not really. Love/hate of the US is basically irrelevant – its driven by perception towards the IP conflict, towards imperial legacies, western history, and of course local islamist propaganda. AlQ’s declining popularity is relevant because it is declining – as purveyors of the propaanda themselves, its quite significant that they have squandered all their good will. Their claim to legitimacy was accepted at face value when it was theoretical, but now that people have had a chance to tase their actual rule they are repulsed.
Love/hate of the US is driven by “perceptions” of the IP conflict, imperial legacies, western history and Islamist propaganda. So drones killing civilians, tellig lies to make war on Iraq, shock and awe, Guantanamo, torture in Abu Ghraib, the presence of US troops,, etc. are not factors.
Strange that attitudes towards the US are driven by “perceptions” rather than experiences, when any number of places in West Asia have experienced US actions directly.
I didnt say that attitudes were driven by perceptions of the US, I said they were driven by perceptions of the IP conflict.
I dont think its accurate to lump all US actions into one category either. Afghans and Iraqis alike will are not unanimous in their judgement of our actions there (as evidenced by eth very real angst in both places amongst the public about our impending withdrawal).
The popularity of Islamist groups has been in based in the provision of social services. The strange thing to me is that the US doesn’t draw the support away by providing better services. The aftermath of the Pakistani earthquake was an ideal opportunity.
I dont think its that simple. Providing “services” isnt as easy as dropping off a load of supplies here and there – it requires building an infrastructure and then active governance. As much as lefty critics compllain about the cost of war, the cost of such services would be massively greater (especially because unlike soldiers, the civilian workforce required would be much more vulnerable and tempting an effective a target).
Arwi, and 
thabet are discussing.
aziz 7:06 am on May 1, 2012 Permalink
of course, it isn’t doing them much good: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/01/poll-many-muslims-in-mideast-pakistan-have-poor-view-of-al-qaeda/
thabet 4:47 pm on May 1, 2012 Permalink
Also according to Pew, al-Q seems about as popular in the regions polled as the US…
That should tell you something.
aziz 6:33 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink
not really. Love/hate of the US is basically irrelevant – its driven by perception towards the IP conflict, towards imperial legacies, western history, and of course local islamist propaganda. AlQ’s declining popularity is relevant because it is declining – as purveyors of the propaanda themselves, its quite significant that they have squandered all their good will. Their claim to legitimacy was accepted at face value when it was theoretical, but now that people have had a chance to tase their actual rule they are repulsed.
Arwi 9:22 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink
Love/hate of the US is driven by “perceptions” of the IP conflict, imperial legacies, western history and Islamist propaganda. So drones killing civilians, tellig lies to make war on Iraq, shock and awe, Guantanamo, torture in Abu Ghraib, the presence of US troops,, etc. are not factors.
Strange that attitudes towards the US are driven by “perceptions” rather than experiences, when any number of places in West Asia have experienced US actions directly.
aziz 7:13 am on May 3, 2012 Permalink
I didnt say that attitudes were driven by perceptions of the US, I said they were driven by perceptions of the IP conflict.
I dont think its accurate to lump all US actions into one category either. Afghans and Iraqis alike will are not unanimous in their judgement of our actions there (as evidenced by eth very real angst in both places amongst the public about our impending withdrawal).
Arwi 9:24 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink
The popularity of Islamist groups has been in based in the provision of social services. The strange thing to me is that the US doesn’t draw the support away by providing better services. The aftermath of the Pakistani earthquake was an ideal opportunity.
aziz 7:15 am on May 3, 2012 Permalink
I dont think its that simple. Providing “services” isnt as easy as dropping off a load of supplies here and there – it requires building an infrastructure and then active governance. As much as lefty critics compllain about the cost of war, the cost of such services would be massively greater (especially because unlike soldiers, the civilian workforce required would be much more vulnerable and tempting an effective a target).