Jump to content

War on terror

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Konstable (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 17 July 2007 (rv - again, discuss first. see talk.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about U.S. actions, and those of other states, after September 11, 2001. For other conflicts, see Terrorism.
War on Terrorism
File:Army.mil-2007-02-13-104034.jpg
US Soldiers patrol the streets of Baghdad. Iraq has been designated by the US Government as a key front in the Global War on Terrorism.
DateOctober 7, 2001 –
Location
Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Horn of Africa, more...
Result Conflict ongoing
Belligerents

 United States
 United Kingdom
 Israel
 Canada
 Australia
 Iraq
 Afghanistan
Northern Alliance
 Estonia
 India
 Somalia
 Philippines
 Kurdistan Region Peshmerga
 Indonesia
 Egypt

 Norway
 Pakistan
 Denmark
 Netherlands
 Poland
 Slovakia
 Romania
 Ukraine
 Hungary
 Bulgaria
 Ethiopia
 Georgia
 Thailand
 Russia
 Turkey
 Japan		 al-Qaeda
File:Somalia Islamic Courts Flag.svg Islamic Courts Union
Taliban
Fedayeen Saddam
Tribes in Waziristan
Hamas
File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg Hezbollah
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Lashkar-e-Toiba
Hizbul Mujahideen
File:Ansar al-sunnah.jpg Ansar al-Sunna
Mahdi Army
Islamic State of Iraq
Abu Sayyaf
Jemaah Islamiyah
other Iraqi insurgents
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Countries in which Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred on or after September 11, 2001.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the War on Terror) is an umbrella term coined by the Bush administration to refer to the various military, political, and legal actions taken to ostensibly "curb the spread of terrorism" following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Both the phrase “War on Terrorism” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law.[1][2][3]

War on Terrorism

See also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents

Terrorist organizations carried out attacks on the U.S. and its allies throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prompting occasional military responses. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,[4] United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated with al-Qaeda.[5][6] These targets included a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced 90% of the region's malaria drugs. In October of 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred,[7] followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.[8] The latter attacks created an immediate demand throughout the United States for a decisive response. It has, however, been argued that the "decisive response" has caused still more deaths through the killing of civilians. The Bush administration's use of the War on Terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq has been particularly controversial, as the link asserted between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was subsequently disproved.[9]

The World Trade Center, one of three sites on where the September 11, 2001 attacks took place.

In 2001 the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1373 which obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks. In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws[10]. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counter terrorism activities by adopting nations the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.

Historical usage of phrase

The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders. (See, for example, New York Times, April 2 1881.) Many of the anarchists described themselves as "terrorists," and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, she threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing, "I am a terrorist, not a killer."[11]

The next time the phrase gained currency was when it was used to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab attacks and revolts, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine. The phrase was also used frequently by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.[12] In fact, many leaders from all over the world utilize this term when dealing with terrorist activity.

On September 20th, 2001, during an address to a joint session of congress and the American people, President George W. Bush formally declared war on terror when he said, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with it.[13] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"...activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

With respect to defining his policy known as the War on Terror, President Bush has stated that:

"...today's war on terror is like the Cold War. It is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and pursues totalitarian aims....I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power of Shock and Awe to win the war on terror. And so I said we were going to stay on the offense two ways: one, hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread freedom."[14]

British objections to the phrase "war on terrorism"

The Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK, Ken McDonald — Britain's most senior criminal prosecutor — has stated that those responsible for acts of terror such as the 7 July 2005 London bombings are not "soldiers" in a war, but "inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a "culture of legislative restraint" was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a "primary purpose" of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to "abandon our values." He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be "proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law":

"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered...were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."[15]

Stated U.S objectives and strategies

The Bush Administration has defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism: [16]

  1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
  2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
  3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
    1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
    2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism.
    3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
    4. Working with willing and able states.
    5. Enabling weak states.
    6. Persuading reluctant states.
    7. Compelling unwilling states.
    8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
    9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
  4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
    1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
    2. Win the war of ideals.
  5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
    1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
    2. Attain domain awareness
    3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad.
    4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
    5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability.

Criticisms of U.S. objectives and strategies

Main article: Criticism of the War on Terrorism

The War on Terrorism as indefinite and indeterminate

Opponents have criticized the “War on Terrorism” as an irresponsible metaphor, arguing that “war” must by definition be waged against tangible opponents—a country or other established entity—not against broad and controversial categories of activity such as “terrorism.” Cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes:

"Literal—not metaphorical—wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can’t defeat it militarily and you can’t sign a peace treaty with it."[17]

Dr. David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency and counterterrorism advisor to Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has asserted that:

"We must distinguish Al Qa'eda and the broader militant movements it symbolises – entities that use terrorism – from the tactic of terrorism itself. In practice, as will be demonstrated, the 'War on Terrorism' is a defensive war against a world-wide Islamist jihad, a diverse confederation of movements that uses terrorism as its principal, but not its sole tactic."[18]

