From the Wall Street Journal:
So much for the popularly peddled view that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is so pervasive and deep-rooted it might take generations to alter. A new poll from Pakistan, a critical front-line in the war on terror, paints a very different picture–by revealing a sea-change in public opinion in recent months.
Long a stronghold for Islamic extremists and the world’s second-most populous Muslim nation, Pakistanis now hold a more favorable opinion of the U.S. than at any time since 9/11, while support for al Qaeda in its home base has dropped to its lowest level since then. The direct cause for this dramatic shift in Muslim opinion is clear: American humanitarian assistance for Pakistani victims of the Oct. 8 earthquake that killed 87,000. The U.S. pledged $510 million for earthquake relief in Pakistan and American soldiers are playing a prominent role in rescuing victims from remote mountainous villages.
Released today, the poll commissioned by the nonprofit organization Terror Free Tomorrow and conducted by Pakistan’s foremost pollsters ACNielsen Pakistan shows that the number of Pakistanis with a favorable opinion of the U.S. doubled to more than 46% at the end of November from 23% in May 2005. Those with very unfavorable views declined to 28% from 48% over the same period. Nor is this swing in public opinion confined to Pakistan. A similar picture is evident in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. Again that’s largely because of American generosity in the wake of a natural disaster. A February 2005 poll by Terror Free Tomorrow showed that 65% of Indonesians had a more favorable opinion of the U.S. as a result of American relief to the victims of last December’s tsunami. If these changes in Pakistan and Indonesia influence thinking in other countries, then we could be looking at a broader shift in public sentiment across the Muslim world.
Add to this the growing potential for a free and democratic Iraq (and a free and democratic Afghanistan) acting as beacons of liberty in the Muslim world—their geographical juxtaposition to surrounding totalitarian states a constant reminder that freedom is available for those willing to struggle toward it—and its a sea change in perception of the Great Satan in the Muslim world doesn’t seem quite so remote as some ideologues and Orientalists would have us believe…
(h/t Terry Hastings)
Well, I’ve been wondering what that popcorn-popping sound was that I’ve been hearing for the past hour—turns out it’s been the Bush-haters’ heads exploding like the empty bubbles they are.
Doesn’t matter what the nuanced Arab street thinks or wants. At least not any more. Talking points from academia and the media predominate the dialog.
Call it variable imperialism … which shines the partisan light, doesn’t it you marxist bastards?
Plus, an apparently racially-motivated Yglesias wants the troops home now. The wretched brown people can fend for themselves…
And that, Jeff, as you well know, will prove to be the end result that again absolutely proves the left’s sociopathy. No accountability, no vision, nothing but dependency.
The socialist Marxist Democrats make me as sick to my stomach today as they did in Vietnam and the cold war.
tw: Face. They have none.
Okay, that dude in my head? He’s doing the cabbage patch now. Oh god, and one of those annoying poindexter young republican kids just showed up with an 80’s-era boom box. The music…”It takes two to make a thing go ri-eeet…It takes to make it outta sight.” Their glee is as unbridled.
Well, I still say Machiavelli was right when he said it’s better to feared than loved if you can’t be both. On the other hand, being feared AND loved is pretty good, too.
I think Matt jumped the gun. The lefty talking point on this will be that 28% of all Pakistanis is still enough to produce one hell of a lot of terrorists. This combines goal-post moving with that old “squandered sympathy” routine that the lefties inexplicably latched onto.
It will prove to be irresistable.
Now, wait a minute. Why would Yglesias want to argue what has been declared a lefty newspage?
It’s not just moving the goalposts, it’s arguing that goalposts only exist when Clinton was bombing Serbia or Carter was…ok, bad example. This is not about Iraq, wiretapping, Social Security, or (insert whatever). It’s about a political movement bereft of ideas that sees their “last best chance” falling apart in an orgy (yeah, orgy) of “God, wouldn’t it be great if this were the 60s” silliness.
These elections, the murder of Rafiq Hariri, the outpouring of non-conditional US support to tsunami and earthquake victims, and that heinous hotel attack in Jordan are making life difficult to Islamist nutjobs and “progressives” (not as confident in that one as I was of “orgy).
I just wish the President had pushed back like this from the beginning.
Jeff, of course, neglects to mention that Bush/Rove were responsible for the “natural” disasters which prompted the goodwill from Pakistan and Indonesia.
….
Remember how after 9/11 we wondered if we were going to have to fight the entire Muslim world because “they all hate us?”
Stop for a moment and imagine if, after 9/11, the U.S. had merely pursued terrorists in a “law-enforcement” mode. We would have done nothing to place ourselves on the side of the “Arab Street” or the Muslim world. We would be hunting down their heroes one by one, with us in the role of Sheriff of Nottingham and OBL in the role of Robin Hood. Instead, with the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam, and our visible support for democratic reform of oppressive Arab states, we have placed ourselves squarely on the side of the average Muslim.
Chimpy is a genius.
So, where’s Pain in the Ass in a Time of Realists to refute this, um, reality?
