European Journal of Scientific Research - EuroJournals

336 Ishtiaq Ahmad Choudhry, Muhammad Nawaz Mahsud and Shajee Hasan
matters of editorials on U.S. policies compared to their nominal space given to favorable or neutral
editorials' content. This situation strongly supported the research hypothesis that ‘it is more likely that
all the papers give more space to their editorials published against on U.S. policy. It was further
observed that all the selected newspapers have spared highly significant (86%) space to editorial notes
statements that are stand against the United States policy towards than their space given to favorable or
neutral editorial notes content which strongly endorsed the research hypothesis that it is more likely
that all the papers give more space to their editorial notes published against the of U.S. policy towards
Pakistan. The results also extended support to another research hypothesis that ‘it is more likely that all
selected papers’ editorial matters give more coverage to the US policy on terrorism, then their coverage
to US policy on defense, education, politics, and economic issues.
Summary and Discussion
This study was planned to explore how the three elite national dailies editorial content treatment of U.S
policies towards in term of some issues of national and international importance. It was observed that
all the newspapers have given due importance to the US policies, but the papers in most of the cases
strongly opposed the US policy on some vital issues such as, US aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
particularly in Waziristan. As it was evident from the observed empirical findings that all leading
dailies did not extent support to the US policies not only towards Pakistan but towards Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, and Middle East. The papers have strongly opposed the US and to some extent Pakistan
view point on various issues particularly the US aggression in Waziristan and most of the affairs of our
country with a set of logic based upon national interest. The papers’ significant unfavorable treatment
of US policies is in the line with the view of Grare (2007) "Rethinking Western Strategies Towards
Pakistan" that without Pakistan’s active and full cooperation, the United States and the broader
international community cannot reconstruct Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and turn the tide of
international terrorism. Yet most observers (Poole, 2000; and Hanan, 2006) agree that Pakistan has not
provided the fullest possible cooperation. Debate is growing about whether the Pakistani state is
merely unable to do better or is actively undermining international efforts in Afghanistan and against
terrorism. The Grare (2007) report makes the case that the Pakistani state bears responsibility for the
worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and
the growth of Jihadi ideology and capabilities internationally. At the core of the problem is the
Pakistani military, which has dominated Pakistan’s politics since 1958 and has developed over the
years nationalism based more on its own delusions of grandeur rather than on any rational analysis of
the country’s national interest. Inheriting a highly divided polity, the Pakistan army has tried to muster
solidarity by stoking religiosity, sectarianism, and the promotion of jihad outside its borders,
particularly in Afghanistan and Kashmir.
The review of the anti US policy editorials’ content showed that the Pakistan elite press view
points are mush relevant to the view point of previous studies (Durrani, 2005; Resse, 2001; Mughees,
1997; Berenger, 2004; and King & Lester, 2005). They are of the view that the United States and most
Western countries have traditionally dealt with Pakistan according to short-term interests, and they
have left deep, structural problems to “the next administration.” Pakistan exploited this natural
tendency by offering assistance in achieving urgent U.S objectives—establishing listening posts to spy
on the Soviet Union, offering entry to China, and assisting in expelling Soviet forces from Afghanistan
and capturing Al Qaeda leaders. Throughout much of this history, Pakistan has been led by military
dictators. In return for helping the United States pursue its objectives, these dictators obtained sizable
economic and military aid and political support. Indeed, Pakistan is now arming and training forces
that the United States and NATO are fighting, just as the Pakistani military establishment has for some
time supported Al Qaeda and other Jihadi organizations operating out of Afghanistan, northern and
western Pakistan, and in Kashmir.
The elite press showed disagreement with Pakistan’ outstanding support to U,S and supported
the view of Grare (2007) that Pakistani priorities reflect the specific institutional interests of the