|
|
WAR ON TERROR
The War on Terrorism, The War Against Terror, or
War on Terror can refer to several distinct conflicts, but it is most
recently the name given by the United States of America and some of its
allies[1] to an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of "ending
international terrorism," launched in response to the September 11, 2001
attacks on the U.S., for which al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
The campaign's stated goals include preventing those groups identified
as "terrorist" by the United States[5] (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" and liberal democracy; and putting an end to state sponsorship
of terrorism in so-called rogue and failed states, 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, with
support from NATO and other allies. The "War on Terror" has taken many
forms, such as diplomacy, going after "terrorist financing", 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) 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. The war is also characterized as an ideological struggle,
"involving both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,"] and some have
characterized it as a "clash of civilizations". 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", 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, and the U.S.
Constitution[18] 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
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 have shown limited support
even in some nations whose governments and militaries are supportive. In
addition, according to the U.S. government's own measures, international
terrorist incidents have been on the rise 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. 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, and is a "long war" whose planners
expect it to continue for the foreseeable future.
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". 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."
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
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
War on Terrorism
See also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents
Terrorist organizations had carried out attacks on the US and its allies
throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prompting occasional
responses. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,
United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach,
a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated
with Al-Qaeda. In October of 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred,
followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. 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.
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".
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.
In a hard-headed Clauswitzian analysis, the phrase "war on terror" has
no meaning[citation needed]; one makes war on an enemy, not on a
method.[citation needed] The enemy may be an entity such as al
Qaeda.[citation needed] 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.
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. 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 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".
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."
U.S objective and strategies
The Bush Administration said it intended to base its counterterrorism
strategy on several steps:
Defeat terrorists and their organizations.
Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations.
Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists.
End the state sponsorship of terrorism.
Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with
regard to combating terrorism.
Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism.
Working with willing and able states.
Enabling weak states.
Persuading reluctant states.
Compelling unwilling states.
Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists.
Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens.
Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit.
Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and
prevent (re)emergence of terrorism.
Win the war of ideals.
Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad.
Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
Attain domain awareness
Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability
of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and
abroad.
Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad.
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, US 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 ist 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.
Timeline
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
Eco-terrorism
Islamist terrorism
Narcoterrorism
Nationalist
Nuclear terrorism
Political
Racist
Other religious terrorism
State
State-sponsored
Tactics
Hijacking
Car bombing
Suicide attack
Configurations
Fronts
Lone-wolf
Africa
Horn of Africa
This section documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
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.[40] 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.[40] However, the War on Terror does not
include Sudan, where over 400,000 have died due to state-sponsored
terrorism.
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.
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 US Assistant Secretary of
State Jendayi Frazer claimed al-Qaeda cell operatives were controlling
the Islamic Courts Union, a claim denied by the ICU.
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 20th, 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 26th, 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. On 30 December 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri
called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in
Somalia.
On January 8th, 2007 the US launched a strike in Somalia against the
suspects using AC-130 gunships.
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
Soldiers patrol the streets of Adhamiya, a neighborhood in Baghdad,
Iraq.Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United
States since 1990, and maintained poor relations with the United States
since the Gulf War. Tensions were high throughout the 1990's, with the
United States launching Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998 after
it failed to meet demands of "unconditional cooperation" in weapons
inspections. 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. 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. 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." 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.
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.
Training Iraqi Police - a 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. [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. 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. 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. 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.. 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". 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 US State Department and the
National Security Council before charting the new course on Iraq.
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 and 1300 Lebanese and
163 Israelis (119 military and 44 civilian) and wounding thousands more
Israelis and Lebanese. 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, the US
government stated the conflict was also a front in the "War on
Terrorism" and President Bush reiterated it in a speech the day the
ceasefire came into effect.
Saudi Arabia
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, 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 and Islamic Fundamentalist propaganda
groups disseminating propaganda in many countries against India with
rhetoric like "idol worshippers and Hindus" who "occupy Kashmir"
The Indian Government and Military of India have taken numerous
counter-terrorist measures to combat rising terrorism in the
country.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. 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'. Still, tensions
eased somewhat. The Indian President told his generals that there’d be
no attack “for now.”
Afghanistan
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, the US 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. The Taliban
demanded evidence of bin Laden's link to the September 11th attacks and,
if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial
in an Islamic Court.[66] On October 7, 2001 the official invasion began
with British and American forces conducting aerial bombing campaigns.
Pakistan
The Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammed Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested
by Pakistani officials during a series of joint US 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.
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.
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 11th 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
Amidst all this, Pakistan has been accused by NATO commanding officers
of aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan. 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.
Many other countries like Afghanistan and the UK have also accused
Pakistan of State-sponsored terrorism and financing terrorism.
Waziristan
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.
Southeast Asia
Indonesia
Australian Embassy in Jakarta after September 9, 2004 suicide 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.[71] 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. Abu
Bakar Ba'asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of
the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings. 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.
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.
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.
International support
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: Afghanistan War order of battle
Main article: International Security Assistance Force
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". 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 Afghani Northern Alliance. 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.
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).
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 is also currently engaged in the Waziristan War. Supported by
US intelligence, Pakistan is attempting to remove the Taliban insurgency
and al-Qaeda element from the northern tribal areas.
U.S. domestic initiatives
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.
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
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
Terrorism Information Awareness program, designed to promote information
technologies that could be used to counter transnational threats to
national security. 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. There
was a proposal to create an Office of Strategic Influence for the
purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but it was cancelled due to
negative reactions.[citation needed] 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 Comission, 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 appropriate for the enactments.
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 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 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 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.
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 US 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
Criticism
Some have criticized the idea of a 'War on Terrorism', arguing
you cannot have 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 (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". The United Kingdom ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, said
that U.S. President Bush is "the best recruiting sergeant ever for al
Qaeda". 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."
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[86] while known anti-Cuba terrorists such
as Luis Posada Carriles and Roberto Ferro are spared.
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".[88] 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". Critics argue that such goals create a state of perpetual
war, and that "terrorist groups" could continue to arise indefinitely.
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. 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 US 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.
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.
Use of the term "Global War on Terror" might also be a euphemism or
diversion from calling the conflict a "World War on Terrorism," which is
alleged by those who assert that the current conflict of the powerful
western states against radical Islamists, or more broadly anti-western
terrorist organizations comprises World War IV. Many people have also
feared that this war could esculate into a third world war (World War
III) of sorts. Though recents events have shown this to be unlikely.
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.
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 US 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).
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[96], up to 3,600 civilians were killed as a
result of US 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
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.
|
War on Terror Stats
War on Terror
Veteran Statistics
News
Veterans Organizations
Veterans Day
Support Groups
Military.com
Combat Stress
Disabled Veterans
|
