War on Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

War on Terrorism
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.
Date October 7, 2001 – Location Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Horn of Africa, more... Result Conflict ongoing Casus belli September 11, 2001 attacks.
Combatants
Main participating countries/entities:  United States,  United Kingdom,  NATO, ISAF,  Australia,  Canada,  Netherlands,  Iraq,  Afghanistan, Northern Alliance,  Germany,  Italy,  France,  Denmark,  Norway,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Romania, Kurdish Peshmerga,  Philippines,  Russia,  South Korea,  Ukraine,  Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Spain,  Turkey,  Ethiopia,  Georgia,  India,  Indonesia,  Israel,  Japan,  Pakistan,  Saudi Arabia,  Thailand,  Somalia, and others	al-Qaeda and its allies: Islamic Courts Union, Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, tribes in Waziristan, Lashkar-e-Toiba, ------ Hezbollah

The War on Terrorism, the War Against Terror, or War on Terror is an umbrella term used by the Bush administration to refer to the various military, political, and legal actions taken to curb the spread of terrorism. The term is often used in a metaphorical sense (similar to"the war on cancer"), although the US administration often cites the fact that "the nation is at war" to justify certain controversial actions.^[1] The stated goal of the war is to "end international terrorism," it was launched in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., for which al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.^[2][3][4]

In his address to a joint session of Congress following the attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush defined the "war on terror:" "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."^[5]

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."^[6]

The campaign's stated goals include preventing those groups identified as "terrorist" by the United States^[7] (largely focused on militant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates) from carrying out attacks and posing a threat to America and its allies; "spreading freedom"^[8] and liberal democracy; and putting an end to state sponsorship of terrorism in so-called rogue^[9] and failed states,^[10] beginning with Operation Active Endeavor, NATO's anti-terrorism response to the trafficking of weapons. It was followed with the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had sheltered elements of al-Qaeda including its leader, Osama bin Laden.

The War on Terrorism was launched by U.S. President George W. Bush,^[11] with support from NATO and other allies. The "War on Terror" has taken many forms, such as diplomacy, going after "terrorist financing,"^[12] domestic provisions aiming to prevent future attacks, and joint training and peacekeeping operations with a wide variety of nations.

The phrase Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT)^[13][14] is the official name used by the U.S. military for operations designated as part of the campaign. Thus, the "War on Terror" as defined by this article is largely a military effort, and has been compared in both its unspecified, continuing duration and its multiple theaters of operation, to the Cold War.^[15] The war is also characterized as an ideological struggle, "involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"^[16] and some have characterized it as a "clash of civilizations."^[17] Although the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled President Saddam Hussein was made up of allies in the "War on Terror,"^[18] the current Iraq war and its alleged links to the larger campaign against terrorism have been highly controversial. The Bush Administration has been accused of acting in violation of international law, human rights,^[19] and the U.S. Constitution^[20] in its execution of the campaign, particularly with regard to the internment of prisoners of war (or "illegal combatants") in its military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.^[21]

The U.S. government's articulation of military doctrines such as pre-emptive war and "regime change" as part of the War on Terror, as well as Bush and Blair's justifications for the war, have also been controversial. Both the larger concept of a "War on Terrorism," and the specific tactics used, have been subject to widespread criticism outside of the United States, and world opinion polls^[22] have shown limited support even in some nations whose governments and militaries are supportive.^[23] In addition, according to the U.S. government's own measures, international terrorist incidents have been on the rise^[24] since the campaign began. However, the U.S. and allies have claimed victories, such as democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the capture of alleged 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.^[25] The War on Terrorism has resulted in high military casualties on both sides, as well as high civilian casualties, although very few United States civilians have been killed other than those who died on 9/11,^[26][27] and is a "long war" whose planners expect it to continue for the foreseeable future.^[28]

In December 2006, the British Foreign Office advised the government to stop using the phrase "War on Terror." A spokesperson for the department said the government wanted to "avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive."^[29] Also, in December 2006, U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, as he prepared to end his tenure, expressed regret over the Bush Administration's use of the phrase "War on Terror," saying the phrase had created unattainable expectations and that "it's not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and impose their — in the hands of a small group of clerics — their dark vision on all the people that they can control."^[30]

