When Gen. David Petraeus spoke in Gaston Hall on Jan. 21, he responded in detail to a question about the situation in Pakistan. He highlighted the United States’ improved ties with Pakistan – citing the Pakistan army’s SWAT operation as evidence – and added that the threat of militants is a genuine one recognized by the people of Pakistan. While that is true, I saw nothing of the romanticism about fighting the militants in Pakistani society that I felt Petraeus portrayed in his enthusiastic answer. In fact, there seems to be a disconnect between public opinion in Pakistan and the American idea of that public opinion.

Pakistan is plagued by a myriad of social problems attributed to increased militancy. The security situation as a whole is deteriorating as militants in the northwest react to the anti-terrorist operations in that region. The educational institutions in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad have recently been turned into mini-fortresses. Government directives now require that all educational buildings have walls at least eight feet high, topped off with barbed and razor wire. The school gates must be accompanied by concrete barricades, metal scanners and at least two security personnel, one closely supervising all entry procedures and the other permanently stationed in a sandbag outpost with a loaded rifle pointing at visitors. To enter a building, students must presents their identity cards and undergo a body scan. Alumni and parents are banned from entering the school premises without prior approval from the school’s staff and a rigorous security clearance. Visiting my old school over winter break felt a lot like passing through security procedures at Dulles or Heathrow.

Other signs also painted a generally discouraging picture of Pakistan. The battle against the militants is expensive, and funds are being diverted from many institutions – especially in the twin cities – to the army’s Swat operation, as well as to the related population movement and reconstruction. Capital Development Authority – the government institution responsible for maintenance and development of Islamabad – has been unable to embark on new development projects or to pay its contractors for the past six months. The number of contractors available to do maintenance work with a mere promise of payment in the future is decreasing rapidly, and senior CDA staff members often receive only one bid for a job. This lack of competition and monetary resources in Pakistan’s richest development firm offers a glimpse of a problem that plagues many institutions in Pakistan today.

The expensive operations in the SWAT region, as well as the increased threat of drone attacks, are often attributed to American involvement in Pakistan. Anti-American sentiment – at least when it comes to the general public – is widespread. While home, I had a cab driver try to convince me that “the financial crisis signals the end of U.S. dominance over the world, and it will soon break up like the Soviet model.” Although I could hardly control my laughter, the incident did demonstrate for me the wild optimism of some anti-U.S. feelings.

I was also surprised to see an abundant amount of copies – including Urdu translations – of Jeremy Scahill’s book “Blackwater,” which details and criticizes the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of the privately contracted security force in Iraq. Perhaps the book’s popularity is due to the public belief that Blackwater (now renamed Xe Services) agents occupy several private houses in Islamabad. The notoriety of the Blackwater name means that their recently confirmed presence infuriates many.

With increasing inflation, social unrest, the ongoing political fiasco and rampant terrorism crippling daily life (particularly in the northwest), people are looking for explanations. Many in Pakistan do not share Petraeus’ dedication to the war on terror. Rather, many see it as unnecessary, for a few years ago social and economic conditions were much more stable. Moreover, the United States has a history of abandoning Pakistan when American interests are satisfied; its track record under the Geneva accords and following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan are testaments to this.

The United States needs to realize that – though it might have support of a few weak civilian rulers – the Pakistani public is increasingly distrustful of the perceived American indifference to the widespread corruption within Pakistan’s leadership. Recently, the Pakistan army ruled out extended operations the civilian government was planning, apparently at the urging of the United States. The public looks upon the military favorably, and – as has long been the case in Pakistan – it has the upper hand in government policy. I am not a fan of Pakistan’s military dynamics, but unless the United States becomes more aware of and responsive to its unpopularity in Pakistan, the tale of Pakistan will remain the same.

Sikander Kiani is a freshman in the School of Foreign Service.

*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*

“