• Anasayfa
• Türkçe Forum
• Türkçe

• Home
• Biograpies
• Countries
• Medicine
• Business
• Computing
• Education
• Geography
• History
• Law
• Literature
• Music
• Politics
• Sport
• Maps

Global War on Terror
US Soldiers boarding a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda in the Shahi-Kot Valley and Arma Mountains southeast of Zormat.
Date October 7, 2001 ? Location Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Horn of Africa, United States, more... Casus belli September 11, 2001 attacks Result Conflict ongoing
Combatants
Participants in operations  United States  United Kingdom  Israel  Canada  Australia  Poland  Netherlands  Iraq  Afghanistan  India  Pakistan  Philippines  Somalia  Ethiopia  Lebanon Algeria et al.	Targets of operations al-Qaeda Taliban Islamic Courts Union Waziristan Hezbollah Hamas al-Qaeda in Iraq Mahdi Army Abu Sayyaf Jemaah Islamiyah et all.
Strength
In trans Sahara: 959 In Somalia: 14,600-15,600 In Iraq: 664,000-725,000 In 2006 Lebanon War: 20,000 In 2007 Lebanon conflict: 72,100 In Afghanistan: 153,000 In Waziristan: 90,000 In the Philippines: 20,000 Total: 1,028,926-1,106,649	In trans Sahara: 2,500 In Somalia: 13,000-18,000 In Iraq: 121,300-221,300 In 2006 Lebanon War: 3,600-11,000 In 2007 Lebanon conflict: 480-500 In Afghanistan: 20,000 In Waziristan: Unknown In the Philippines: 9,000 Total: 169,880-282,000
Casualties
Military casualties only ~25,500 dead ~51,600+ Injured More...	Military casualties only ~35,300 - 52,000 dead More...

Campaigns of the War on Terrorism
Afghanistan – Algeria – Iraq – Saudi Arabia – Waziristan – Thailand – Israel and Lebanon – Palestinian Territories – Somalia – Lebanon Contemporaneous Wars: Philippines – Chechnya – Israel and the Palestinian Territories – Darfur – Yemen

The War on Terror (also known as the War on Terrorism) is a campaign initiated by the United States government under President George W. Bush which includes various military, political, and legal actions ostensibly taken to "curb the spread of terrorism," following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The War on Terror was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed on September 18, 2001. Both the phrase “War on Terror” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law.^[1][2][3]

The phrase "War on Terror" started being used to refer to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and elsewhere by members of the American Republican Party, who were advised to do so by Frank Luntz.^[4]

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^[5]. Many of the anarchists described themselves as "Terrorists," and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian Marxist Steven Park shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, he threw down his weapon without killing him, announcing, "I am a terrorist, not a killer."^[6]

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.^[7] In fact, many leaders from all over the world utilize this term when dealing with perceived terrorist activity.

Overview

See also: , , , , and

Terrorist organizations carried out attacks on the U.S. and its allies throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prompting occasional military responses. Following the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,^[8] United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated with al-Qaeda.^[9][10] In October of 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred,^[11] followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.^[12] The latter attacks created an immediate demand throughout the United States for a response.

The first aspects of the campaign came in the freezing of assets terrorist organizations and associated groups.^[13] The United Nations Security Council also adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 which obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks.^[14] NATO began Operation Active Endeavour on October 4th, which stepped up security checks in the Mediterranean.^[15] After the Taliban rejected an ultimatum to turn over the al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, the United States and NATO allies began airstrikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda targets on October 7, 2001. The Afghan Northern Alliance and allied militia, aided by elements of the United States Special forces, began a ground offensive that succeeded in capturing most of Afghanistan by early 2002. While operations continued in Afghanistan, the campaign was expanded into the Philippines, where United States Special Forces assisted the Philippine army against elements of al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, and Abu Sayyaf. It was expanded further into the Horn of Africa, where NATO allies began training Ethiopian and Djiboutian armed forces in anti-terror and counter-insurgency methods.

