about.
1. The chickens come home to roost: This version is based on the following narrative: The army raised thousands of jihadis for war in Afghanistan and Kashmir. It supported the rise of a vast network of jihadi organizations and madressas to back up this Jihad. Its "strategic thinkers" dreamed (still dream?) of empire in Central Asia and the complete defeat of India. All this was done by a relatively small core of truly committed jihadis, who manipulated all the other officers, mainly by using terms like strategic depth and Indian threat, which terms are known to lead to a complete shutdown of normal mental functions in senior Pakistani army officers. The officers being manipulated were aware of the Jihadi enterprise in some detail, but do not seem to have given too much thought to its implications as long as they got their residential plots and perks drove around in staff cars. The Jihadis had a plan and real (though dangerous) all round vision and exhibited remarkable patience and guile and determination. The "other officers" were thoroughly duped, though in their defense one can say that they are senior army officers, hence not required to think. The rest of the population was never taken into confidence at all and was manipulated by the Jihadis sophisticated psyops people via their preferred method of "create confusion and keep moving".
When 9-11 forced a U-turn of sorts on Musharraf, he took full advantage of the limited imagination, arrogance and greed of the Pentagon and the Bush NSC to string them along for as much cash as he could get. He happily took the money but at every step, did a little less than the minimum required. Hoping that once the Americans got tired (an absolute given, as far as the army's view of things is concerned) we will be back to status quo ante and richer by a few billion dollars. Being one of the great strategic thinkers of the army (remember Kargil?), he clearly believed that defeating India in Kashmir by military means was a "core strategic requirement", as was maintaining Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, therefore the "good Taliban" needed to be saved and Kashmiri jihadis need to be kept "in reserve". In spite of clear evidence that some of these options will blow up in our faces, nothing was ever done pro-actively. At every step, change was forced on the army after much resistance and double talk and after allowing the problem to spread and grow.
And the armys brilliant handling of the situation was not limited to the Jihadis. From MQM in Karachi (May 12th massacre remains the classic example) to Baluchistan to electricity to local bodies to manipulated politics to destroyed judiciary, his rule was a record of one disaster after another. There are a few bright spots, for example, the excellent work of the Higher Education Commission and the growth of the independent media. Progress in these areas was notable, but without the writ of the state, without basic governance, all these gains remain fragile.
Now, the same geniuses are about to fight the next stage in the war. Cross your fingers and pray....
2. The army giveth, the army taketh away, but ground realities dictate the pace: This is the view that says that Jihadism is the creation of some highly motivated Muslims, led by local ideologues and financed by Saudi cash. The army has not led this movement; it has simply followed it and used it where it felt the national interest was being helped. After 9-11, the army high command tried to roll back the jihadi project, but the task is much bigger than outsiders can know. Its a miracle we are this far along. Give the army time, Inshallah they will solve this problem, but it takes patience and careful handling. Liberals are asking for too much. The army itself has to be reoriented to the new paradigm without breaking apart and without triggering a jihadi coup. Similarly, all the civilian institutions were worthless anyway. The system as it exists is oppressive and totally unfair. But we are the elite. If we "reform the system", where will WE go? The army needs to rebuild the whole thing but it takes time. In any case, the people of Pakistan are not ready to oppose shariah-loving fighters of Islam. They have to be gently manipulated and bribed into this fight. And of course, America must make India give us concessions so we can cooperate better. We are almost there. Loose talk will destroy this delicate operation; dont mess it up.
3. The optimistic liberal view: Pakistan is slowly but steadily developing from the bottom up. The army and its manipulated politicians are both retreating in the face of the new civil society. There is a new educated Pakistani middle class. A new media. Much better education. Real research. Willingness to discuss all options and all opinions. Willingness to look beyond the jihadis as well as the Westoxicated elite and its colonial mentality. Unfortunately, this velvet revolution is limited to Punjab, Sindh and Peshawar. Fortunately, these areas constitute most of our population; and so on. Overseas Pakistanis and the parasites of the old elite have no idea what is coming up from below. All will be well.
4. Everything is exaggerated: this view holds that liberals and jihadists and everyone else are exaggerating the situation. The system is slowly working out its kinks. Pakistan is a new nation. We are only 62 years old. Look at America. Civil war, genocide of the Indians, robber barons, Wild West and whatnot. We are working things out better than India, where Muslims are burnt to death in the thousands and democracy is all about criminals in parliament. Our army is one of the finest in the world. There are twenty different insurgencies in India and nobody calls them a failed state. We are a nuclear power. America and Israel and India have conspired for 60 years to destroy us and we have built bombs and JF-17 thunders and AlKhalid tanks. India cannot even build a jet trainer. Our missiles are the best in Asia. Indian ones dont even fly. Nobody sleeps on the footpath in Karachi; millions sleep in shit in Calcutta. Yes, this version is very "India centric".
5. The coming caliphate. This version says its time to accept the inevitable and let the Taliban roll into town. This country is an Islamic country and the people want Islamic rule and the elite is not delivering and will have to migrate elsewhere. This version can be presented as positive or negative depending on where the narrator stands in relation to shariah compliant Islam.
NO version expects Zardari and Rahman Malik to perform any miracles.

