Why America is hated in the Middle-east?

[Aeneas]

American are hated every where. During afghan Russia war Pakistan and American was directly involved in the war but still Russia never attack Pakistani borders. Now American call Pakistan their friend in so called war on terror and on the other hand attacks Pakistani borders(instated of helping them).
Americans never respect friends instated they stab knife behind their back.History speak for its self some examples are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran were first friends of western world (after completing US dirty work they are now US enemies) and now Pakistan will be next.

be careful,my friend.it's hard to be enemy of US,and it's even harder to be friend of US.so China choose to be rival of US.

 

[pakomar]

Very Well said my friend. That the truth other countries should learn from Pakistan mistake.
LONG LIVE PAKISTAN

 

[Enigma SIG]

tell that to the egyptians; saudis or emiratis; with their big hummers and shitloads of dollars. they love them; have sold their land to them for a couple of dollars (ARAMCO in saudi arabia controlled by americans; aldhafra airbase in uae controlled by americans; hawk sites all over the UAE to counter a perceived iranian threat)...

 

[S-2]

"still Russia never attack Pakistani borders."

"Never" is absolute and extends into infinity, doesn't it? Then just ONE example would render the above a lie.

Pakomar, this is for your edification-

Forbidden Cross-Border Vendetta: Spetnatz Strike IntoPakistan During The Soviet-Afghan War- Foreign Military Studies Office

"Americans never respect friends instated they stab knife behind their back..."

Unlike Pakistan's beautiful friendship with the afghani people by sponsoring war from sanctuary on your lands for the last seven and one-half years...?

Explain that to this pashtu girl sprayed with sulphuric acid in Kabul by one of your brave "good" taliban.

You've so much for which to be proud.

You are children and shall remain such until accepting responsibility for your myriad failures. Enjoy your well-deserved blowback and the next time a Pakistani civilian or soldier dies at the hands of your army or the taliban think of this girl above as your just reward for such.

Stab in the back, indeed.

You are your own worst enemies and make the lives of your other enemies so much easier.

 

[pakomar]

That one picture which you got.
How many pictures have been made in Iraq and Afghanistan if media allowed. Killing of civilians in millions by the cowered American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do n t tell me the stories of Taliban cruelty (I do n t care). Look your troops first what have they done (murders). Then ask Bush weather for one man only killing innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan means what to US.

Simply show that US doing Israel dirty work.

 

[wave69]

Bro, u are right, i have lived in the USA for many years, and i know for fact that american are two faced people perhaps among the worst u can find on earth!! that nation and its people showed their true colors after 9-11. believe me i was not bit surprised..

 

[gambit]

StealthQL, you are one big SCUMBAG!

Ignore the kid. It is obvious he does not know what the real US is like.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The US is hated in the Middle East because it supports Israel without being fair to the Palestinians. The US will be hated in the Middle East until it stops this one-sided policy and makes Israel totally responsible for defending its own actions, by itself, without US funding and political protection. After this really big reason, the US may also be hated in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, because Americans basically ignore other countries and are self-absorbed with their own private lives. People hate to be ignored. Americans don't intend to insult other countries in this way. It's just that their personal freedom and economic strength allows them to focus on their own lives and families.

 

[gambit]

The US is hated in the Middle East because it supports Israel without being fair to the Palestinians. The US will be hated in the Middle East until it stops this one-sided policy and makes Israel totally responsible for defending its own actions, by itself, without US funding and political protection. After this really big reason, the US may also be hated in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, because Americans basically ignore other countries and are self-absorbed with their own private lives. People hate to be ignored. Americans don't intend to insult other countries in this way. It's just that their personal freedom and economic strength allows them to focus on their own lives and families.

The US is the single largest aid donor to the Palestinians.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT - USAID - WEST BANK & GAZA

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funds programs that help people living in the West Bank and Gaza lead healthier and more productive lives. Since 1993, Palestinians have received more than $2.2 billion in U.S. economic assistance via USAID projects - more than from any other donor country.

The money is given various UN organizations to dispense as needed...

Wye Agreement.

