User talk:Zer0faults/War on Terrorism Rework

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removed Items + Explanation

Unlike earlier concepts and definitions of war—with defined nations, boundaries, standing armies, and navies—the "War on Terrorism" has largely been dominated by the use of special forces, intelligence, and police work. [citation needed]

Item is unsourced, seems contrary to the fact that 2 major wars are being fought and NATO has a full force in Operation Active Endeavor. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Other incidents that have been cited as contributing to the focus on terrorism include the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the 1998 United States embassy bombings, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000, suicide bombings in Israel, and the Lockerbie bombing. [citation needed]

Items is unsourced. Cited by who? seems like weasel words at play. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Another difference is that the people being held prisoners as part of this "war" are also not given legal status as "prisoners of war" (see unlawful combatant and Guantanamo Bay detainment camp). No formal declarations of war have been exchanged between participating entities.

Removed as outdated information. [1] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Only two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Noam Chomsky, on the extreme left end of the debate, argued that the United States is a leading terrorist state [2]. Specifically, Chomsky cited the Clinton administration for its role in what he called terrorism. Chomsky has long argued that some commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism" also apply to many of the actions undertaken by the U.S., the UK and most governments in general.[3]

Removed, not directly related to War on Terrorism. He is not debating the War on Terrorism, just stating the US is a terrorist state. Belong more in criticism of the US as that is the target of the comments. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The current "War on Terrorism" has been primarily an initiative of the United States. Daniel J. Gallington wrote: Despite the antiterrorism rhetoric of the UN and the major world powers, and with the very significant exception of Great Britain and a few others, we are in a world war against radical Islam by ourselves. [4].

Removed outdated information. See NATO involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa, Operation Active Endeavor, Operation APOLLO etc. NATO forces currently in Iraq training ISF, Pakistani forces in Waziristan War etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On September 20, 2001, the U.S. President George W. Bush presented his position in an address to a joint session of Congress and the American people: Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [5].

Not an adequate summary of the presidents view on the war on terrorism, limited scope. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Many pre-existing disputes were recast in terms of the "War on Terrorism", including Plan Colombia and the Colombian narco-terrorist insurgency; the United States' diplomatic and military disputes with long-time rogue states Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; the conflict in Russia's breakaway province of Chechnya; and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The campaign in Afghanistan has been the largest undertaken as part of the "War on Terrorism".

Removed as its unsourced. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

However, critics point out that there are more governments that support the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and those countries are not seen as sponsors of terrorism or invaded.[citation needed] Some people object to the consolation payments given to the families of Iraqi civilians that have been approved by the U.S. Congress.

Removed unsourced. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Denial of safe havens in which terrorists can train and equip members.
  • Restriction of funding of terrorist organizations.
  • Degradation of terrorist networks by capturing or killing intermediate leaders.
  • Detention of suspected and known terrorists. See the section below for further details
  • Getting information, through various techniques, such as interrogation, from captured terrorists regarding other members of their organization, training sites, methods, and funding.
  • Expanding and improving efficiency of intelligence capabilities and foreign and domestic policing.

Denial of safe havens involves a fairly large military force; however, as in Afghanistan in 2002, once the major safe haven areas are overrun, the large-scale forces can be withdrawn and special forces, such as U.S. Special Operations Forces or the British Special Air Service (SAS), operate more effectively.

In addition, the U.S. Army is involved in increasingly large civil affairs programs in Afghanistan to provide employment for Afghans and to reduce sympathy in the civilian population for parties the United States has designated as terrorist.

The U.S. strategy faces several obstacles:

  • Terrorist groups can continue to operate, albeit at a less-sophisticated scale.
  • The strengths of U.S. intelligence gathering are signal intelligence and photo intelligence gathering. Organizations that avoid use of cellular phones and radios and rely on couriers have a lower profile. On the other hand, such organizations also have a slower planning and reaction time.
  • Saudi Arabia, one of the countries supporting terrorism both financially and by giving shelter to terrorists, is also a close ally of the U.S. and a large foreign source of oil, preventing the U.S. from taking actions against terrorism in Saudi Arabia.
  • The major reason for the Islamic population to support terrorism is the feeling of helplessness of protecting the Islamic way of life against western influence and the perceived oppression of the Islamic world by the Christian world. While the "War on Terror" tries to decrease the influence of Islamic extremism, it further interferes with Islamic culture (by means of U.S. military presence in those countries or even invasion) and thereby increases support for Islamic terror amongst extremist sections of Islamic society. The increasing number of terrorist attacks that target and kill Muslims (such as the recent 2005 Amman bombings) has provoked strong opposition to terrorism amongst moderate Islamic opinion, as exhibited by the large protests of the Islamic population of Jordan in response to the attacks.
  • Political opposition to U.S. policies inside countries in which terrorists operate, as in Pakistan, where al-Qaida and the Taliban have supporters who share religious or ethnic affiliations.
  • Legal opposition to U.S. methods of detaining suspected terrorists.
  • The lack of a clear statement from the U.S. administration renouncing to use or support terrorism to shape policy.
  • A policy perceived by some as superficial, based in developing a simple military approach against terrorism, but not a political solution to the causes of terrorism.
Removed the above block because its unsourced OR, and added the actual strategy according to whitehouse source. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo

In July 2005, the US administration changed the name of its campaign briefly from GWOT to GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism), which addressed concerns regarding the word "terrorism". Since early August of the same year, GWOT is again the name used. In 2006 Pentagon officials began using the term "The Long War".[6]

While the administration had previously avoided use of the term, in May 2006 President George W. Bush referred to the campaign as "World War III"[7][8].

This entire section was in the wrong place, its in limbo as I look for a better location. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In a January 3, 2005, editorial in the Toronto Star, Jonathan Stevenson, a senior fellow for counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (U.S.) writes, "[T]he strategic objective of the global war on terror is to completely isolate Al Qaeda's maximalist leadership and disempower local jihadist affiliates." [9]

Current location at the beginning of the section made it seem as though it was stating the objectives for the War on Terror, its not a valid source for that. Will probably include later down as an opinion of what the objective is.

On September 2, 2004, in response to the question of whether the "War on Terror" could be won, President Bush declared: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." [10]

Currently in limbo.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/r/User_talk%7EZer0faults_War_on_Terrorism_Rework_d30d.html"