Probably a tough nite out…
THE VOICE OF THE MUSLIM STREET WILL BE HEARD, MR. BUSH!!! WHEN WILL YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR FOREIGN POLICY IS A FAILURE, AND THAT—
Eff this.
O Dub: “So does this mean that I’ll get laid? No? Great plan Mister President.”
It appears that there are higher percentages of Pakistanis and Indonesians who think highly of America than there are Democrats who do.
That’s pretty funny.
In a ‘Thank God they’re not in power’ sort of way.
“When people see a stron horse and a weak horse, they naturally prefer the stronger.”
Osama bin Laden
D’oh!!!
Hey, how much of that aid do you suppose was being provided or supported by Halliburton?
I think this sudden change of opinion is a temporary phenomenon and that it has very little to do with elections in Iraq. I won’t be convinced until they stop teaching the hatred of infidels in the mosques and madrassas. And anyways, Pakistan is about as reliable in the WOT as Saudi Arabia. They will only help as long as it is politically expedient for them (read: a guarantee of more foreign aid). Musharraf is a snake and the fact that we can’t question AQ Khan is absolutely ridiculous. As simplistic as it sounds, the Muslim world won’t stop hating America as long as it remains an infidel superpower. That’s not “Orientalism”, that’s the truth based on the immutable texts of Islam and Islamic history.
If there had been no American relief sent to Pakistan or Indonesia during their natural disasters, would the popular opinion be this high? Somehow I kind of doubt it and until they respect infidel notions such as democracy, secularism, and equality over the power of Islam, then we won’t make any progress in the Muslim world. If Islam cannot be eliminated as an ideology then it needs to be diluted to such a point that it becomes powerless in the public square, then maybe, maybe the Muslim world will be ready for real democracy.
No, spongeworthy and others, the “Lefty” talking point on this is not that there are still Pakistanis who hate us. I am a lefty and here is my point:
If humanitarian aid helps our image in Pakistan and lowers support for Al Qaeda, then it is worth its weight to us in gold and we should be doing more of it. I am all for humanitarian aid to victims of the quake, and for other humanitarian purposes also. What this situation shows is that, while many people find do goodygood charity, especially towards the Third World, extremely distasteful (and those tend LESS to be the liberals than conservatives), it has benefits for purposes much proclaimed (at least for the purposes of promoting domestic surveillance) by the RW.
So, if humanitarian aid to the quake victims is producing positive political results, then let’s have more of it. And, while we’re at it, maybe Bush SHOULDN’T have outsourced the job of getting the top Al Qaeda people at Tora Bora. Although there are dutiful brass who try to cover for that kind of priority-revealing atrocity from the standpoint of the goal of protecting Americans from Al Qaeda, but those who proclaim their concern for protecting us from terror being the sine qua non seem most uninterested in either independent inquiry into that failure, or the issue of bold action when it was really needed to really fight the war on terror—when such a concern gets in the way of the true priority, RW partisanship.
Huh?
Yeah, Tom, stronger evidence that Cloudy isn’t from our reality. Maybe Spock has a pointed beard in his reality.
Thanks for the confirmation, I was afraid they went ahead and changed all the definitions of words again.
God I hate when that happens.
tw: justice. As in “If we could just get more of those handy natural disasters to hit those darkies, there would be more justice in the world.”
Cloudy brings up one of the three biggest items in the “irresponsible dissent” list: Nyah, nyahnya nyah nyah, you didn’t get Osama.
Killing Osama bin Laden would have (1) offered many a chance for sneering at the incompetent <embedded us firmly in the offense/revenge cycle that’s as much a part of life in that world as sunrise/sunset. That’s not liberal. It’s not even “progressive”. It’s f*ing <i>paleolithic</i> tribal politics.
Me, I want Osama to live to beat Methuselah—and spend all of that long life dependant on the charity of an Arab society that has rejected his concepts and teachings. Death is too easy on the son of a camel. I want him humiliated, discredited, and alive to enjoy every nuance of it. From actions to date I conclude that George Bush feels the same way. I suppose we’re just not kind enough.
Regards,
Ric
Waah! It looked OK in the preview!
Veeshir—Keep in mind that the Muslim peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan have between them now won, what, five more elections than the Democratic Party has in this century?
Hmmm. Who to bet on?
That was some classic logic—if I suggest there should be more if it (humanitarian aid in response to natural disasters like the quake) then I am calling for more ….. natural disasters! That was Tom B’s reasoning.
But the amount of aid for the EXISTING situation in Kashmir and Pakistan is not something constant and written in stone. If this aid, through what is said is going to be a very very difficult winter in the region, is doing good, then there should be more of it, ie AID, THIS WINTER. This is a doable policy.
But as usual, the substantive points are elided.
If I ever used reasoning like Tom B in response to one of the RW talking points at this site, there would be fits.
Now, what about bringing up the failure to even mount the kind of diligent campaign to catch Osama in the same context as humanitarian policy towards Pakistan? Well, it seems that there are so MANY policies that are pursued that are helping to foment resentment and recruit terrorists, that we should remind ourselves that the most DIRECT AND BENEFICIAL policies in the war on terrorism, which seems the dominant theme in almost every thread on this site, are not being pursued.
