I am skeptical of these results. The baseline poll was conducted by Pew, this one by Terror Free Tomorrow themselves. They asked questions identical to Pew's, but also asked questions about how the quake aid.

It will be interesting to see if there is a similar jump when Pew releases its next survey results.

I just blogged about this same poll. The interesting point though, was despite all these positive trends in Pakistani opinion, opposition to the war on terror has actually increased since the first poll. In Indonesia, similar American aid not only caused an increase in a favorable opinion of America, but a significant increase in support for the war on terror too. It could be an interesting task to try to account for the difference.

http://freedomtobelarus.blogspot.com/2005/12/pro-americans.html

This poll was carried out by AC Nielson - hardly a slouch in the polling world. That said, I haven't looked at the methodologies or the specific questions asked, so if someone is interested in that horribly tedious task, the findings could also be interesting.

>It could be an interesting task to try to account for the difference.

Has Pakistan suffered much in the way of terrorist attacks? It was my impression that Pakistan was more of a place of support for extremists, and didn't get bombed much, while Indonesia didn't have so much support and got bombed more. If Pakistanis were more likely to see the extremists as good people fighting for justice, while the Indonesians were more likely to see them as the guys who bombed their nightclubs and scared off their tourists, the result you cite is less surprising.

Then again, I might be completely wrong.

Just to reinforce the theme of the post:

Cheney Visits Pakistan Quake Aid Station
Associated Press

"Vice President Dick Cheney visited Pakistan's earthquake zone Tuesday, underscoring the idea that helping Muslims in times of tragedy is one of the best ways the United States can improve its image overseas."

DAN DREZNER GETS RESULTS FROM DICK CHENEY!

As dumb as that son of a bitch is, I'm not sure if you want him agreeing with your ideas.

Methodology is important in any polling, of course. In Pakistan, questions about terrorism would need to be worded carefully because of the application of that word to the Kashmir situation. Regretable as it may be that many Pakistanis would sympathize with the most barbaric tactics if employed by one side in Kashmir even if they disapprove of them elsewhere, such may well be the case.

Interesting. I just got back Saturday from seven days in Lahore, and I have to say the poll comports pretty well with what I found there. At no point did I feel the least bit of hostility. I think the key is that Pakistanis -- and not just the elites -- are getting more sophisticated about the U.S. In particular, they are increasingly making a distinction between America/Americans (toward whom their opinions are neutral at worst, and generally favorable) and the Bush administration, of which I found *no* supporters.

FYI, my conversations included academics and university students, businesspeople, domestic-service bureaucrats, several attorneys, and a brigadier general in the Pakistani army (who also happens to be my brother-in-law...).

A small quibble with what Pooka said:

Pakistanis have always been somewhat sophisticted about the US; the distinction between Americans and US foreign policy has most always been drawn quite clearly. US foreign policy has always been bitterly disliked; Clinton was not 'popular' at all among Pakistanis either for many of the same reasons that Bush is not ( i.e. their foreign policy is bad...though of course in comparison to Bush, Clinton was a rockstar).

The dislike of foreign policy skyrocketed after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars--but generally this hostility was not directed towards individual Americans. Most Pakistanis are not (and have never been) afflicted with a desire to destroy 'American infidels' or the 'American way of life'; at the same time, they are (and have always been) virulently critical of American policies around the world. Bin Laden and his coterie have been successful--though not nearly as much as they had hoped--in exploiting specific political grievances to gain adherents (and broader public support) for their own agenda.

This observation generalizes to the Middle East, and for that matter Southeast Asia as well.

Too bad defense contracters dont make as much on these type of operations...there would be politcal support for more. Talk about security on the cheap...and effective. The Marshall Plan won the cold war and was never popular domestically. You will never go broke betting against the intellect of the american public.

What seems amazing to me is how many Americans are too hopelessly ignorant and stupid to grasp the obvious fact that the primary constitutional responsibility of the executive branch is to please voters in Pakistan.

"Soft" power could be hugely effective in the war on terror and just making the world a better place. I believe Blair wants a quick reaction force, of a kind, for missions like this. Quick aid -- if I am not mistaken. It is an exceptional idea.

"What seems amazing to me is how many Americans are too hopelessly ignorant and stupid to grasp the obvious fact that the primary constitutional responsibility of the executive branch is to please voters in Pakistan."

No, but one of the primary constitutional responsibilities of the executive branch is to act on the basis of informed opinion about other countries. Simply noting that the Pakistani public feels one way or another, and that it might have good policy/security implications (or not), is not to somehow subordinate the executive branch to foreign opinion. It is to conduct rational fact gathering, to the extent that is possible.

pfroward,
I think your post makes literal sense...if it prevents pakis from blowing themselves up in or near places vital to the interests of the US

AD, that's a long, long way from the belief that anybody who hates us, or hates George Bush, is axiomatically right. We both know that belief is very popular among the kind of people who drone on about how everybody hates us.

gman, that's a real big "if". And the auto-demolition of Pakistanis, while often regrettable, is not the only concern we have. One bigger concern might have to do with the idea that it's not a great idea to pay protection money to anybody who threatens you. Some people might even argue that we have a "vital interest" in not taking orders from the kind of knuckleheads who blow themselves up on buses. Besides, licking their boots won't make them like us. Bootlickers may be useful, but nobody likes them, and everybody kicks them.

helping paks after earthquake and marshall plan is bootlicking? shows weakness? funny! people on the hard left call them cynical pr stunts! with those types critics im more convinced of my wisdom on the subject.

Pooka -- not to disagree with you (much), but the people you talked to were largely the elites, not necessarily representative of the average Pakistani. Anecdotal data while useful, is necessarily incomplete.

Pakistan has had some bombing of Shia mosques, incidentally.

Yes, the Pakistani public has long made distinctions between America/Americans and the administration. My sense, however, is that that distinction broke down somewhat after the 2004 election, when many Pakistanis (and, for that matter, the rest of the world) took Bush's election as a positive referendum on his policies. The quake response -- along with other recent things, like W's popularity hovering around 40 percent (something that gets wide reportage there) -- has brought the disctinction back to the fore.

And yes, most of those I talked to extensively are "elites;" such is the nature of things (was my visit a research trip, rather than a holiday visit to family, I'd have been more careful). But I also never got any sense of hostility, however latent, toward me, despite the fact that I am embarassingly obviously an American -- in fact, quite the opposite. And *that* dynamic was consistent up and down the social scale, from street vendors to newspaper publishers. This is a change; and, when I commented on it, once friend there said (paraphrasing) "No one treats Americans badly any more, because you don't know which ones are here for quake relief and which ones aren't."

So kudos, Dan.

Perhaps there is an element of imitating America?