On November 30, 1998, then President Bill Clinton told a second donors conference in Washington that the United States would provide $400 million in grants for the Palestinians. (The President also requested $1.2 billion for Israel and $300 million for Jordan to implement the Wye Agreement.) According to a State Department report presented to Congress in late October 1999, the Wye funding for the Palestinians would be spent as follows:

Palestinians: $400 million
$100 million — Community Development (health, education, water, infrastructure, services)
$30 million — Rule of Law (law enforcement, human rights, train judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc.)
$10 million — Industrial Estate - West Bank
$100 million — Gaza Port, Gaza-West Bank passageway
$30 million — Scholarship Fund
$100 million — Jenin-Nablus Road
$30 million — Contingency Fund

Congress did not include funding for the Wye Agreement in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bills for FY2000 (H.R. 2606, S. 1234). The President vetoed H.R. 2606 in part because it did not contain the Wye Agreement funding. After negotiations with the White House, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3196 on November 5, 1999, that included the Wye Agreement funding; $1.2 billion for Israel, $200 million for Jordan, $25 million for Egypt, and $400 million for the Palestinians. H.R. 3196 was set aside and replaced with H.R. 3422, which was included byreference in H.R. 3194, the consolidated appropriations bill signed bythe President on November 29, 1999 (P.L. 106-113) with the fundingintact. The $400 million Wye fundingfor the Palestinians was disbursed in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 and was in addition to the annual “regular” aid levels of about $75 million each year.

Now...Do not go crying about how much more does Israel receive. Israel is a developed nation-state. If you have a Pentium processor or derivative, thank Intel Israel. The more developed a country, the more the country will receive US support. That is reality. For Palestinians, the US receive NOTHING in return.

Nothing but hatred, that is...

The Gaza Strip and the West Bank totalled about 6 mil, but we can go on the high end and say 7 millions 'Palestinians'. Egypt's population is about 80 millions. Jordan is about 7 millions. So really who is getting the better deal, in terms of per capita, between Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians? So where did all that money go?

 

[gambit]

What? No one can explain the disappearance of US aid money to the Palestinians? It is reported that Arafat's family lived in luxury in Paris. May be this...??

Where's Arafat's Money? - TIME

People involved with the Palestinian leader's finances say Suha's outburst came after she learned that Arafat signed over at least $800 million to the government of the Palestinian Authority two years ago.

What was Arafat doing with these hundreds millions to the extent that he 'signed' them over to the PA? To 'sign' smething over naturally imply, at the very least, of having majority control over the asset. But it is doubtful that Arafat had majority control, more like absolute dictatorial control. And why was his widow protesting? What interests does she have in all these hundreds millions?

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Arafat received millions from gulf states, including at least $50 million a year from Saudi Arabia. Palestinians working in the gulf had to pay tax to the P.L.O. He spent the cash on stipends and services for the 4 million Palestinian refugees, but most of it went to finance "military operations" and buy the support of cronies. The money started to dry up in 1991, when Arafat backed Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War and lost the support of governments in the gulf, which expelled most of their Palestinian workers, cutting Arafat's tax revenue.

Right...So the Arabs gave only token financial support for the Palestinians then abuse them when politically convenient, but the US should be hated for that.

When a Palestinian Authority audit exposed the corruption in 1997, Arafat ordered future audits to be kept secret.

Eh...?

 

[pakomar]

If US just follow its what ever polices and stop imposing double standers on other nations. Then American will see what ever Israelis and its other allies are doing is wrong.We saw American support democracy but when it comes to American interests then they support dictatorship, killing of innocent people, imposing war on nations list goes on and on.

 

[Kamakazi 69]

I'm pretty sure that 99% of people in the Middle East don't really hate the US.

Sure, the US support for Israel is a pretty big issue for them and every single Muslim on earth.
BUT all my Arab friends basically love America. Most Iranians act like Americans, the only way you could tell them apart is by the tell tale Arabian accent they have.

The real problem is that they have been taught by their elders (who were in turn taught through shows of force by idiotic extremists).

Now the problem is that even though most of them love the West, they can't say it for fear of reprisal. Think about it, saying you love the West would be like an American from a VERY conservative society that you are gay.

You could face certainly some social alienation, maybe even some violent reprisals.

 

[Good Man John]

Many Americans are ignorent about islam.