Contents 1 War on Terrorism 1.1 Historical usage of phrase 1.2 Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy 1.3 Alternate view by UK on the term 1.4 U.S objective and strategies 2 Timeline 3 Campaigns and theatres of operations 3.1 Africa 3.1.1 Horn of Africa 3.2 Europe 3.3 Middle East 3.3.1 Iraq 3.3.2 Lebanon 3.3.3 Saudi Arabia 3.4 Central Asia/South Asia 3.4.1 Republic of India 3.4.2 Afghanistan 3.4.3 Pakistan 3.4.3.1 Waziristan 3.5 Southeast Asia 3.5.1 Indonesia 3.5.2 Philippines 3.5.3 Thailand 4 International support 4.1 The International Security Assistance Force 5 U.S. domestic initiatives 6 U.S. Media Influences 7 Military decorations 8 Criticism 9 Casualties 9.1 Number of Persons Killed in the "War on Terrorism" as defined 10 Further reading 11 References 12 See also 13 External links

[edit] War on Terrorism

See also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents

Terrorist organizations had carried out attacks on the U.S. and its allies throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prompting occasional responses. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,^[31] United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated with al-Qaeda.^[32][33] 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,^[34] followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.^[35] 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. There are two notable absences in the war on terror, that of Russia and China, who are not officially working with the United States and its allies.

[edit] 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."^[36]

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.^[37]

In a hard-headed Clausewitzian analysis, the phrase "war on terror" has no meaning; one makes war on an enemy, not on a method, although it logically could be used to indicate a war on the people who use such a method. The enemy may be an entity such as al-Qaeda. And the use of the term "jihadist" is also misleading, as there are a number of groups involved in asymmetric warmaking with secular or religious backgrounds and levels of willingness to engage in direct action.

[edit] 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.^[38] 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."^[39]

[edit] Alternate view by UK on the term

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."^[40]

[edit] U.S objective and strategies

The Bush Administration said it intended to base its counterterrorism strategy on several steps:^[41]

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.

The United States strategy in the Global War on Terrorism is based on (as of January 2007) two strategy papers (The National Security Strategy and the Strategy for Countering Terrorism). Whereas the National Security Strategy highlights the preemptive option against so called haven states, the second strategy highlights the spreading of democracy as an antidote to terrorism. Democracy is supposed to be the remedy for frustration, a culture of conspiracy and violence that underly the development of terrorism. Yet, the causes of terrorism as presented in the strategies remain contested.

In the Strategy for Countering Terrorism, first, the successes in the Global War On Terrorism are presented and the phenomenon of terrorism is discussed, particularly the issue of transnationalization and haven states. What follows is a presentation of a concrete strategy against terrorism. The longrange strategy it is to further the spread of democracy and support democratic changes. Democracy is seen as the ´antidote to terrorism`. As well, the formerly named causes for (Poverty, U.S. foreign policy and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the 2006 Security Strategy were dismissed as causes. Instead, one refers to authoritarian regimes and the following political alienation, the lack of participatory rights, unjustified allegations, as well as subcultures that are characterized by conspiracy theories and desinformation and an ideology that justifies murder.) terrorism are repeated with the argument, that democracy is capable of dimishing all of them. Political alienation is replaced by participation, frustration and allegations are replaced by the rule of law and peaceful conflict resolution, the culture of conspiracy theories does find its remedy in the freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. Finally, an ideology that furthers violence is replaced by the respect for human dignity. So, democracy is the antithesis of and the solution to terrorism. Short term, though, one will further refer to military means. One will attack terrorist organizations in all their dimensions and diminish their capability to attack.

[edit] Timeline

Main article: Timeline of the War on Terrorism

[edit] Campaigns and theatres of operations

Terrorism
General
Definitions
History
International Conventions
Anti-terrorism legislation
Counter-terrorism
War on Terrorism
Lists
Organizations
Incidents
Types
Agro-terrorism
Propaganda of the deed
Bioterrorism
Christian terrorism
Cyber-terrorism
Communist terrorism
Eco-terrorism
Islamist terrorism
Narcoterrorism
Nationalist
Nuclear terrorism
Political
Racist
Other religious terrorism
State
State-sponsored
Tactics
Tactics of terrorism
Hijacking
Car bombing
Suicide attack
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf
This box: view • talk • edit

Main article: War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation

[edit] Africa

[edit] Horn of Africa

This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

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.^[42] 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.^[42] However, the War on Terror does not include Sudan, where over 400,000 have died due to state-sponsored terrorism.^[43]

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.^[44]

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.^[45]

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. [33] On 30 December 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in Somalia.^[46]

On January 8, 2007, the U.S. launched a strike in Somalia against the suspects using AC-130 gunships.[34]

[edit] 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.