Francis Fukuyama, a prominent former neoconservative, has made the similar point that "The term “war on terrorism” is a misnomer, resulting in distorted ideas of the main threat facing Americans today. Terrorism is only a means to an end; in this respect, a “war on terror” makes no more sense than a war on submarines."[19]

The term "terrorism" has been also been characterized as unacceptably vague. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime observes:

"The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter.[20]

Opponents critical of this inherent subjectivity point out that governments such as Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela consistently use the term "terrorism" to describe actions taken by the United States.[21]

Further criticism maintains that the War on Terrorism provides a framework for perpetual war; that the announcement of such open-ended goals produces a state of endless conflict, since "terrorist groups" can continue to arise indefinitely.[22]. President Bush has pledged that the War on Terrorism “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”[23]

The War on Terrorism as counterproductive

Significant numbers of security experts, politicians, and policy organizations have claimed that the War on Terrorism has been counterproductive: that it has consolidated opposition to the U.S., aided terrorist recruitment, and increased the likelihood of attacks against the U.S. and its allies. In a 2005 briefing paper, the Oxford Research Group reported that

"Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 9/11. ...Far from winning the 'war on terror', the second George W. Bush administration is maintaining policies that are not curbing paramilitary movements and are actually increasing violent anti-Americanism."[24]

The South African Mail & Guardian describes research commissioned by the British Ministry of Defence which concluded:

"The war in Iraq ... has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world ... Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act."[25]

Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, have argued that the "globalization of martyrdom" potentiated by the Iraq War “has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost.”[26]

Double standards

Others have criticized the U.S. for double standards in its dealings with key allies that are also known to support terrorism, such as Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly stated that in the war against terrorism, “the central front is Pakistan"; Pakistan has also been alleged to provide Taliban operatives with covert support via the ISI.[27] These accusations of double dealing regard civil liberties[28] and human rights as well as terrorism. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "[i]n its haste to strengthen the "frontline" states' ability to confront transnational terrorist threats on their soil, and to gain the cooperation of regimes of geostrategic significance to the next phases of the "War on Terrorism", the administration is disregarding normative restrictions on U.S. aid to human rights abusers." [29] Within the U.S. itself, critics of the Patriot Act argue that the legislation gives the government free reign to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.[30] The Bush administration's alleged use of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and torture have all fueled opposition to the War on Terrorism. [31] [32][33]

Decreasing international support

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. Indian support for the War on Terrorism has been stable.[34] Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is American control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world."[35]

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of the War on Terrorism

Campaigns and theatres of operation

Part of a series on
Terrorism
By ideology
Religious
Special-interest / Single-issue
Related topics
Structure
  • Methods
  • Tactics
Terrorist groups
Adherents
State terrorism
State-sponsored terrorism
Response to terrorism
Main article: War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation

Africa

Horn of Africa

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
Main article: War in Somalia (2006–present)

This extension of Operation Enduring Freedom, titled OEF-HOA, was initiated in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Unlike other operations contained in Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF-HOA does not have a specific terrorist organization as a target. OEF-HOA instead focuses its efforts to disrupt and detect terrorist activities in the region and to work with host nations to prevent the reemergence of terrorist cells and activities.

In October 2002, the Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) was established in Djibouti at Camp Le Monier. It contains approximately 2,000 personnel including U.S. military and Special Operations Forces (SOF) and coalition force members, Coalition Task Force 150 (CTF-150). The coalition force members consist of ships from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom. The primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa region and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom.[36] Included in the operation is the training of selected armed forces units of the countries of Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency tactics. Humanitarian efforts conducted by CJTF-HOA include rebuilding of schools and medical clinics as well as providing medical services to those countries whose forces are being trained. The program expands as part of the Trans-Saharan Counter Terrorism Initiative as CJTF personnel also assist in training the forces of Chad, Niger, Mauritania and Mali.[36] However, the War on Terror does not include Sudan, where over 400,000 have died due to state-sponsored terrorism.[37]

On July 1, 2006, a Web-posted message purportedly written by Osama bin Laden urged Somalis to build an Islamic state in the country and warned western states that his al-Qaeda network would fight against them if they intervened there.[38]

Somalia has been considered a "failed state" because its official central government was weak, dominated by warlords and unable to exert effective control over the country. Beginning in mid-2006, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), an Islamist faction campaigning on a restoration of "law and order" through Sharia Law, had rapidly taken control of much of southern Somalia. On December 14, 2006, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer claimed al-Qaeda cell operatives were controlling the Islamic Courts Union, a claim denied by the ICU.[39]