Take your pick..

LPierson (not verified)

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 3:06am

Fida,

You are obviously welcome here.

I am certain you have noted there are many contributors to SWJ possessing strong differences of opinion. Having a strong difference of opinion doesn't disqualify one from offering it. And discussion is more than unopposed renderings and fleeting avoidance of difficult issues!

You are absolutely correct, the USA does desire friendship - unpurchased and/or rented as you took time to point out in your initial offering on this thread. Friendhip is not a one-way effort however.

Lets not fool ourselves, US/Pakistan relations is/has/and will be based on paid for cooperation. Yes it is business, and the GoPakistan goes to great lengths to remind the US and the world of that fact. All the people-to-people contact that you and others have here in forums like SWJ does not change that fact.

You spent considerable effort pointing to reasons (mostly US in origin) behind Pakistani dislike for America. You are free to continue to do so. Likewise, however, when confronted with blunt talk regarding structural problems within Pakistan it would be good form not to avoid those issues like the plague. Example: why there is a lack of US investment in the Pakistani economy? The answers are clear.

It would be very refreshing to have the GoPakistan require the US to invest in the civilian economy with its aid instead of providing F16'S etc. to GHQ (simple example I know, but simply illustrative too). And likewise clear a path through the myriad of rent/concession "fee" centric bureaucratic snarls that block said investment.

Thoughts?

Fida (not verified)

Mon, 08/02/2010 - 1:02am

LPierson, thats a strong difference of opinion and i leave it there. Discussion is more than "giving head-spin" to other person's argument!

I thought US is looking for friendship atleast thats what you guys say once you come here - people to people contact. If it is "cooperation", a business term, then i find no reason why you cann't understand the Pakistani's interests - these are as straight as you want.

LPierson (not verified)

Sun, 08/01/2010 - 5:08pm

Fida,

The worms in this can are vigorously wiggling.

It is VERY evident that God's warning means different things to different people regardless the wisdom of Urdu or other proverbs.

And I beg to differ strongly, there are straight answers for Pakistani anger, discontent, and duplicity, straight answers not mainly attributed to "Occidentalism's." Do not turn your head, especially since you introduced the idea of unexplainable roots. Too often, far too often, Pakistani trust is only worth the three cups of tea one drinks with an infidel. And it is very apparent the china shops in which the yankee bull is loose have been empty of anything of worth for a very long time.

The US doesn't buy friendship, the USA should be buying cooperation.

Lets be REAL clear here. Whether US aid is four bucks or 40 billion bucks, the USG isn't giving aid to the poor of Pakistan, it is giving aid to the government of the poor of Pakistan. You can be certain that the aid received, is received with considerable GoPakistan required conditions. The expenditure of US taxpayer money in Pakistan has never been a USG-dictated one way street. Since aid giving is a government to government effort, where should the strings start to be unattached? Where could the poor of Pakistan be able to dictate to the GoPakistan how spend US aid? I think you know the answer to that exercise in rhetoric. Your premise is inaccurate.

Here in lies one problem (as mentioned by Mr. Omar above) perception. The real history between Pakistan, India and the USA has not been tilted in any real measure toward India. On the contrary. A shallow precursory look at India's military hardware and other civilian infrastructure will show almost all of it orginated from the Warsaw Pact and eastern Europe. Now why would the facts derived from such a simple effort lead thinking people to believe otherwise?

Why aren't there more factories built in Pakistan? Good question, and another equally pertinent: How can large numbers of US manufacturing efforts be brought to Pakistan when the US has laws, viz the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that prevent paying graft to government officials for the priveldge to buy restrictively corrupt concessions being masked as "foreign direct investment? Better yet, why is it that wealthy and enlightened non-occidentalist Pakistani business men/women do not engage in trusted business arrangements that will encourage real and transparent economic opportunities to be brought to Pakistan?

Perhaps the USA appears to be a bull in a china shop and overbearing because the interests of Pakistan (regardless the origin be it a civilian government or GHQ) has no real compatiblity with outside interests and the US is left to act for itself.

A question I have asked previously; should the "superpower(s)" just stop giving any aid to the south Asian cousins, and place them in corners to think about why they can't get along with each other? (For crying out loud, even Pervez Musharraf was born in Delhi, an Indian citizen...)

Perhaps if Pakistan and India can commit to ridding themselves of their nukes; get past group'ism's, racialist internal policies, faux nationalism and ethnic politics; strive to work for an expeditous and real solution to "Kashmir", remove corruption from the foreign investment processes, and finally stop using "white raj" guilt to avoid their civic responsibilities to their own populations, then perhaps a level trust from aid giving nations can be worth more than three cups of tea.