[edit] Middle East

[edit] Iraq

Main articles: Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq

Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United States since 1990,^[47] 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.^[48] 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.

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.^[49][50] 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. [35] 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."^[51] 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 because of Iraq's 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.^[52] 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. People on the far left and those otherwise opposed to the regime's removal stated that Iraq should be given an opportunity to violate an 18th, 19th or even 20th UN resolution before Hussein's removal should commense. It routinely shot at US/UK planes patrolling the two no-fly zones as well.^[53]

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. [36] 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. [37] 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. [38] 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.^[54] 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.^[55]. 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".^[56] Mr Bush said he would not accept every recommendation by the ISG panel but promised that he would take the report seriously. Mr 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.^[57]

[edit] 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^[58] and 1300^[59] Lebanese and 163 Israelis (119 military and 44 civilian) and wounding thousands more Israelis and Lebanese.^[60] 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,^[61] the U.S. government stated the conflict was also a front in the "War on Terrorism"^[62] and President Bush reiterated it in a speech the day the ceasefire came into effect.^[63]

[edit] Saudi Arabia

Main article: Insurgency in Saudi Arabia

The resistance against Saudi government was started since the bombing in Riyadh on 12 May 2003 by al-Qaeda terrorists. The attacks are targeting the Saudi security forces, the foreign workers, and tourists (mostly Western).

[edit] Central Asia/South Asia

[edit] 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, 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 main bone of contention between India and Pakistan is over the Kashmir region, which is divided between India, Pakistan and China. Pakistan claims the entire valley as theirs, a claim that India does not recognize fully. Pakistan is accused of sponsoring "cross-border terrorism" against India by financing Islamist groups in their jihad against India, allegations that Pakistan denies. 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 [39] and Islamic Fundamentalist propaganda groups disseminating propaganda in many countries against India with rhetoric like "idol worshippers and Hindus" who "occupy Kashmir"[40]

The Indian Government and Military of India have taken numerous counter-terrorist measures to combat rising terrorism in the country[41][42]. 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 [43]. 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.^[64] 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'.^[65] Still, tensions eased somewhat. The Indian President told his generals that there’d be no attack “for now.”^[66]

[edit] Afghanistan

Main article: 2001 war in Afghanistan

In October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the U.S. and some of its allies 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.^[67] 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.^[68] On October 7, 2001 the official invasion began with British and American forces conducting aerial bombing campaigns.^[69]

[edit] 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.[44] 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.[45]

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[46].

Amidst all this, Pakistan has been accused by NATO commanding officers of aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan.^[70] Republic of 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.^[71] 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^[72].

[edit] 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.^[73]

[edit] Southeast Asia

[edit] 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.^[74] 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.^[75] Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.^[76] 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.^[77]

[edit] 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.

[edit] Thailand

There has been a little noticed Islamic insurgency in Southern Thailand against the government that has been going on since at least 2002, which is believed to have Al-Qaeda support.

[edit] International support

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."^[78] 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.^[79]

[edit] 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).^{[80][81][82][83]}

[edit] U.S. domestic initiatives

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. [47]

[edit] U.S. Media Influences

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^[84] 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^[85] 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^[86] 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 been often be 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.

[edit] Military decorations

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

• "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal"
• "Afghanistan Campaign Medal"
• "Iraq Campaign Medal"
• "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal"

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:

• "9-11 Medal"
• "9-11 Ribbon"

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

• Article 5 NATO Medal
• Non-Article 5 ISAF NATO Medal

[edit] Criticism

Main article: Criticisms of the War on Terrorism

Some have criticized the idea of a 'War on Terrorism' with the argument that it is impossible to conduct a war against a tactic, strategy, or hard-to-encompass issues. Functionally, war is waged against tangible opponents, such as a country or an entity[48] (such as against Germany in World War Two, or possibly against an organization such as al-Qaeda). In addition, since "terrorism" is difficult to define (for example, the United Nations still has not reached consensus on a definition of "terrorism") a "War Against Terrorism" has no uncontroversial meaning. Further, this criticism that the title is a misnomer is linked to the argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It has been noted that by openly declaring "war" on terrorism, this could be read as entitling any terrorists to engage in militant or offensive acts of war with some legitimacy. Others have also noted that war is a form of terrorism, making the term "War on Terror" a paradoxical term.

It should be noted that, since the 1960s the United States government has declared several "wars" on intangible concepts. There was, or is, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the "War on Inflation" (better known as the Whip Inflation Now Campaign), Richard Nixon's declared "War on Cancer," and a general "War on Crime." These programs have met with varying success, although, particularly in the case of drugs, have led to a great increase in federal law enforcement activities and powers.

Others have criticized the War on Terrorism as counterproductive. British Liberal Democrat politician Shirley Williams writes that the American and United Kingdom governments "must stop to think whether it is sowing the kind of resentment which is the seedbed of future terrorism."^[87] The United Kingdom ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, said that U.S. President Bush is "the best recruiting sergeant ever for al-Qaeda."^[88] Brigitte L. Nacos has published research indicating a correlation between increases in terrorism alert levels and increases in Bush's poll ratings. Referring to her study of terrorism alerts, media coverage and Bush's popularity, journalist Matthew Stannard wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that "The media will repeat the president's remarks. Public fear of terrorism will increase. And the president's poll numbers will rise." [49]

The very premise that the War on Terrorism intends to reduce or eliminate acts of terrorism is rejected by some who claim it is an artifice that can be evoked when it is politically desirable and ignored otherwise. For instance, critics point out that many terror "suspects" are targeted without evidence^[89] while known anti-Cuba terrorists such as Luis Posada Carriles and Roberto Ferro are spared.^[90]

Civilian deaths caused by United States and Coalition military action have been criticized. Estimates of civilian deaths vary greatly. Within Iraq, these estimates are between 4,000 to 655,000. The United States Department of Defense claims that it does not record the deaths of non-Coalition persons, a so-called "body count."^[91] Estimates prominently cited have come from IraqBodyCount, a database of deaths reported on the mass media; the Iraqi Ministry of Health; and the two independent reports both entitled "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq" in The Lancet. In any estimate, non-Coalition civilian deaths exceed those of the United States in the attacks of September 11, 2001 from which the "war on terrorism" began.

U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "War on Terrorism" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."^[92] Critics argue that such goals create a state of perpetual war, and that "terrorist groups" could continue to arise indefinitely.^[93] Ira Chernus, professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the ideology underlying the war on terrorism inevitably leads to a state of perpetual war, because it is based on Bush's domestic crusade against sin and evil.^[94] Giorgio Agamben, the Italian philosopher, has also offered a critique of the logic of pre-emptive war.

Others have criticized the double standards of the U.S. when dealing with countries known to support terrorism, but are yet key allies, like Pakistan. Apart from India and several states like UK stating that Pakistan is involved in state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly stated that in the war against terrorism, “the central front is Pakistan”, and several eminent authors stating that Pakistan was covertly supporting the Taliban via the ISI.^[95]

Some, mainly Muslim, critics have viewed the war on terrorism as a 'War on Islam'.

In December 2006 it was reported that the British Foreign Office had asked British government ministers to abandon the phrase "War on Terror" because of its perceived role in increasing tensions with the Islamic world.^[96]

[edit] Casualties

[edit] 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.^[97]
• A minimum of 55,501 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 22 January 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.
• 3,059 U.S. military dead. 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).^[98]
• 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

• According to Marc W. Herold,^[99] up to 3,600 civilians were killed as a result of U.S. bombing.
• Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives question Herold's heavy use of the Afghan Islamic Press, "suspicious" tallies of other news agencies, and statistical errors in Herold's study [50]. Conetta's study puts total civilian casualties between 1000 and 1300^[100]
• A Los Angeles Times study put the number of collateral dead between 1,067 and 1,201.
• According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion.^[101]

• Philippines — 3,000+^{[citation needed]}
• Somalia — 1,800+^{[citation needed]}
• Turkey — 1,474^{[citation needed]}
• Lebanon — 1,347^{[citation needed]}
• Indonesia — 620^{[citation needed]}
• India —^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Further reading