By late 2006, the UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia had seen its power effectively limited to Baidoa, while the Islamic Courts Union controlled the majority of Southern Somalia, including the capital of Mogadishu. On December 20, the Islamic Courts Union launched an offensive on the government stronghold of Baidoa, and saw early gains before Ethiopia intervened in favor of the government. By December 26, the Islamic Courts Union went into a "tactical retreat" towards Mogadishu, before again retreating as TFG/Ethiopian troops neared, leading them to take Mogadishu with no resistance. The ICU then fled to Kismayo, where they are currently fighting Ethiopian/TFG forces in the Battle of Jilib. The Prime Minister of Somalia claims that 3 terror suspects from the 1998 Embassy Bombings are being sheltered in Kismayo. [8] On 30 December, 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in Somalia.[40]

On January 8, 2007, the U.S. launched a strike in Somalia against the suspects using AC-130 gunships.[9]

Europe

Main article: Operation Active Endeavour

Beginning in October 2001, Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation of NATO started in response to the 9/11 attacks. It operates in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. The operation has also assisted Greece with the prevention of illegal immigration.

Middle East

Iraq

Main articles: Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq
File:Army.mil-2006-12-21-110829.jpg
Soldiers patrol the streets of Adhamiya, a neighborhood in Baghdad, Iraq.

Scott Ritter points out in his October 19th, 2005 interview with Seymour Hersh that the US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power started with President George H. W. Bush in August 1990. Ritter concludes from public remarks by President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that the economic sanctions would only be lifted when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. The justification for sanctions was disarmament. The CIA offered the opinion that containing Saddam Hussein for six months would result in the collapse of his regime. This policy resulted in the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq.[10]

Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United States since 1990,[41] and maintained poor relations with the United States since the Gulf War. Tensions were high throughout the 1990s, with the United States launching Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998 after it failed to meet demands of "unconditional cooperation" in weapons inspections.[42] After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government claimed that Iraq was a threat to the United States because Iraq could begin to use its alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction to aid terrorist groups. Iraq had no role in the September 11 attacks and had no known history of a significant working relationship with al-Qaeda.

File:Hostage kim.jpg
Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'l Jihad members with Kim Sun-il giving Korea 24 hours to withdraw Korean troops out of Iraq .

The George W. Bush administration called for the United Nations Security Council to send weapons inspectors to Iraq to find and destroy alleged weapons of mass destruction and for a UNSC resolution.[43][44] UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously, which offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or face "serious consequences." Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force by member states, thus Resolution 1441 had no effect on the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force by member states against fellow member states. Saddam Hussein subsequently allowed UN inspectors to access Iraqi sites, while the U.S. government continued to assert that Iraq was being obstructionist. [11] The burden of proof was on Iraq to show it had no weapons and not the US due to the nature of the regime. Before the 2nd Iraq war, Hussein got 100% of the vote in Iraq's presidential election. In October 2002, the United States Congress authorized the president to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq in order to "prosecute the war on terrorism."[45] After failing to overcome opposition from France, Russia, and China against a UNSC resolution that would sanction the use of force against Iraq, and before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their inspections which were deemed to be fruitless by the U.S. because of Iraq's alleged deception, the United States assembled a "Coalition of the Willing" composed of nations who pledged support for a war against Iraq. France, China and Russia all had self-financial objectives for opposing the removal of Iraq's dictator.[46] On March 20th, 2003, the invasion of Iraq was launched in what the Bush Administration said were the "serious consequences" spoken of in UNSC Resolution 1441. Iraq had violated 17 different UN resolutions up to that point since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.[citation needed] It routinely shot at US/UK planes patrolling the two no-fly zones as well.[47]

Training Iraqi Police — a U.S. Staff Sgt. congratulates an Iraqi police officer on his marksmanship at the Camp Rustamiyah range.

Saddam Hussein's regime was quickly toppled and on May 1, 2003, George W. Bush stated major combat operations in Iraq had ended and claimed victory in Iraq. [12] But the war continued on as an insurgency against the U.S.-led coalition forces and the Iraqi police units and governing structures they installed. Elements of the insurgency are led by Sunni loyalists, who are Iraqi nationalists and pan-Arabists. Some insurgency leaders are strict Muslims and see themselves as fighting a religious war to liberate Iraq of foreign non-Muslim occupiers and their Iraqi collaborators. [13] Over 3,000 soldiers from the coalition have been killed (more than the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks), with an estimated 67,000 Insurgents killed or detained. [14] Several estimates of the number of civilians killed as a result of the conflict exist. A published Johns Hopkins University Study estimates approximately 650,000 Iraqi "excess" deaths as of July 2006 because of the war and the upheaval caused by the war.[48] See, Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. In a classified memo (dated November 6, 2006) to President Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed that he felt the military strategy in Iraq was ineffective and needed change.[49]. At a news conference with the British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Washington on 6 December 2006, President George W. Bush commented the Iraq Study Group's report and admitted for the first time that a "new approach" is needed in Iraq, that the situation in Iraq is "bad there" and that the task ahead was "daunting".[50] President Bush said he would not accept every recommendation by the ISG panel but promised that he would take the report seriously. Bush is expected to wait for three other studies from the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council before charting the new course on Iraq.[51]