Fida (not verified)

Sun, 08/01/2010 - 3:09pm

"Zaban-e-kalq nakara-e-kuda hoti hay", thats an urdu proverb. It means "people's voice is gods warning". Thereby implying, if people are saying so there must be something wrong. Now wrong with whom - with the people or with the US?
Why do Pakistanis dislike the US? There are no straight answers, some say: Pakistanis are dependent on the US aid and they feel bad that they are still being bought; it is a form of self-hatred of the sort that often develops between client states and their paymasters; or its result of pure "Occidentalism". Others say problem with the US is - its behaving like a bull in the china shop!
First the aid. Since 2002, the US has given Pakistan about $12.3 billion. Half of the aid went for facilities and services provided by Pakistan, with an additional quarter for military cost including "wear and tear" of equipment and remaining quarter for social development.
Compare this with what the US has spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. What I am trying to say is its not noticeable - $ 4 billion since 2002 for social development! On the other hand, GWOT has cost Pakistan over $35 billion besides immeasurable human lives.
I have one question: can you buy friendship with aid? US is giving aid to poor people of Pakistan with thousands of strings attached. You are giving aid with one hand and asking us "openly" to do more, as if you have rented Pakistanis. Thats not how you develop friendship. Pakistanis are forthcoming people, you can have friendship with them over "three cups of tea"; but, once you betray them, then friendship is gone for ever. Same generation will never have relationship.
Pakistanis dislike for the US has historical roots. I will not explain those. They dislike US present overbearing behaviour. And above all, they observe disproportionate deals with India vis-à-vis Pakistan.
We are friends with US for almost 50 years. But strangely US has never bothered to invest in Pakistan. 2001 bill to ease textile trade with Pakistan never saw the daylight. The only steel mill we have was built by Russian; Korea and China helped us develop roads; and China has also helped us explore mineral resources etc. There is not a single US factory in Pakistan, where the local masses can get employed and see for themselves that Americans are not all what they see in "bay watch", they are in fact hard working, honest people.
Aid will never improve US image in Pakistan or for that matter anywhere in the Muslim World.

LPierson (not verified)

Sat, 07/31/2010 - 9:14pm

Omar,

Good capture of the Pakistani "media" efforts. Surreal, only surreal to people not familiar with South Asia. Very real.

Equally as surreal, stuff published by western media (AP and Mr, Burns) seem to meld the increasingly shrill tenor pushing for non-resolution to the problem of Afghanistan.

Interesting conversations come about regarding Israel from folks I know who are citizens of other Muslim non-Middle Eastern countries: "...Why do you support Israel...Hey I do hear that Tel Aviv is a swinging town, think we could meet there...?"

I get a laugh and denial of real ill-will when I ask if we would meet before or after Israel gets nuked.

RT (not verified)

Fri, 07/30/2010 - 10:03am

I hate to say this, but the description of the poll given here is actually somewhat misleading, as that statistic actually shows a small IMPROVEMENT in US-Pak relations. In the 2009 poll, 65% of Pakistanis viewed the US as an enemy--versus 59% today.

omarali50

Fri, 07/30/2010 - 12:29am

I know that this is a minority opinion on most blogs, but I think these polls put the cart before the horse. "public opinion" on National security matters is not created by the public, its created by opinion-makers, usually opinion-makers connected to the national security apparatus. The exception is the true puppet state, where people totally mistrust their security apparatus, rightly regarding them as foreign agents and oppressors. The second situation does not really apply in Pakistan (though its beginning to be seen in the hardcore jihadi fringe). For most Pakistanis, the US is the enemy because the National security apparatus makes sure that is the message they get....Check out brasstacks and PKKH and Ahmed Qureshi and so on. These are not opposition websites or commentators, they are supporters and (very likely) agents of the national security organs....It is true that US support for Israel has created a reservior of ill-will in all Muslim states, but that by itself would not be enough to explain this situation. This current hatred is mostly based on the notion that Pakistan was going along famously until the US came and forced them join the "war on terror". And this viewpoint is not spontaneous, its carefully nurtured by the "establishment" so that they can avoid blame for the disastrous situation the country finds itself in. For example, this ensures that few people question (or are even aware of) how the same establishment created the terrorists they are now having to hunt down. Instead, the dominant narrative is that we were up to our usual good works until America came and made us do bad things, which caused some people to take up arms against us, OR, that even the people taking up arms are just American agents, sent to "destabilize Pakistan" so that the Americans can steal our nuclear bomb before the world war that is due to start in 2012.
I know, it sounds like a surreal mix of decontextualized facts and incredible fairy tales to me too, but check out PKKH and see for yourself.