On March 20, 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition expanded the campaign into Iraq, seeking to topple Saddam Hussein for his alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction and state sponsorship of terror. By May 1, they had succeeded in doing so, though an insurgency developed supported by al-Qaeda and other militant elements. Likewise, the Taliban insurgency continued in Afghanistan, and their frequent border crossings into Pakistan prompted the nation to expand the campaign further into Waziristan in 2004, to remove Taliban and al-Qaeda elements.

In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws^[14]. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counter terrorism activities by adopting nations the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.^[16]

Campaigns and theatres of operation

Main article: War on Terror - Theaters of operation

Africa

Horn of Africa

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa

Main article: War in Somalia (2006–present)

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 primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa. These are regions and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom.^[17] 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.

Somalia became the mother of all operations as 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, displacing other militia and the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia. 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.^[18] 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.^[19]

After seeing their power limited to the city of Baidoa, the TFG was attacked in a final ICU offensive aimed at destroying it in December 2006. But Ethiopia intervened, defending the TFG and forcing the ICU to retreat. The ICU abandoned conventional warfare, instead opting for guerilla combat, turning the battle to an insurgency as Ethiopia began aiding the TFG restore order. The Prime Minister of Somalia claims that 3 terror suspects from the 1998 Embassy Bombings were in Kismayo.^[20] On 30 December, 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in Somalia.^[21] The United States carried out several strikes against al-Qaeda targets within Somalia during 2007.

Trans Sahara

Main article: Islamic insurgency in Algeria (2002-present)

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara

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 Iraqi insurgency

Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United States since 1990,^[22] 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.^[23] 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.^[24]

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.^[25][26] 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.^[27] 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."^[28] After failing to overcome opposition from France, Russia, and China against a UNSC resolution that would sanction the use of force against Iraq, and before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their inspections which were deemed to be fruitless by the U.S. because of Iraq's alleged deception, the United States assembled a "Coalition of the Willing" composed of nations who pledged support for a war against Iraq. 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.

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 against it.^[29] 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 Islamists and see themselves as fighting a religious war to liberate Iraq of foreign non-Muslim occupiers and their Iraqi collaborators.^[30]

Lebanon

Main article: 2006 Lebanon War

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^[31] and 1300^[32] Lebanese and 163 Israelis (119 military and 44 civilian) and wounding thousands more Israelis and Lebanese.^[33] 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,^[34] the U.S. government stated the conflict was also a front in the "War on Terror"^[35] and President Bush reiterated it in a speech the day the ceasefire came into effect.^[36]

Main article: 2007 Lebanon conflict

In 2007 a conflict began in northern Lebanon after fighting broke out between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist militant organization, and the Lebanese Armed Forces on May 20, 2007 in Nahr al-Bared, a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli. The conflict evolved mostly around the Siege of Nahr el-Bared, but minor clashes had also occurred in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in southern Lebanon and several terrorist bombings took place in and around Lebanon's capital Beirut. The terrorist group has been described as a militant jihadist^[37] movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda.<ref name="Figaro_20070416" /> The U.S. provided military aid to Lebanon during the conflict.

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).

Gaza Strip/West Bank

Main article: Fatah-Hamas conflict

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

Central Asia/South Asia

Republic of India

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

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

The international terrorist network al-Qaeda also lends ideological and financial support to terrorism in Kashmir, with Osama bin Laden and his co-ideologues in the militant Islamist press in Pakistan^[38] 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 Pakistan would combat extremism on its own soil, but said that Pakistan had a right to Kashmir.^[44] 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'.^[45] Still, tensions eased somewhat. The Indian President told his generals that there’d be no attack “for now.”^[46]

It should also be noted that India has been a target of Islamic terrorism for a much longer period of time than the western world and India's war against terrorism precedes the American war on terrorism.

Afghanistan

Main article: War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

In October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, NATO invaded the country of Afghanistan to remove al-Qaeda forces and oust the Taliban regime which had control of the country. After the initial attack, the Taliban's conventional force dissolved and the war turned into an insurgency.

Pakistan

Main articles: War on Terrorism in Pakistan and Waziristan War

Pakistan has been a site of many high profile arrests in the War on Terrorism, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2003. In 2004 they launched an offensive into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas region of Waziristan. 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 the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan where the Pakistani army previously had little control. With logistics and air support from the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives. Pakistan has lost over 3000 of its soldiers since 2001 fighting, Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Waziri Terrorists.