But concern about their nonpursuit seems absent.
Instead, there is only a “hooray for our side” approach. Again, I would point out that people with equivalent RW arguments are met generally with substantive responses at liberal sites. (There really aren’t any similar leftwing—by my criteria—sites that I am aware of with much discussion in the US).
Sorry, Clouded, but if even I used convoluted, ponderous, pedantic verbiage like yours at this site in response to moonbat talking points, there would be fits. Understandably and justifiably.
Reading your mangled prose just on its face makes me scowl. Actually replying to it just makes me want to go shower.
Your handwaving is very effective for room ventilation but otherwise, as SPQR mentioned, your signal to noise ratio is close to zero.
In one sentence you claim that our actions are making terrorism worse, but in the next you claim that Osama Bin Laden is not being pursued with enough resources. This shows that you will make silly attacks on the Bush administration with no attempt to even feign consistency.
C’mon Hawkeye and BJ, leave poor Winchester alone.
Um. Maybe I’m missing something here, but what exactly IS the inconsistency here? Please explain.
Shingles,
If invading Iraq creates terrorists, so does invading Afghanistan and so does invading Pakistan.
Cloudy pumps out verbose versions of DNC talking points with no actual comprehension of what he is writing.
“Well, I’ve been wondering what that popcorn-popping sound was that I’ve been hearing for the past hourâ€â€turns out it’s been the Bush-haters’ heads exploding like the empty bubbles they are.”
Well, McVehee, your comment clearly shows that prejudices really affect rational thinking. It sounds like popcorn, it smells like popcorn, but it’s ‘the Bush-haters heads exploding’? And hearing gurgling sounds and noticing a smell like beer, you think of the Dems going down the drain? Hehe, it never occured to you that it may be us lefties enjoying the entertainment from the nonsensical comments here! :p
What is the evidence for this assertion? The Wall Street Journal article notes that:
Specifically, the Terror Free Tomorrow poll finds that 64% of Pakistanis now “oppose U.S. efforts against terrorism,” up from 52% seven months ago.
The findings are similar to those of previous polls taken in Indonesia and the Palestinian territories, leading the pollsters to conclude:
Thinking of developing a sense of humor are we, Gray? I can help.
First question: How do you react to say, giant wooden rabbits?
tw: Others can’t read that slow…
OK, I’ll take this claim from SPQR, who protests overmuch about my writing STYLE (a tactic of trashing without addressing the arguments), as reflecting what Robin Roberts meant. One thing that Shingles rightly picked up on was the incredible presumptuousness in Roberts’ statement of contradiction, very typical of him, where he doesn’t even bother to spell out the alleged contradiction.
Well, first of all, the US was already IN Afghanistan. And going after Bin Laden, eg at Tora Bora, to the extent that it would stir up more terrorism—speaking of signal-to-noise ratios and other cheap shots—has a very high “terrorism-fighting to terrorism-provoking”
ratio, if you don’t mind my coining the term. For one thing, the world, which was largely very sympathetic to the US after 9/11, although there was significant expression of sympathy for Osama bin Laden in the region, broadly supports the US going after THE GROUP THAT ACTUALLY ATTACKED US. This also is less mysterious to those in the Islamic World, overall, as well.
This is why the chat rooms I mentioned on at least one or two other threads, of terror-jihadists on the web, monitored by experts who (among other things) know the language, were filled with gloom at the time of the Afghanistan War but elated at the prospects and at the unfolding of the US invasion of and occupation of Iraq. The latter, throughout the world, and especially the Islamic World, generates massive hatred of the US. Going after Osama may be resented by some (you can’t do anything, especially come as a leftie to a hardcore RW site to argue, without arousing some sort of resistance); the point is one of benefit/resentment ratio in the war against terror, and overall a notion of balance and proportion. When people like Robin Roberts, who just love to trash from a high perch of knowingness, from whence they don’t even have to bother articulating, let alone defending or evidencing, their ‘obviously right’ positions, avoid these nitty gritty issues of argumentation, they also avoid the nitty gritty problems inherent in really showing that someone’s position is “contradictory” or “circular” or such.
In short, the war in Iraq does LITTLE to weaken Al Qaeda and a lot to strengthen its popular support throughout the Islamic World. On the other hand, for instance, not outsourcing the closing in on Tora Bora, and the capture of hundreds of Al Qaeda leaders, and vigorous pursuit of them—the real enemy—at that time and even now is something that weakens terror-jihadism immensely, while any resentment it arouses throughout the Islamic World, if done intelligently, is relatively minimal.
Moral: it is a whole lot easier to simply CALL someone self-contradictory than it is to not only spell out why, but to argue that the argument is valid. And no one has suggested “invading” Pakistan here either. The precise deployment and diplomacy with Pakistan is a whole kettle of fish.
I would say in addition that increasing significantly the amount of quake aid for this winter in Northern Pakistan is not only humanitarian, but good politics—increasing what we might get by way of cooperation from the Pakistani government.
Define “outsourcing”.
Cloudy, your invective best describes only yourself.