Lebanon

Main article: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

In July 2006, following the killing of three Israeli soldiers and the taking prisoner of two more by Hezbollah, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, intent on the destruction of Hezbollah. The conflict lasted over a month and caused the deaths of between 845[52] and 1300[53] Lebanese and 163 Israelis (119 military and 44 civilian) and wounding thousands more Israelis and Lebanese.[54] Both the Lebanese government (including Hezbollah) and the Israeli government have agreed to the terms of the ceasefire agreement created by the United Nations that began at 0500 on August 14, 2006. While the conflict is associated with the longer running Arab-Israeli conflict, prior to the declaration of the ceasefire, Israel stated it was fighting a war against terror,[55] the U.S. government stated the conflict was also a front in the "War on Terror"[56] and President Bush reiterated it in a speech the day the ceasefire came into effect.[57]

Saudi Arabia

Main article: Insurgency in Saudi Arabia
File:Riyadhbomb.jpg
One of the Riyadh compounds bombing.

The resistance against Saudi government was started since the bombing in Riyadh on 12 May2003 by al-Qaeda terrorists. The attacks are targeting the Saudi security forces, the foreign workers, and tourists (mostly Western).

Gaza Strip/ West Bank

Main article: Fatah-Hamas conflict

The Fatah-Hamas conflict began in 2006 and has continued, in one form or another, into the middle of 2007. The conflict is between the two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, with each vying to assume political control of the Palestinian territories. The majority of the fighting is occurring in theGaza Strip, which was taken over by Hamas in June 2007. Fatah is United States backed and Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, United Nations and the European Union.

Central Asia/South Asia

Republic of India

Main articles: 2001 Indian Parliament attack, Terrorism in India, Terrorism in Kashmir, and 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff

India has had to deal with a slow but steady rise in Islamist terrorism over the course of the 1990s and the 21st century. The recent rise in prominence of several terror groups, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Hizbul Mujahideen and others in Kashmir has created grave problems for the country. Major terrorist incidents in India include the 1993 Mumbai bombings, as well as Terrorism in Kashmir such as Wandhama massacre, Kaluchak massacre, Chittisinghpura massacre and others. Terrorist attacks in the rest of the country include the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, Akshardham Temple attack, 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya, 2005 Jaunpur train bombing, 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, 2006 Malegaon blasts, 2006 Varanasi bombings, and the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings.

The international terrorist netowork al-Qaeda also lends ideological and financial support to terrorism in Kashmir, with Osama bin Laden constantly demanding that jihad be waged against India. [15] and Islamic Fundamentalist propaganda groups disseminating propaganda in many countries against India with rhetoric like "idol worshippers and Hindus" who "occupy Kashmir"[16]

The Indian Government and Military of India have taken numerous counter-terrorist measures to combat rising terrorism in the country[17][18]. Some of these measures stand criticized by Human rights groups as being too draconian, particularly in Kashmir. Similar allegations are levelled on the militants as well [19]. In the aftermath of the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, massive troop buildups occurred in the Kashmir region by both India and Pakistan and fire was exchanged. This incident is called the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff. On January 12, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf gave a speech intended to reduce tensions with India. He declared the Pakisan would combat extremism on its own soil, but said that Pakistan had a right to Kashmir.[58] Indian leaders reacted with skepticism. Minister of State for External Affairs Omar Abdullah said that the speech was nothing new, and others said that it would 'not make any change in the Indian stand'.[59] Still, tensions eased somewhat. The Indian President told his generals that there’d be no attack “for now.”[60]

Afghanistan

Main article: War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Soldiers in south-eastern Afghanistan check their coordinates during a combat patrol.

In October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, NATO invaded the country of Afghanistan to remove al-Qaeda forces and oust the Taliban regime which had control of the country. On September 20, 2001 George W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban regime to turn over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders operating in the country.[61] The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden's link to the September 11 attacks and, if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial in an Islamic Court.[62] On October 7, 2001 the official invasion began with British and American forces conducting aerial bombing campaigns.[63]

Pakistan

The Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammed Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested by Pakistani officials during a series of joint U.S. and Pakistan raids during the week of March 23, 2002. During the raid the suspect was shot three times while trying to escape capture by military personnel. Zubaydah is said to be a high-ranking al-Qaeda official with the title of operations chief and in charge of running al-Qaeda training camps.[20] Later that year on September 14, 2002, Ramzi Binalshibh was arrested in Pakistan after a three-hour gunfight with police forces. Binalshibh is known to have shared a room with Mohammad Atta in Hamburg, Germany and to be a financial backer of al-Qaeda operations. It is said Binalshibh was supposed to be another hijacker, however the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rejected his visa application three times, leaving him to the role of financier. The trail of money transferred by Binalshibh from Germany to the United States links both Mohammad Atta and Zacarias Moussaoui.[21]

On March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested during CIA-led raids on the suburb of Rawalpindi, nine miles outside of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. Mohammed at the time of his capture was the third highest ranking official in al-Qaeda and had been directly in charge of the planning for the September 11 attacks. Escaping capture the week before during a previous raid, the Pakistani government was able to use information gathered from other suspects captured to locate and detain Mohammed. Mohammed was indicted in 1996 by the United States government for links to the Oplan Bojinka, a plot to bomb a series of U.S. civilian airliners. Other events Mohammed has been linked to include: ordering the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, the USS Cole bombing, Richard Reid's attempt to blow up a civilian airliner with a shoe bomb, and the terrorist attack at the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has described himself as the head of the al-Qaeda military committee[22].

Amidst all this, in 2006, Pakistan was accused by NATO commanding officers of aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan;[64] but NATO later admitted that there was no known evidence against the ISI or Pakistani government of sponsoring terrorism.[65] However in 2007, allegations of ISI secretly making bounty payments upto CDN$ 1,900 (Pakistani rupees. 1 lakh) for each NATO personnel killed surfaced.[66] The Afghan government also accuses the ISI of providing help to militants including protection to the recently killed Mullah Dadullah, Taliban's senior military commander, a charge denied by the Pakistani government.[67] India, meanwhile continues to accuse Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of planning several terrorist attacks in Occupied Kashmir and elsewhere in the India repubic, including the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which Pakistan attributes it to "homegrown" insurgencies.[68] Many other countries like Afghanistan and the UK have also accused Pakistan of State-sponsored terrorism and financing terrorism. The upswing in American military activity in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan corresponded with a drastic increase in American military aid to the Pakistan government. In the three years before the attacks of September 11, Pakistan received approximately $9 million in American military aid. In the three years after, the number increased to $4.2 billion, making it the country with the maximum funding post 9/11.[69]. Such a huge inflow of funds has raised concerns that these funds were given without any accountability, as the end uses not being documented, and that large portions were used to suppress civilians' human rights and to purchase weapons to contain domestic problems like the Balochistan unrest.[70][71]

Waziristan
Main article: Waziristan War

In 2004 the Pakistani Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan's Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. After the fall of the Taliban regime many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Pakistani army had previously little control. With the logistics and air support of the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, wanted for his involvement in the USS Cole bombing, Oplan Bojinka plot and the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. However, the Taliban resistance still operates in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas under the control of Haji Omar.[72]

Southeast Asia

Indonesia

Main articles: 2002 Bali bombing, 2004 Jakarta embassy bombing, and 2005 Bali bombing

In 2002 and again in 2005, the Indonesian island of Bali has been struck by suicide and car bombings that killed over 200 people and injured over 300. The 2002 attack consisted of a bomb hidden in a backpack exploding inside of "Padds's Bar," a remote controlled car bomb exploding in front of the "Sari Club" and a third explosion in front of the American consulate in Bali. The 2005 attack consisted of 2 suicide bombings, the first near a food court in Jimbaran, the second in the main square of Kuta. The group Jemaah Islamiyah is suspected by Indonesian authorities of carrying out both attacks.

On September 9, 2004, a car bomb exploded outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, killing 10 Indonesians and injuring over 140 others; despite conflicting initial reports there were no Australian casualties.[73] Foreign Minister Alexander Downer reported that a mobile phone text message was sent to Indonesian authorities before the bombing warning of attacks if Abu Bakar Bashir was not released from prison.[74] Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.[75] Currently Jemaah Islamiyah is suspected of carrying out the attacks and Noordin Mohammed Top is a prime suspect. Top is a bomb maker and explosions expert for Jemaah Islamiyah.[76]

Philippines

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

In January 2002 the United States Special Operations Command, Pacific deployed to the Philippines to advise and assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines in combating terrorism. The operations were mainly focused on removing the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) from their stronghold on the island of Basilan. The United States military has reported that they have removed over 80% of the Abu Sayyaf Group members from the region. The second portion of the operation was conducted as a humanitarian program called "Operation Smiles." The goal of the program was to provide medical care and services to the region of Basilan to prevent the ability for members of the terrorist groups to reestablish themselves.

North and South America

United States of America

United States Customs and Border Protection officers.
Further information: [[:Detentions following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]]

A $40 billion emergency spending bill was passed by the United States Congress, and an additional $20 billion bail-out of the airline industry was also passed.

Investigations have been started through many branches of many governments, pursuing tens of thousands of tips. Thousands of people have been detained, arrested, or questioned.[citation needed]

The Justice Department launched a Special Registration procedure for certain male non-citizens in the U.S., requiring them to register in person at offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Several laws were passed to increase the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States, notably the USA PATRIOT Act. Many civil liberties groups have alleged that these laws remove important restrictions on governmental authority, and are a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties, possible unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. No official legal challenges have been started as of 2004, but governing bodies in a number of communities have passed symbolic resolutions against the act.

In a speech on June 9, 2005, Bush said that the USA PATRIOT Act had been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, more than half of whom had been convicted. Meanwhile the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quoted Justice Department figures showing that 7,000 people have complained of abuse of the Act. The ACLU also maintains that many others do not know they have been subjected to a search because the law requires that searches be kept secret.

DARPA began an initiative in early 2002 with the creation of the Total Information Awareness program, designed to promote information technologies that could be used in counterterrorism. This program, facing criticism, has since been defunded by Congress.

Various government bureaucracies which handled security and military functions were reorganized. Most notably, the Department of Homeland Security was created to coordinate "homeland security" efforts in the largest reorganization of the U.S. federal government since the consolidation of the armed forces into the Department of Defense. The Office of Strategic Influence was secretly created after 9/11 for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but was closed soon after being discovered. The Bush administration implemented the Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government) to ensure that U.S. government would be able to continue in catastrophic circumstances.

Recently the House of Representatives passed a bill enacting many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, something the Democrats campaigned on as part of their "100 hour plan." The bill passed in the House 299-128 and is currently still being considered in the U.S. Senate. So far funding has not been appropriated for the enactments. [23]

International military support

File:Flightline.jpg
Representing the international nature of the conflict, here Dutch Cougar and British Chinook helicopters at Kandahar airfield, part of NATO’s ISAF force in southern Afghanistan, 2006.
Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies
Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006
Main article: Afghanistan War order of battle

The first wave of attacks were carried out solely by American and British forces. Since the initial invasion period, these forces were augmented by troops and aircraft from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway amongst others. In 2006, there were about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan.

On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. Australian Prime Minister John Howard also declared that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines.

In the following months, NATO took a wide range of measures to respond to the threat of terrorism. On November 22, 2002, the member states of the EAPC decided on a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism which explicitly states that "EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism."[77] NATO started naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general called Operation Active Endeavour.

The invasion of Afghanistan is seen as the first action of this war, and initially involved forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan Northern Alliance.

Support for the United States cooled when America made clear its determination to invade Iraq in late 2002. Even so, many of the "coalition of the willing" countries that unconditionally supported the U.S.-led military action have sent troops to Afghanistan, particular neighbouring Pakistan, which has disowned its earlier support for the Taliban and contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the conflict. Pakistan was also engaged in the Waziristan War. Supported by U.S. intelligence, Pakistan was attempting to remove the Taliban insurgency and al-Qaeda element from the northern tribal areas.[78]

The International Security Assistance Force

Main article: International Security Assistance Force

December 2001 saw the creation of the NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to assist the Afghan Transitional Administration and the first post-Taliban elected government. With a renewed Taliban insurgency, it was announced in 2006 that ISAF would replace the U.S troops in the province as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The British 16th Air Assault Brigade (latter reinforced by Royal Marines) formed the core of the force in Southern Afghanistan, along with troops and helicopters from Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. The initial force consisted of roughly 3,300 British, 2,000 Canadian, 1,400 from the Netherlands and 240 from Australia, along with special forces from Denmark and Estonia (and small contingents from other nations).[79][80][81][82]

Role of U.S. media

Researchers in the area of communication studies and political science have found that American understanding of the war on terror is directly shaped by how the mainstream news media reports events associated with the war on terror. In Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age[83] political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers illustrated “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” This researcher called the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in his conclusion. “What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”

This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view, which is an important function of the press. “In short,” Kuypers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.” The study is essentially a “comparative framing analysis.” Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the president said.

“Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner,” wrote Kuypers. These findings suggest that the public is misinformed about government justification and plans concerning the war on terror.

Others have also suggested that press coverage has contributed to a public confused and misinformed on both the nature and level of the threat to the U.S. posed by terrorism. In his book, Trapped in the War on Terror[84] political scientist Ian S. Lustick, claimed, “The media have given constant attention to possible terrorist-initiated catastrophes and to the failures and weaknesses of the government's response.” Lustick alleged that the War on Terror is disconnected from the real but remote threat terrorism poses, and that the generalized War on Terror began as part of the justification for invading Iraq, but then took on a life of its own, fueled by media coverage.

Media researcher Stephen D. Cooper’s analysis of media criticism Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate[85] contains many examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. Cooper found that bloggers’ criticisms of factual inaccuracies in news stories or bloggers’ discovery of the mainstream press’s failure to adequately check facts before publication caused many news organizations to retrack or change news stories.

Cooper found that bloggers specializing in criticism of media coverage advanced four key points: 1. Mainstream reporting of the war on terror has frequently contained factual inaccuracies. In some cases, the errors go uncorrected; moreover, when corrections are issued they usually are given far less prominence than the initial coverage containing the errors. 2. The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the provenance of information or visual images supplied by Iraqi “stringers” (local Iraqis hired to relay local news). 3. Story framing is often problematic; in particular, “man-in-the-street” interviews have often been used as a representation of public sentiment in Iraq, in place of methodologically sound survey data. 4. Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

Military decorations

Since 2002, the United States military, has created several military awards and decorations related to the "War on Terrorism" including:

The U.S. Department of Transportation created two awards related to the "War on Terrorism" which are authorized to be worn on U.S. military uniforms:

NATO has also created military decorations related to the "War on Terrorism":

Casualties

Number of Persons Killed in the "War on Terrorism" as defined

There is no widely agreed on figure for the number of people that have been killed so far in the "War on Terrorism" as it has been defined by the Bush Administration to include the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and operations elsewhere. Some estimates include the following:

  • Iraq — between 396,185 and 945,842
  • Between 392,979 and 942,636 estimated Iraqi (655,000 with a confidence interval of 95%), civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality.[86]
  • A minimum of 62,570 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 28 April 2007 according to IraqBodyCount.
  • 100,000 to 150,000 estimated civilian deaths in hospitals according to the Iraqi Health Ministry in November 2006, based on extrapolating current rate of death back to March 2003.Over 20,000 Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda allied Sunni militants have been killed, with the number of injured estimated to be in the tens of thousands.
  • 3301 U.S. military dead (2007 16 April). 22,401 wounded in action, of which 10,050 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. 6,640 non-hostile injuries and 18,183 diseases (both requiring medical air transport).[87]
  • 249 Coalition military dead. Breakdown: Australia 2. Bulgaria 13. Denmark 6. El Salvador 5. Estonia 2. Hungary 1. Italy 33. Kazakhstan 1. Latvia 3. Netherlands 2. Poland 18. Romania 2. Slovakia 4. Spain 11. Thailand 2. Ukraine 18. United Kingdom 130.
  • Afghanistan — between 1,300 and 49,600