• Müller, Sebastian R. Hawala. An Informal Payment System and Its Use to Finance Terrorism, Dec. 2006, ISBN 3-8655-0656-9
• Kuypers, Jim A. Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age, ISBN 0-7425-3653-X
• Brian Michael Jenkins, Unconquerable Nation, RAND Corporation, Fall 2006, ISBN 0-8330-3893-1 and ISBN 0-8330-3891-5
• Igmade (Stephan Trüby et al., eds.), 5 Codes: Architecture, Paranoia and Risk in Times of Terror, Birkhäuser; 2006, ISBN 3-7643-7598-1
• Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press; 2004, ISBN 0-7432-6024-4
• Ira Chernus. Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006 ISBN 1-59451-276-0
• Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, ISBN 1-57488-849-8
• From 'Cold War' to 'Full-Spectrum Dominance', on the MagMa Report
• Michelle Malkin, In Defense Of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on terror, September, 2004, National Book Network, hardcover, 416 pages, ISBN 0-89526-051-4
• Steven Emerson (2002), American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Free Press; 2003 paperback edition, ISBN 0-7432-3435-9
• Lyal S. Sunga, (2002) US Anti-Terrorism Policy and Asia’s Options, in Johannen, Smith and Gomez, (eds.) September 11 & Political Freedoms: Asian Perspectives (Select) 242–264, ISBN 981-4022-24-1
• Marina Ottoway, et al., Democratic Mirage in the Middle East, Carnegie Endowment for Ethics and International Peace, Policy Brief 20, (October 20, 2002). Internet, available online at: www.ceip.org/files/publications/HTMLBriefs-WP/20_October_2002_Policy_Brief/20009536v01.html
• Marina Ottoway and Thomas Carothers, Think Again: Middle East Democracy,Foreign Policy (Nov./Dec. 2004). Internet, available online at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2705&print=1
• Chris Zambelis, The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East, Parameters, (Autumn 2005). Internet, available online at: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05autumn/zambelis.htm
• Adnan M. Hayajneh, The U.S. Strategy: Democracy and Internal Stability in the Arab World,Alternatives (Volume 3, No. 2 & 3, Summer/Fall 2004). Internet, available online at: http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume3/number2/adnan.htm
• Gary Gambill, Jumpstarting Arab Reform: The Bush Administration's Greater Middle East Initiative, Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (Vol. 6, No. 6–7, June/July 2004). Internet, available online at: http://www.meib.org/articles/0407_me2.htm
• Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East, (November 6, 2003). Internet, available online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
• Hans Köchler, Terrorism and National Liberation. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Question of Terrorism. Frankfurt a. M:/Bern/New York: Peter Lang, 1988, ISBN 3-8204-1217-4
• Hans Köchler, Manila Lectures 2002. Terrorism and the Quest for a Just World Order. Quezon City (Manila): FSJ Book World, 2002, ISBN 3-211-83091-X
• Hans Köchler, The War on Terror, its Impact on the Sovereignty of Nations, and its Implications on Human Rights and Civil Liberties, Manila, September 2002
• Hans Köchler, The United Nations and International Terrorism : Challenges to Collective Security, Shanghai, November 2002
• Robert Blecher, Free People Will Set the Course of History: Intellectuals, Democracy and American Empire, Middle East Report (March 2003). Internet, available online at: http://www.merip.org/mero/interventions/blecher_interv.html
• Robert Fisk, What Does Democracy Really Mean In The Middle East? Whatever The West Decides, The London Independent (August 8, 2005). Internet, available online at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9888.htm
• Fawaz Gergez, Is Democracy in the Middle East a Pipedream?,Yale Global Online (April 25, 2005). Internet, available online at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5622
• Donald Rumsfeld, Bureaucracy to Battlefield Speech, (September 10, 2001) Internet, available online at: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html
• Leon Hadar, The Green Peril: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat, (August 27, 1992) Internet, available online at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
• George W. Bush, A Period of Consequences, (September 23, 1999) Internet, available online at: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news99/92399_defense.htm
• George W. Bush, A Distinctly American Internationalism, (November 19, 1999) Internet, available online at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/wspeech.htm
• Nicholas Lemann, Dreaming About War, (July 16, 2001) The New Yorker, Internet available online at: http://www.comw.org/qdr/0107lemann.html
• James Der Derian, The Illusion of a Grand Strategy, (May 25, 2001) The New York Times, Internet available online at: http://www.comw.org/qdr/0105DerDerian1.html
• Paul Wolfowitz, Briefing on the Defense Planning Guidance, (August 16, 2001), Internet, available online at: http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/010816Wolfowitz.html
• Henry Shelton, Change, Troops and Transformation, (August 28, 2001), Internet, available online at: http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2001/Aug/20010828-1.htm
• Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses, (September 2000), Internet, available online at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
• Foreign Policy in Focus, The Bush Administration's Strategic Defense Review, (May 2001), Internet, online at: http://www.fpif.org/presentations/0105briefingbook/index_body.html
• Col. Daniel Smith and others, Reforging the Sword: Forces for the 21st Century Security Strategy, Center for Defense Information, (September 2001), Internet, online at: http://www.cdi.org/mrp/reforging-full.pdf
• BBC News, Stumbling towards Pentagon reform: Ambitious agenda, (August 16, 2001), Internet, online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1495340.stm
• Philip Gold, Savaging Donald Rumsfeld, The Washington Times, (August 28, 2001), Internet, online at: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=Defense&id=1045
• Condoleezza Rice, Life after the Cold War, Council on Foreign Relations, (September 2000), Internet, online at: web.archive.org
• Ashton Carter and William Perry, Preventive Defense, A New Security Strategy for America, Brooking Institution, (1999), Internet, online at: http://brookings.nap.edu/books/081571307X/html/R1.html
• Steven Metz, Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy: Definition, Background, and Strategic Concepts, U.S. Army War College, (January 2001), Internet, online at: web.archive.org
• Kenneth McKenzie, The Revenge of the Melians: Asymmetric Threats and the next QDR, National Defense University, (November 2000), Internet, online at: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/McNair/mcnair62/m62cvr.html
• L. Ali Khan, A Theory of International Terrorism (2006) & The Essentialist Terrorist (2006)
• Mohsin Hamid, The Reluctant Fundamentalist; 2007, ISBN 978-0241143650

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Axis of evil
• Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S.
• Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005
• Black sites (CIA secret detention centers)
• Crusade (modern)
• Criticisms of the "War on Terrorism"
• Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies, an Italian "parallel police" under investigations since July 2005
• Executive Order 12333
• Extraordinary rendition
• Guantánamo Bay
• Long War (21st century)
• McCain Detainee Amendment
• Operation Eagle Assist
• Operation Enduring Freedom
• NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
• Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group
• Terrorist surveillance program
• Unlawful combatant
• U.S.-Pakistan relations
• U.S. anti-terror legislation:
  • USA Patriot Act
  • Ohio Patriot Act
• UK anti-terror legislation:
  • Terrorism Act 2006
  • Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (UK)
• War on Islam
• War on Terror (game)

[edit] External links

Official sites by governments and international organizations

• FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
• Rewards for Justice — Most Wanted Terrorists
• Whitehouse FAQ about the "War on Terrorism"
• U.S. Dept. of Defense News on the "War on Terrorism"
• NATO and the scourge of terrorism
• UN action against terrorism

General "war on terrorism" news

• Zbigniew Brzezinski, Terrorized by 'War on Terror' -- How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America (The Washington Post, Sunday, March 25, 2007)
• UK faces a long war Janes.com, January 2007
• The Terrorism Index — The first comprehensive and regularly updated report card on the war on terrorism. Developed by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress
• The Guardian — Gunned down to impress America
• Killed in the name of Terror — Ansar Burney to sue Macedonian govt for killing 6 Pakistanis
• BBC News In Depth: Investigating al-Qaeda
• The Washington Post "War on terrorism" coverage
• This war on terrorism is bogus by Michael Meacher
• Bush at War Part II Independent news reports by Inter Press Service

Primary legal documents

• Findlaw Special Coverage "War on Terrorism" (court documents in .pdf)
• Authorization For Use of Military Force Against September 11 terrorists (AUMF) US Public Law 107-40, September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224
• Report on Strategic Communication (pdf) Defense Science Board Task Force, September 2004
• counter-terrorism-law.org

Specific articles

• Counteracting Terrorism, LNTV, August 13, 2006
• "Pakistanis Arrest Qaeda Figure Seen as Planner of 9/11", The New York Times, March 2, 2003

Other

• Documenting and fighting torture used in the "War on Terror."
• Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the "War on Terrorism"
• And the Gloves Came Off Douglas C. McNabb and Matthew R. McNabb,The European Lawyer, October 2005.
• The Power of Nightmares; A three-part BBC documentary
• Extraordinary renditions: the playwright and the president; Jeff Sommers, Khaled Diab and Charles Woolfson explore the dynamics between playwright and president as America's 'war on terror' stands in the dock.
• Richard Clarke Speech on Streaming Video; Speech by Richard Clarke, a former member of the National Security Council, US Department of State official, March 8, 2005
• Seminar on the Global "War On Terrorism" by the Chairman of the Cold War Veterans Association — Vince Milum
• The Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001 by the Project for Defense Alternatives
• The War on Terror Board Game

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

Recent events

• NPR Coverage
• Newspaper Article describing video and photographs