Pakistani support for peace deals with extremists plummets
posted at 10:55 am on October 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
A new poll taken of Pakistani voters shows significant changes in attitudes on fighting terrorism and reconciliation with extremists — and some bad news for prospects of cooperation with Americans. The International Republican Institute conducted its semiannual survey among 4900 Pakistani adults using in-home interviews, giving this a fairly reliable sample on public opinion. The good news is that Pakistanis are now much less supportive of reconciliation efforts with extremists who have routinely violated past treaties. Bad news? American efforts to fight terrorism are less popular than ever.
One of the prime drivers of both trends is the collapse of security in Pakistan. Sixty-nine percent of respondents feel less secure than a year ago, up from 60% in March. Oddly, though, terrorism is only a distant third on the list of most important issues facing Pakistanis, at 13%. Inflation (40%) and unemployment (20%) far eclipse terrorism, which indicates that many in Pakistan do not see it as an existential threat.
Still, 90% see religious extremism as a “serious problem,” up from 74% in March, the previous high. Having the Taliban and al-Qaeda operating in the country is seen a serious problem by 86%, up from 69% in March and just 45% in June 2008. Pakistanis support their own military operating in tribal areas by a 69%-28% split, but support for American efforts in these regions — always anemic — has decreased from 24% in March to 20% now.
Far more worrisome is the question of cooperation in general. In March, Pakistanis opposed cooperating with the US by a wide margin, 61%-37% — and that was the best number Americans got since February 2007. Now, the split is 80%-18%, an overwhelming majority and a very bad trend. It appears from the polling that Pakistanis expected a change from the new Barack Obama administration — and when the drone attacks continued, the backlash was swift and significant.
Now, the good news: Pakistanis have become disenchanted with peace deals. For the first time in the survey, a majority opposes peace deals with extremists, 50%-46%. In March, Pakistanis supported the notion by a wide majority, 72%-22%. The betrayal in Swat has probably convinced Pakistanis that religious extremists cannot be trusted to abide by these truces, and that appeasement only encourages them to get more aggressive. That has significant political implications in Pakistan, where some parties have acted as either fronts for or sympathetic ears to religious extremists.
What does all of this mean for US policy? If we intend to stay aggressive, we will not be popular in Pakistan. However, it does not appear that our unpopularity is creating an boon for extremists; in fact, they’re less popular than ever. We should continue to pursue our own goals in eradicating AQ but make sure that the Pakistani government has an arm’s length from our operations.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just in time for Obama’s surrender to the Taliban.
fogw on October 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Racist teabagging Pakistanis!
year_of_the_dingo on October 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM
But… the speech, what about the speech?
Daggett on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Oh, boy, more polls to help shape Osama Obama’s “policies!”
MrScribbler on October 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Afghanistan is Pakistan’s relief valve from al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Pakis want it both ways.
Fletch54 on October 1, 2009 at 11:05 AM
The Pakistanis are starting to shun the Taliban, and can’t stand Americans. A good time for a SMART American President or Secretary of State to work WITH the Pakistanis to get rid of the Taliban.
But we’ve got Obama and a Secretary of State who called his Pockyston policy dangerous and naive. It’s 3:00 AM, and the phone is ringing. Who will answer?
Steve Z on October 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Yeah , the cia msm source said it changed everything.
the_nile on October 1, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Well, for someone who’s trying to be president of the world — Hmmm, do we know anybody like that? — this is an important poll.
And, as such, it very likely tells what Dear Liar’s latest AFPAK policy is going to be.
TXUS on October 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I’d be curious as to their definition of the word extremist.
Vashta.Nerada on October 1, 2009 at 11:12 AM
I thought Obama was going to improve our standing in the world and all other world leaders were supposed to be panting and wagging their tails to play ball with us??
I have to agree with Sarkozy – naive and egotistical
AusTex girl on October 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Peace deals with extremists. What will they think of next?
LibTired on October 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM
If the Pakistanis feel that way about outside interference, why don’t they do the job themselves – properly?
OldEnglish on October 1, 2009 at 11:20 AM
The betrayal in Swat has probably convinced Pakistanis that religious extremists cannot be trusted to abide by these truces …
A “peace treaty” or “hudna” is only used as a time to rebuild, plan and attack again. You’d think they would already know that, being muslims and all.
… and that appeasement only encourages them to get more aggressive.
If they taught world history in their schools, they’d already know this too.