Further reading

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1763641.stm
  2. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/War_on_Terror/Civil_Rights/page.do?id=1108209&n1=3&n2=821&n3=838
  3. ^ http://www.cdi.org/news/law/preemptive-war.cfm
  4. ^ "Report of the Accountability Review Boards". U.S. Department of State. 1998-08-07.
  5. ^ "U.S. strikes terrorist targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. 1998-08-20.
  6. ^ "U.S. retaliates for Africa bombings". CNN. 08.20.98. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "U.S. sailors killed in attack on Navy vessel in Yemen". CNN. 2000-10-12.
  8. ^ "What proof of bin Laden's involvement". CNN. 2001-09-13.
  9. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
  10. ^ U.N. Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee
  11. ^ "The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11". Department of Political Science University of California at Los Angeles. Summer 2004. Retrieved 2006-08-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); line feed character in |publisher= at position 32 (help)
  12. ^ "War on Terrorism". Aljazeera.Com. 2003-01-01.
  13. ^ CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [1]
  14. ^ Remarks by President Bush on the Global War on Terror[2]
  15. ^ There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP, The Times, January 24, 2007, p.12, [3]
  16. ^ NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR COMBATING TERRORISM[4]
  17. ^ http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/fiveyearsafter911
  18. ^ "Countering Global Insurgency"
  19. ^ "Phase III in the War on Terrorism?" (Brookings Institution)
  20. ^ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
  21. ^ "An open letter to the American president" Lebanon Daily Star
  22. ^ Richissin, Todd. "'War on terror' difficult to define" The Baltimore Sun, 2 September 2004.
  23. ^ "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People"
  24. ^ [http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/endlesswar.php "Endless War: The global war on terror and the new Bush Administration"]
  25. ^ "Iraq war was terrorism 'recruiting sergeant'" Mail & Guardian 28 Sep 2006
  26. ^ "The Iraq Effect." Mother Jones, 1 March 2007
  27. ^ ‘Pakistan must not harbour Taliban’ By Khalid Hasan
  28. ^ "Democracy Hypocrisy"; The New Yorker 8 Dec 2001
  29. ^ http://www.fas.org/terrorism/at/docs/Aid&Humanrights.html
  30. ^ Amnesty International
  31. ^ Washington Post
  32. ^ NPR
  33. ^ Guardian
  34. ^ http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019
  35. ^ www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/koh111005.pdf
  36. ^ a b CRS Report for Congress[5]
  37. ^ AP report on Sudan
  38. ^ Bin Laden releases Web message on Iraq, Somalia USA Today
  39. ^ U.S. says al Qaeda behind Somali Islamists Reuters
  40. ^ Somali, Ethiopian troops take Islamist stronghold CNN
  41. ^ "Iraq accuses U.S., Turkey of 'illegally' meeting with Kurds". CNN. 2000-03-09.
  42. ^ "Clinton: Iraq has abused its final chance". CNN. 1998-12-16.
  43. ^ "Iraq weighs U.N. resolution". CNN. 2002-11-09.
  44. ^ "Bush's remarks after U.N. passes Iraq resolution". CNN. 2002-11-08.
  45. ^ "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". White House. 2002-10-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  46. ^ "Bush:Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN. 2002-11-20.
  47. ^ "British House of Commons Research Paper 02/64" (PDF). British House of Commons. 11-22-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  48. ^ Sabrina Tavernises (2006-10-11). "Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says". New York Times. Retrieved 2006-10-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  49. ^ "Rumsfeld memo admits Iraq strategy failing". CNN. 2006-12-03.
  50. ^ Bush ponders next Iraq move
  51. ^ Cracks appear between Bush and Blair over need for talks with Iran and Syria
  52. ^ Lauren Frayer (2006-08-18). "Lebanese army greeted in south". Indianapolis Star. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  53. ^ Robert Fisk (2006-08-17). "Robert Fisk: Lebanon's pain grows by the hour as death toll hits 1,300". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  54. ^ Ben Wedeman (2006-08-14). "Refugees stream back to southern Lebanon". CNN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  55. ^ "Israel needs int'l support for war against terror: DM". People's Daily Online. August 10, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Wednesday morning that Israel is fighting a war of the free world against terror"
  56. ^ "Lebanon part of 'war on terror', says Bush". ABC News. July 30, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  57. ^ "Bush: 'Hezbollah suffered a defeat'". CNN. 2006-08-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  58. ^ [6]
  59. ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/27war2.htm
  60. ^ Steve Coll, "The Stand-Off." The New Yorker, February 13 & 20
  61. ^ "Transcript of President Bush's address". CNN. 9.20.01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  62. ^ "Taliban rejects president Bush's demands". PBS. 09.21.01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  63. ^ "Into Afghanistan: Rooting out the Taliban". United States Department of Defense. August 9, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  64. ^ NATO faces defeat in Afghanistan
  65. ^ The Hindu (2006-10-11). "No evidence against Pakistan: NATO". The Hindu. Retrieved 2007-06-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  66. ^ Pakistan accused of placing bounty on NATO soldiers April 05, 2007, The Vancouver Sun
  67. ^ Taliban military leader killed by Nato forces Belfast Telegraph, May 14, 2007
  68. ^ CNN (2006-09-30). "Pakistan spy agency behind Mumbai bombings". CNN. Retrieved 2006-09-30. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  69. ^ "Pakistan's $4.2 Billion 'Blank Check' for U.S. Military Aid, After 9/11, funding to country soars with little oversight" (in English). Center for Public Integrity. March 27 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  70. ^ Billions in Aid, With No Accountability Center for Public Integrity Posted: 5/31/2007
  71. ^ An alliance of convenience By Burhanuddin Hasan The News International, Pakistan
  72. ^ "Top al Qaeda operative caught in Pakistan". CNN. 2003-03-01.
  73. ^ "JI 'claims Jakarta car bombing'". CNN. 2004-09-09.
  74. ^ "Text 'warned of Jakarta bomb'". CNN. 09.10.04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  75. ^ "Jihad warning over Indonesian cleric arrest". CNN. 2002-10-10.
  76. ^ "'Walking bombs' are desperate". CNN. 2003-11-01.
  77. ^ "Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism". NATO. November 22, 2002. Retrieved 2006-08-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  78. ^ "New frontline in the war on terror". The Guardian. 05.04.06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  79. ^ "UK troops take over Afghan duties". BBC. 2006-06-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  80. ^ "Canada set for longer Afghan stay". BBC. 2006-06-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  81. ^ "Australia outlines Afghan force". BBC. 2006-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  82. ^ "More Dutch troops for Afghanistan". BBC. 2006-02-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  83. ^ Kuypers, Jim A. Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7425-3653-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
  84. ^ Lustick, Ian S. Trapped in the War on Terror. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-3983-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
  85. ^ Cooper, Stephen D. Watching the Watchdog: Bloggers As the Fifth Estate. Marquette Books. ISBN 0-9229-9347-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
  86. ^ "[7]." The Lancet.
  87. ^ "http://icasualties.org/oif/." Iraq Coalition Casualties
  88. ^ "http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/." Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing
  89. ^ "http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html." Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties
  90. ^ "http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,718647,00.html." The Guardian

See also

Official sites by governments and international organizations
General "war on terrorism" news
Primary legal documents
Specific articles
Other
Video
  • The Dark Side — After 9/11 Vice President Cheney initiated an expansion of executive power, took on George Tenet's CIA for control over intelligence and brought the War on Terrorism to Iraq.
  • Macedonia Killings Video — 2002 confrontation at the US embassy in Macedonia
  • The Long War — Colbert highlights the new name for "war on terror" that the pentagon is now using.
  • The Power of Nightmares
  • [25] Documentary on Radical Islam's War against the West
Recent events



Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_terror&oldid=145176730"