Southeast Asia

Indonesia

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

In 2002 and again in 2005, the Indonesian island of Bali has been struck by suicide and car bombings that killed over 200 people and injured over 300. The 2002 attack consisted of a bomb hidden in a backpack exploding inside of "Paddy'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.^[47] 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.^[48] Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.^[49] 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.^[50]

Philippines

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines

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

North America

United States of America

Main articles: September 11, 2001 attacks and Detentions following the September 11, 2001 attacks

On September 18, 2001, the 107th United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (Public law 107-40), which states "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 [...]" This is the authorization for the War in Afghanistan, and has also been used as justification for other operations, domestic and international.

A $40 billion emergency spending bill, and an additional $20 billion bail-out of the airline industry were also passed.

Investigations were started through many branches of both federal and state 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 (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.^[51]

Role of U.S. media

Researchers in the area of communication studies and political science have found that American understanding of the War on Terror is directly shaped by how the mainstream news media reports events associated with the War on Terror. In Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age^[52] 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^[53] 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^[54] 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:

• 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.
• The mainstream press has sometimes failed to check the sources of information or visual images supplied by Iraqi “stringers” (local Iraqis hired to relay local news).
• Story framing is often problematic; in particular, “man-in-the-street” interviews have often been used as a representation of public sentiment in Iraq, in place of methodologically sound survey data.
• Mainstream reporting has tended to concentrate on the more violent areas of Iraq, with little or no reporting of the calm areas.

International military support

:

Main article:

:

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."^[55] 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.^[56]

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).^{[57][58][59][60]}

Criticism of the War on Terror

Main article: Criticism of the War on Terror

Both the phrase “War on Terrorism” and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, and other violations of international law^[1][2][3]. Opponents have also heavily criticized the Iraq War, and USA PATRIOT Act. Criticism of the War on Terrorism addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terrorism. Arguments are also made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer.

The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since they believe there is no tangible enemy, and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war^[61]. Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," obscures differences between conflicts. For example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists. Some have also alleged that the tactics used are counterproductive to the goals. The U.S. media has also received criticism for its coverage of the War on Terrorism. The Bush administration's use of the War on Terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq has been particularly controversial, as the link asserted between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was disproved^[62], even by Bin Laden himself^[63]. In 2007, Presidential-hopeful, John Edwards, called the War on Terror a "bumper sticker, not a plan"^[64].

Decreasing international support

In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. However, a major exception is India, where the support for the War on Terrorism has been stable.^[65] Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Center polls conducted in 2004, "majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is U.S. control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world."^[66]

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

Casualties

Main article: War on Terror casualties

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
• 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, The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East; (October 2005) London. Fourth Estate, xxvi, 1366 pages. ISBN 1-84115-007-X
• 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
• Athena Intelligence Advanced Research Network on Insurgency and Terrorism

References

See also

• Further reading for War on Terror
• Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks
• Axis of evil
• Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S.
• Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
• Barbary Wars
• Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005
• Black sites (CIA secret detention centers)
• Tenth Crusade
• Islamism
• Anti-Arabism
• Islam by country
• List of wars in the Muslim world
• Criticisms of the War on Terror
• Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies, an Italian "parallel police" under investigations since July 2005
• Executive Order 12333
• Extraordinary rendition
• Guantánamo Bay
• Homeland security
• Iraq War
• Islamophobia
• Long War (21st century)
• McCain Detainee Amendment
• Operation Eagle Assist
• NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
• Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group
• Strategic reset
• 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)
• Chechen Wars
• Dagestan War
• Algerian Civil War
• War in Afghanistan
• War against Islam
• List of wars by death toll
• War on Terror (game)
• War theory

External links

Official sites by governments and international organizations

• FBI Most Wanted Terrorists
• Rewards for Justice — Most Wanted Terrorists
• White House 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
• TheBudgetGraph.com A large interactive graph of the 2008 federal discretionary budget including a full breakdown of the Global War on Terror appropriations.

Primary legal documents

• Findlaw Special Coverage "War on Terrorism" (court documents in .pdf)
• hr>000-notes.html 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 CommunicationPDF (1.78 MiB) Defense Science Board Task Force, September 2004
• counter-terrorism-law.org