IT is not uncommon to find survey results in sync with broader strategic plans, especially when it applies to the United States and its goals in the Middle East. This could be either to the credit or discredit of the strategy planners and surveyors. One such study released recently not only coincides with some aspects of US President Barack Obama's declaration of a new policy of engagement in the Middle East, which includes for the first time in decades a willingness to engage Iran, but also points to a more cautionary, thoughtful and wise approach. “We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan,” he said in his inaugural speech. “We will not apologize for our way of life,” said Obama. According to the study there is no need to. The study finds a remarkably improved change in Iranian public opinion of American culture. Fifty-one percent viewed it favorably, up from 45 percent in late 2006. Those with an unfavorable view diminished from 49 percent in 2006 to 37 percent in 2008. The survey points to the fact that a new world is emerging, where it is necessary to cement people-to-people relations, forgetting “permanent interests,' and making “permanent friends.” “For the world has changed, and we must change with it,” said Obama, and that's what the study's findings indicate the need for. The findings of the study titled “Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, Al-Qaeda, and US Policies” offer insights into whether Obama is doing the right thing by deciding to play the end game in Iraq and relieve the United States of the burden of spending $1 trillion or so in these dire economic times to keep the CBR (Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld) war going. “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” said Obama. The study supports the will to find “a new way forward,” and its results show not a clenched fist, but wherever such small ones exist, are the results of neglect of various issues and problems and a foreign policy of “negation” that has been followed for far too long now. What Obama said in his address, “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics … the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply,” holds out hope. The research was supported by the United States Department of Homeland Security through the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland. It was a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), and was conducted from July through September 2008. In this modern world from individuals, institutions, and corporations, to nations, commission studies and researches whether it is to see the feasibility of launching a new product or service, or an idea, or get feedback to assess their activities, policies and ongoing or planned programs and projects. More often than not, they act on the results of what they have initiated to be written. The present study reveals that very large majorities continue to renounce the use of attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. At the same time large majorities agree with the Al-Qaeda's goal of pushing the United States to remove its military forces from all Muslim countries. And therein lies the significance, especially for the United States, of following what was commissioned and the resultant ‘writ.' “The US faces a conundrum. US efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for Al-Qaeda, even as most reject its terrorist methods,” Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, commented in information made available to Saudi Gazette here the day the results were released (Feb. 25). He explained that as the world becomes increasingly integrated, problems have become increasingly global, pointing to a greater need for understanding between nations and for elucidating global norms. With the growth of democracy in the world, public opinion has come to play a greater role in the foreign policy process. WorldPublicOpinion.org seeks to reveal the values and views of publics in specific nations around the world as well as global patterns of world public opinion. In nearly all nations polled more than seven in 10 say they disapprove of attacks on American civilians. “Bombings and assassinations that are carried out to achieve political or religious goals” are rejected as “not justified at all” by large majorities ranging from 67 to 89 percent. There is a growing belief that attacks on civilians are ineffective, with approximately half saying that such attacks are hardly ever effective. Opposition to US military presence appears to be related to largely negative views of US goals in relation to the Muslim world. Most perceive the US as seeking to weaken and divide Islam and to maintain control over Middle East oil. Less than half perceive the United States as seeking to protect them from extremists or as genuinely trying to promote democracy. With regard to Israel, most believe that the US is seeking to further the expansion of Israel, while views are mixed on whether the US is seeking to bring about a Palestinian state. Majorities also perceive that the US is seeking to prevent further terrorist attacks against the US. Views of the US government continue to be quite negative. The US is widely seen as hypocritically failing to abide by international law, not living up to the role it should play in world affairs, disrespectful of the Muslim people, and using its power in a coercive and unfair fashion. Many also perceive the US having goals of economic domination. Large majorities say that it is a US goal to “maintain control over the oil resources of the Middle East.” Only minorities say they approve of Al Qaeda's attacks on Americans. In all Muslim publics polled, majorities see US support for democracy in Muslim countries as conditional at best. Only very small minorities say “the US favors democracy in Muslim countries whether or not the government is cooperative with the US.” The most common response is that the US favors democracy only if the government is cooperative, while nearly as many say that the US simply opposes democracy in the Muslim countries.