Tony737 on October 1, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I would not be so sure that staying aggressive is going to hurt us:
U.S. Credibility and Pakistan
What Islamabad thinks of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443352072071822.html#
The weak signals of retreat in Afghanistan is going to do us more harm than taking strong measures against the Jihadist.
Of course the Pakistani people don’t want the US killing jihadist in their country.
They also feel a serious danger coming from the jihadist.
Just like here in the US, war is unpopular.
Iraq was extremely unpopular until were brought home success.
If Bush and the American soldier had not stayed strong and defeated the jihadist/militas, think how unpopular it really would be right now.
Cutting and running against the jihadist is exactly what they want.
America the paper tiger.
But that should not stop us from doing the right thing and wiping out the jihadist threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan….you know….what Obama and his “smart power” promised to do.
The end results of success in this mission will carry over positive results in the future.
To cut and run and allow the jihadist a major victory will carry over disastrous results for our future.
Countries need to know, if they are going to support terrorism, they are going to pay a price.
Capitulation as history has shown, has always made things worse and brought on a larger scale war.
Baxter Greene on October 1, 2009 at 11:29 AM
A ray of sunshine?
Or a ‘false dawn’?
Either way, the people in charge are preoccupied with ‘more important’ issues.
Sucks to be us.
CPT. Charles on October 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If we aren’t going to fight against Al Qaeda in Pakistan because of Pakistani friendship and ‘sovereignty’ there, we should leave.
Did you see where we will be giving Pakistan ANOTHER 1.5 BILLION in aid EVERY YEAR? They are complaining that that isn’t enough. We should leave and not give them anything.
They are also demanding that we give Pakistan ALL of our intelligence about AQ in Pakistan (so that they can tip them off obviously). Pakistan is not our friend.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Even Pakistanis are disapproving of the corrupt and incompetent Obama “administration”.
So does this mean they won’t be permitted to vote in our elections in 2010, like they did in 2008?
NoDonkey on October 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Someone who aspires to get married, stay married, raise kids, want a better life and world for their kids, and in general pursue happiness.
WashJeff on October 1, 2009 at 11:44 AM
If they sell us their nukes, we’ll provide the jihadi killing service free.
They can then spend the now-wasted billions on their real economy instead of an Islamic Bomb program.
The terrorists will thereby have less motivation to take-over a non-nuclear Pakistani state, since what they really want are atomic bombs.
profitsbeard on October 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Obama is going to be crushed he is not winning the popularity contest in Pockeestahn.
loudmouth883 on October 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM
It’s probably suitable in their context, but being “extreme” isn’t the problem, it’s wht they are extreme about. Shakers and cloistered nuns are pretty extreme religiously, but about as non-problematical as people can be.
exception on October 1, 2009 at 12:40 PM
So are we going to fish, or cut bait?
Cutting fish or fishing for bait never works.
percysunshine on October 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM
The USA is only a paper tiger with a donk at the helm.
jukin on October 1, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Now, the good news: Pakistanis have become disenchanted with peace deals. For the first time in the survey, a majority opposes peace deals with extremists, 50%-46%. In March, Pakistanis supported the notion by a wide majority, 72%-22%.
I am sorry but that entire paragraph is a serious misunderstanding and misreading of the situation. Remember the people who support the “peace aggreements” STILL are now 46% – as in 46% of those polled ! This does not even tell you the number of people who may have refused to talk about it, particularly in rural areas.
In fact it explains why the average Pakistani hates and whines about the US presence in Afghanistan – after all if you are against the “truce”, why wouldnt you support the one Government that would go after the terrorists?
The betrayal in Swat has probably convinced Pakistanis that religious extremists cannot be trusted to abide by these truces, and that appeasement only encourages them to get more aggressive. That has significant political implications in Pakistan, where some parties have acted as either fronts for or sympathetic ears to religious extremists.
The “Booosh is Evil (TM)” argument can no longer be made… so what gives ? Why this reluctance ?
It is simple – the Pakistanis who say they dont want to cut peace deals with the terrorists are not entirely being honest. They may have been taken aback by the violence, but they are all fellow Muslims in the end.
If only the US WOULD LEAVE, the terrorists and the Pakis can officially be chummy again.
Pakistan IS THE PROBLEM. Obama has compounded this by his casual waffling over the war. This idiot has more time to travel to Copenhagen than to seriously think about WHAT HE IS PLANNING to do.
God Save America. From the most inept President who makes Jimmy Carter look capable.
nagee76 on October 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM
So… we save their sorry asses so that they can have a country where men kill their wives with impunity and anyone who leaves Islam is executed. Riiiight.
Mojave Mark on October 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM