Posted By Marc Lynch Share

The University of Maryland's Project on International Policy Attitudes headed by Steve Kull has just released the results of its latest survey of Muslim public opinion.

The survey was carried out between July and September 2008 in eight countries, including Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories.  The main findings should not be surprising:  Muslims overwhelmingly oppose attacks on American civilians (and thus reject al-Qaeda's tactics) but overwhelmingly oppose the U.S. military presence in Muslim countries and have deep suspicions about American intentions towards the Muslim world. Despite what so many people in Washington seem to believe, most Arabs and Muslims don't seem to see the "war of ideas" as being a choice between the U.S. and al-Qaeda -- they seem perfectly capable of disapproving of both, while continuing to hold to their own fairly well-established political convictions.

 Attitudes towards the use of violence largely track with last year's findings. Only 8% of Egyptians express approval of attacks on civilians in the U.S, and 11% of Jordanians. Only 7% of Egyptians express approval of attacks on U.S. civilians working in Islamic countries (15% in Jordan, somewhat alarmingly). But 83% of Egyptians approve of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq (down from 87% in 2007) and 72% of Jordanians approve.  Most generally, 83% of Egyptians say that violent attacks carried out in order to achieve political or religious goals are not at all justified, and only 2% say strongly justified. In other words, very small minorities support al-Qaeda's approach while vast majorities agree with the Muslim Brotherhood-style approval of violence in areas considered to be under direct foreign military occupation (Iraq, Palestine).

What about the U.S. presence in the Gulf?  87% of Egyptians agree with the goal of getting the U.S. to withdraw forces from Islamic countries, while only 1% of Egyptians and 11% of Jordanians approve of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf? And alarmingly, 78% of Egyptians and 66% of Jordanians approve of attacks on U.S. troops (not civilians) based in the Gulf.

Views of the U.S. still reflect a great deal of suspicion and the entrenchment of the "clash of civilizations" narrative, with little evidence in the survey that U.S. strategic communications efforts had made much of a dent by the summer-fall of 2008. Favorable views of the U.S. in Egypt climbed from 3% in 2007 to 4% ... but views of bin Laden appear to have improved even more: 44% of Egyptians now have positive views, compared to 39%  in 2007 (27% of Jordanian have positive views and 27% mixed).   87% of Egyptians say that the U.S. goal is to weaken and divide Islam, as do 80% of Jordanians.

Finally, on key questions of domestic governance:  Does the U.S. favor democracy in Muslim countries? 37% of Egyptians say the U.S. opposes it, 42% say it supports democracy if the government cooperates with the U.S. , 8% say it supports democracy on principle. In Jordan, it's 41%, 40%, 6%.  And there also still appears to be mass support for the moderate Islamist position: in Egypt, 73% would like to see shari'a play a larger role in the country, and only 10% a smaller role.

 

SCORAD

10:26 PM ET

February 25, 2009

huh?

So "only" 8% of Egyptians support attacks on US civilians, but 44% have a favorable view of Bin Laden?

Am I missing something? This data seems pretty fishy to me. If there isn't some problem in the methodology, then perhaps understanding of current events and definitions of descriptors such as "civilian" are so divergent in these societies that trying to describe public attitudes with a few numbers like this a fools errand.

 

WALKING WOUNDED

1:20 AM ET

February 26, 2009

mix 8 % cognitive disonance...

It's an opinion survey, a measure of perceptions, not logic. Consistency and proportionality is not something I expect from Arabs, or Americans, or any population.

I think you would find many similar disconnects in US opinions on matters affecting Arabs. For instance, most of us would not support the right of a country that had a dozen citizens murdered over 5 years to exact lethal collective punishment on thousands of captive families. Yet a strong majority does support (their idea of) Israel's righteous attack into Gaza, with a collatoral kill (if collective punishment by artillery qualifies for that term) in the many hundreds.

The 8% willing to say they support OBL and attacks on US civilians are in an interesting position, given strong popularity for their iconic leader..

 

TESS

2:43 AM ET

February 26, 2009

"So "only" 8% of Egyptians

"So "only" 8% of Egyptians support attacks on US civilians, but 44% have a favorable view of Bin Laden?
Am I missing something?"

Well, I believe you are assuming that Bin Ladin's message and image.... that is what he stands for... is seen the same in the Arab world as in the USA. That is not necessarily true. Survey research strives to find the "said" behind a thought or action. It is by its very nature culturally specific, so you cannot assume that a positive image of Bin Ladin means support for his methods, more than part of his message that is resonating with a specifically Egyptian cultural experience. I will note too, if you look at the original data, this is aggregated from a "somewhat positive" and a "very positive".

Scorad said: "definitions of descriptors such as "civilian" are so divergent in these societies that trying to describe public attitudes with a few numbers like this a fools errand."

I would not agree that this has a largely different definition. I would say that what a Westerner thinks "Bin Ladin" is and stand for as a whole is informed by specific experiences, while what an Arab would see and receive is defined by a different set of experiences. These experiences are not the same, thus the understanding and reaction is not the same. That is why you have other qualify questions that ask specifically about things that are not culturally specific, like killing civilians to help sort out what is the real "said" of the responses minus the cultural differences.

 

Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Read More