 

[muse]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military can't win credibility in the Muslim world through new public relations strategies and instead must pursue actions that build trust, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Admiral Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer, took aim at burgeoning "strategic communication" efforts inside the armed forces in which officials plan how to present their operations and ideas to the public. "We need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate," Mullen said in an article for Joint Force Quarterly, a U.S. military journal, released by his office on Friday. As they fight insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military officers have attached increasing importance to communications efforts. [1] Adm. Admiral Mullen writes that the Pentagon's "biggest problem is credibility," which he says comes in part from building trust and relationships, and delivering on promises. In a column for Joint Forces Quarterly, the admiral derides the popular new concept called Strategic Communications, saying there is too much attention put on message formulation, coordination and transmission, and not enough on actual policies and their impact. He writes, "To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate." He also says, "'''most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all. They are policy and execution problems." Admiral Mullen spoke about a related issue earlier this week at the American Legion's annual convention, where he said this about the war in Afghanistan.[2]

In the new issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, Admiral Michael Mullen argues public diplomacy in Afghanistan is generally pretty flawed : for all the time we spend thinking about how we communicate our actions, we're failing to actually build relationships and convince the majority Afghans not to hate us.[3]

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a surprisingly vigorous advocate of social media he's on Twitter a lot and is currently holding a YouTube town hall meeting cuts through a stale debate in the new issue of Joint Forces Quarterly (PDF). His basic argument is that public diplomacy/strategic communications is both overthought and underthought at the same time: overthought in the sense of endless PowerPoints and staff lessons about how to spread an effective message and underthought in the sense of basic insights escaping those bull sessions.[4]

Washington, Aug.28 - ANI: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said that even though the allied forces have challenged Al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan for eight years, the Taliban- Al-Qaeda alliance has now become stronger than ever before.[5] Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there is too much emphasis on telling the U.S. story and not enough on building trust and credibility.[6]

Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has reportedly penned a "searing critique" of efforts to improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world via "strategic communication."[7]

If anti-Americanism isn't just a misunderstanding, it is because some misguided people "hate our values." Whatever it is, it's never our fault. To his credit, Mullen appears to be acknowledging that U.S. actions really do have consequences--including negative consequences--and maybe we ought to think about them differently. This isn't the first time that the Pentagon has said smart things about the sources of anti-Americanism, by the way. A 1997 study by the Defense Science Board found "a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and increased terrorist attacks on the United States," and a 2004 DSB study on strategic communication concluded that "Muslims do not '''hate our freedom," but rather they hate our policies."'' It also observed that in the eyes of the Muslim world, the "American occupation of Aghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering."[7] The admiral, who is the top military adviser to the president and the secretary of defense, said the United States can only gain that trust by understanding the people it is trying to help and being a reliable friend. In his opinion column, he indicated he thinks the United States communicates best through example -- by helping people, upholding its own values and being honest about its mistakes. He writes that "the essence of good communications having the right intent up front and letting our actions speak for themselves." Admiral Mullen also serves notice on advocates of Strategic Communications that he wants a change. He says the current department-wide policy process, the Quadrennial Defense Review, should redefine the concept so it is not a separate function, but rather a process for guiding and informing decisions. He says the goal is to take "actions that speak for themselves." He also said the U.S. Defense Department needs to be "more humble" and "listen more."[2] The top U.S. military officer has written a sharp critique of the Defense Department's efforts to communicate with people around the world. In an article for a military journal, Admiral Mike Mullen says the U.S. military too often launches its messages like rockets, rather than engaging with its audiences and demonstrating its intentions through actions, rather than words.[2]

To solve the problem, Mullen suggested that the U.S. military need to pursue more concrete actions to win trust rather than sending out empty messages.[8]

