1 Attachment(s)
"After Obama" will be ...
either 2013 or 2017. My crystal ball ain't accurate enough for either year - sorry :D
Rasmussen has been doing a series of pollings which now has boiled down to, Americans Are Reluctant to Defend Any of These Allies (Wednesday, April 27, 2011). Here is a summary graphic of the results:
Attachment 1459
I can't come up with any consistent rationale which might explain these results.
The real crossover point (40-40-20) is Denmark; but Japan (43-44-13) gets the first heaveho in the chart.
Anyone ?
Astan = 30-54-16 - not a surprise to me.
Regards
Mike
These assertions don't hold water
Quote:
from Carl
If you polled Americans in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose the results would be the same
Prove it by polls from 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose. Obvious hyperbole.
Quote:
from Carl
The question has no context so most people will default to "none of my business" unless they've heard of the place or been there.
The question does have context as polls go:
Quote:
National Survey of 1,000 Adults
Conducted April 22-23, 2011, 2011
By Rasmussen Reports
1* Sometimes, when a country is attacked, the United States provides military assistance to help defend that country. Now, I’m going to read you a short list of countries. For each, please tell me if the United States should offer military assistance to defend that country if it is attacked?
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Peru
Portugal
Thailand
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Some of the apparent inconsistency in the results may well be due to people not knowing spit about geography. I do buy that as a factor. Moreover, based on many prior polls (Rasmussen and others), what one could call the "foreign policy elite" (CFR, etc.) are much more interventionistic than the flew-over masses.
BTW: what context would you add to the poll question to make it "meaningful" ?
Regards
Mike
Most Polls are somewhat meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
I think the poll is largely meaningless. If you polled Americans in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 or any year you'd care to choose the results would be the same. The question has no context so most people will default to "none of my business" unless they've heard of the place or been there. How else can you explain such little regard for New Zealand.
Aside from the fact that some of those nations didn't exist in most of the earlier years cited, results would likely differ for Great Britain in 1800, Canada in 1850, Germany in 1900 (much less in 1917 or 1944, two years one might name...;) ). As for New Zealand, it's simply a function of location. For the bulk of nations, the responses are about about the anglosphere and western solidarity plus historic ties. As is true of any poll, it's a snapshot, answered by some people while others like me just hang up the phone when the Pollsters call...
Quote:
When there is context things are different.
Not much. :D
Stay calm as speculators roam
We have discussed the role of ISI before on other threads, partly due to their reported role inside Pakistan, the frustration of outsiders at the politics of the region and sheer dismay that a partner state, maybe an ally does not always "jump" to US demands, requests or whatever.
I remain unconvinced today that the deluge of mainly US press reporting based on IMHO unprecedented "leaks" by the US government that SWC can judge what really happened over OBL, let alone wider issues. I am simply astonished that the US press and I assume others have accepted "leaks" on the initial review of the 'treasure trove' from OBL's home. Even more so after the first, official press briefings were so quickly retracted on important details.
Did OBL keep his data all in English? Might it have been encrypted?
We need to remain calm.
Now how the Pakistani state reacts after such a body blow is less likely to be so public, although amidst SWC members there are many who can make valid judgements today.
What I would ask those who post here and others who read - is this body blow an opportunity for civil institutions to exert greater control over state bodies? Yes, ISI and the military. I fear not, for many obvious well known reasons.
Responding to thoughts and irony
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
David:
What do you think of this thought. The Pak Army/ISI runs Pakistan for the most part. They will until they lose a war and are completely discredited. If they win in Afghanistan, drive us out and re-install the Taliban, their power will be that much more firmly entrenched. Then the next war they will have an opportunity to lose will be one with India. When they lose that one, they will be discredited and civilians might be able to run Pakistan. The trouble is, Pakistan might not survive the lost war.
So the irony could be, we are fighting in Afghanistan to defeat the Pak Army/ISI in order to save Pakistan.
Carl,
Given the history of military on military conflict, four wars since 1947 and countless skirmishing, last at Kargil, I am puzzled why the Pakistani Army has not fully been brought under civilian control. Perhaps after these defeats, notably the loss of East Pakistan, it was not the time for change. The bigger questions are not around the timing or need - as perceived by outsiders - rather the will and capability to act. Finally would the orders be obeyed?
I would not say the Pakistani Army runs Pakistan; the army controls national security decision-making and Pakistan has many problems that the army stays away from, e.g. water management. When the economy was growing some were optimistic that traditional power-bases would wane, notably the rural landowning elite (who control the main political parties).
What I do note is the reported frustration of professionals who strive to change and serve the people amidst a deteriorating internal crime and order environment. Many of whom are capable of leaving.
In fact upon reflection I wonder if the military do not already have little positive credit and Pakistanis are a proud people, so what has just occurred will detract from their credibility as a national institution.
Secondly, if the Taliban were re-installed in Afghanistan - as you indicated, I am not convinced Pakistanis would be that concerned. I found they looked down on Afghans and the activities since of the Pakistani extremists (PTT plus) will hardly have enhanced their feelings / desire to follow that path.
Finally and as a reminder:
Quote:
..we are fighting in Afghanistan to defeat the Pak Army/ISI in order to save Pakistan.
No. The only people who can save Pakistan are the Pakistanis. Defeating the Afghan Taliban is a side issue.