U.S. intelligence considers Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim country that Mullen has made a priority with nearly a dozen visits over the past 18 months, among the most profoundly anti-American places on Earth. Defense Secretary Robert Gates frequently remarks that the United States has let itself be "out-communicated by men living in caves," a wry reference to the skill with which al-Qaida uses the Internet to distribute its messages and capitalize on U.S. failings. Mullen noted one of those failings, the abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, but he said the problem isn't the skill of the communicators. "Our biggest problem isn't caves, it's credibility," Mullen wrote in the Joint Force Quarterly.[6] Top officials including Defense Secretary Robert Gates have lamented that a country which leads the world in marketing and media has been out-communicated by al Qaeda leaders in caves. In a blunt assessment, Mullen argued this was not America's main problem in the Muslim world. "Our biggest problem isn't caves; it's credibility. Our messages lack credibility because we haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven't always delivered on promises," he wrote. He said the United States was not even at "Year Zero" yet when it came to establishing real trust in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. "There's a very long way to go," he wrote.[1]

The admiral pointed out that the biggest problem in U.S. public diplomacy is lack of credibility. "Our messages lack credibility because we haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven't always delivered on promises," he wrote.[8]

For years, public diplomacy and its uniformed cousin,'strategic communications' has been discussed in Washington like a mantra: just find the most authentic ways of telling the "story" of the United States or of particularly unpopular U.S. actions, and suddenly people will realize that they just misunderstood America and problem solved. Critics countered that the argument infantilized the people supposedly targeted by U.S. messaging, who had real problems with U.S. actions as judged through their own interests, and then tended to discount the entire enterprise as a cynical and stupid ruse. ( Some tried to recast public diplomacy as a national-security mission, but it's not clear how the gains of that uphill bureaucratic battle have endured.)[4] Here's another old saw: actions speak louder than words. What will matter to people around the world is what the United States actually does with its vast power at its disposal. If it is seen as both competent and committed to morally defensible aims and broadly benevolent purposes, it is likely to be viewed as a positive force by most people (though the sheer magnitude of U.S. power will still make many nervous, and there will always be some who cannot be won over).[7] Sounds right to me. Like most great powers, and especially dominant ones, the United States tends to believe that its motives are pure, that its noble aims are apparent to all, and that other peoples ought to be grateful for its self-less assistance. (Never mind that U.S. foreign policy is mostly driven by perceived self-interest, even if we don't like to admit it to ourselves). If people overseas are mad'' at us, this must be due to a some sort of misunderstanding. If we just explained it to them a little better, they would support whatever it is we are doing, even if it involves reorganizing their way of life, helping select who runs their country, supporting various allies even when they are mis-behaving, or sending Predators or cruise missiles from afar to blow up suspected terrorist sites on their soil.''[7]

Mullen's answer is to spend time and effort at building relationships actual, interest-to-interest personal and policy relationships with the cohorts that U.S. actions seek to influence. That statement doesn't imply an answer for what happens when the United States wants to influence a population cohort that doesn't want an American presence.[4] Mullen, for instance, shuttles to Pakistan frequently, and deals with Pakistani civilian and military elites more than almost any U.S. official. Those officials are out of touch with the large majorities of Pakistanis who hate the United States as much as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The admiral is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 15 for his renomination hearing to serve another term as chairman. Maybe he'll be asked to draw out the implications of his argument then.[4]

"Got a governance problem? The Taliban is getting pretty effective at it. They've set up functional courts in some locations, assess and collect taxes, and even allow people to file complaints against local Talib leaders." America's enemies were always looking to exploit gaps between U.S. rhetoric and reality, such as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, Mullen said. "Most strategic communication problems are not communication problems at all," he said. "They are policy and execution problems."[1] The Taliban, on the other hand, are doing pretty well. "They've set up functional courts in some locations, assess and collect taxes, and even allow people to file formal complaints against local Talib leaders ''' Their utter brutality has not waned, nor has their disregard for human life. With each such transaction, they chip away at the legitimacy of the Afghan government, saying in effect: 'We can give you the stability the government cannot.'" This, Yglesias argues, is a byproduct of a war effort diluted by experts and contractors. Perhaps, he suggests, it's also an indication that we're trying to do things "not suited to the actual social conditions that prevail in Afghanistan."[3] Part of the Taliban plan to win over the people in Swat was to help the poor or displaced own land. Their utter brutality has not waned, nor has their disregard for human life. With each such transaction, they chip away at the legitimacy of the Afghan government, saying in effect: '''We can give you the stability the government cannot."[9]



The company's website says it measures "message effectiveness" to help identify communications strategies. Admiral Mullen himself has been increasing his own communications effort in recent months. He posts updates on the social networking websites Twitter and Facebook, in an effort to reach members of the military and other young people. He is inviting people to post video questions for him on YouTube, which he says he will answer next month. [2] In an interview to The Boston Globe, Admiral Mullen said the Talibans alliance with Osama bin Laden and other top leaders of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network has become stronger than ever, highlighting that public support to the war on terror in Afghanistan was waning. He said the Taliban has emerged as a far more potent opponent than it was at the time when the operation had started. It is much broader than it was back then, and much deeper.[5]

Mullen suggested that much of the effort is wasted, or at least misdirected. Public opinion in the Muslim world would seem to bear him out. A survey of two dozen nations conducted this spring found that positive public attitudes toward the United States have surged in many parts of the world since President Barack Obama's election, but not in most of the Arab and Muslim world.[6] Efforts to reach out to the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world is a main priority of the vast communications and public relations machinery of the Defense Department.[6]



WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (Xinhua) -- A U.S. military chief warned in an article published Friday that U.S. public diplomacy efforts in Afghanistan is generally flawed. [8] The admiral's article comes the same week that the U.S. military was criticized for rating reporters who cover Afghanistan.[2]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is bungling its outreach to the Muslim world and squandering good will by failing to live up to its promises, the nation's highest-ranking military officer wrote Friday.[6]



Mike Mullen is saying that we can't fool them dumb muslims by our propaganda and we actually have to mend our foreign policy ways? wow. Maybe those dumb muslims have noticed we actively fund apartheid state-sponsors of terrorism (Israel) and tyrants (Hose-me Mubarak) and interfere in their internal affairs, and thus have grounds for not liking us. Or maybe they just hate our freedoms. whatever that means. [7] Given America's privileged position, however, one of our main foreign policy goals should be to try to minimize the amount of global irritation we face, and to go to some lengths to make sure we don't generate antipathy unnecessarily. The key point to bear in mind is that there are real limits to America's ability to improve its global image simply by improved "messaging," "spin," or even by electing a black President. There's an important lesson there for Obama, whose rise to power was elevated in good part by his remarkable communications skills. The lesson is that an eloquent, learned, and well-delivered speech-like the one he gave in Cairo--is just a first step, and the effects wear off quickly. To bring about genuine change, lofty rhetoric needs to be accompanied by policies that will actually address the legitimate concerns and grievances of his listeners.''[7] Oh, maybe, it is because DoD has a budget that is like 20 times bigger so they actually have people who have time to think big thoughts and design improvements to our foreign policy philosophy.[7]

The article was published at a time when Pentagon leaders are increasingly aware of communication problems with local people in war zones.[8]

According to the New York Times, Mullen argues that "we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate."[7] Mullen's article is due to be released today in Joint Forces Quarterly.'' It wasn't on-line when I was writing this, so my discussion is based solely on the Times story.[7]

For instance, our actions and the way our actions are presented on state run media may be two different things. Autocratic governments and their people may be of two minds. If it is seen as both competent and committed to morally defensible aims and broadly benevolent purposes, it is likely to be viewed as a positive force by most people. I highly doubt this. It appears to be a decidedly un realistic bit of wishful thinking.[7]

SOURCES

1. Actions matter more than PR for U.S. military: Mullen | U.S. | Reuters
2. VOA News - Top Officer Criticizes US Military 'Strategic Communications'
3. The most important news and commentary to read right now. - The Slatest - Slate Magazine
4. The Washington Independent » Adm. Mullen Elevates 'Strategic Communications' Debate Above a Third-Grade Level
5. Al-Qaeda, Taliban alliance stronger than ever before: Admiral Mullen
6. The Associated Press: Top officer says US bungling Muslim outreach
7. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gets It Right on "Strategic Communications" | Stephen M. Walt
8. Military chief: U.S. public diplomacy in Afghanistan flawed_English_Xinhua
9. The Washington Independent » Mullen's Inadvertent Afghanistan Admiss

 

[sonellee]

Easy. Countries in middle-east are born the center interests of global super power, sure they are powder cask as well. America's global police dream should come true only they force the middle-east people to be sheep, calm well-behaved sheep. But you know , sheep are not what they look like ...sometimes sheep kicks your balls