Wiki Actu en

May 5, 2008

Wikipedia: War on Terrorism

Filed under: — admin @ 4:09 pm
War on Terrorism

U.S. 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[1]present
Location Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Horn of Africa, United States, United Kingdom, Europe, more…
Result Conflict ongoing
Flag of the United States United States[2]
Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom[2]
Flag of Pakistan Pakistan[3]
Flag of Thailand Thailand

Flag of Israel Israel[4]
Flag of the People's Republic of China China[5]
Flag of Afghanistan Afghanistan[2]
Flag of Ethiopia Ethiopia[6]
Flag of Algeria Algeria[7]
Flag of the Philippines Philippines[8]
Flag of Germany Germany[2]
Flag of the Netherlands Netherlands[2] et. al.

Flag of Afghanistan Taliban
Baathist Iraq
Baath Party Loyalists
Islamic Courts Union[9]
Jemaah Islamiyah
Flag of the United States Tommy Franks
Flag of the United KingdomJock Stirrup
Flag of PakistanMasood Aslam
Flag of Israel Dan Halutz
Flag of the People's Republic of China Chen Bingde
Flag of Afghanistan Bismillah Khan
Flag of Ethiopia Gabre Heard
Flag of the Netherlands Peter van Uhm
Osama Bin Laden
Saddam Hussein #
Mohammed Omar
Hassan Aweys
Abu Bakar Bashir
Casualties and losses
Military casualties
~25,500 dead
~51,600+ Injured
Military casualties
~54,114 to 58,864+ dead
Civilian casualties
Several hundred thousand civilians killed worldwide (exact number unclear, many accidental resulting from bombings.

The Global War on Terrorism (also known as the War on Terror) is the common term for the various military, political and legal actions initiated by the United States government in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to the government, the objectives are to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.[1][10] Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral preemptive war, human rights abuses and other violations of international law.[11][12][13]


War on Terrorism

See also: Terrorism and List of terrorist incidents
Countries in which Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred on or after September 11, 2001.

Countries in which Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred on or after September 11, 2001.

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,[14] United States President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets associated with al-Qaeda.[15][16] These targets included a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced 90% of the region’s malaria drugs. In October of 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred,[17] followed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.[18] The latter attacks created an immediate demand throughout the United States for a decisive response. It has, however, been argued that the “decisive response” has caused still more deaths through the killing of civilians. The Bush administration’s use of the War on Terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq has been particularly controversial, as the link asserted between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was subsequently dismissed by every investigative body to study the issue.[19]

In 2001 the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1373 which obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks. In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws[20]. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counter terrorism activities by adopting nations the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.

Historical usage of phrase

The phrase “War on Terrorism” was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders. (See, for example, New York Times, April 2, 1881.) Many of the anarchists described themselves as “terrorists,” and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, she threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing, “I am a terrorist, not a killer.”[21]

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

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

Operative definition in U.S. foreign policy

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with it.[23] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

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

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

“…today’s war on terror is like the Cold War. It is an ideological struggle with an enemy that despises freedom and pursues totalitarian aims….I vowed then that I would use all assets of our power of Shock and Awe to win the war on terror. And so I said we were going to stay on the offense two ways: one, hunt down the enemy and bring them to justice, and take threats seriously; and two, spread freedom.”[24]
The World Trade Center, one of three sites on where the September 11, 2001 attacks took place.

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

British objections to the phrase “war on terrorism”

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

“London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered…were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”[25]

Stated U.S objectives and strategies

The Bush Administration has defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism: [26]

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


Main article: Timeline of the War on Terrorism

Campaigns and theaters of operation

Main article: War on Terrorism – Theaters of operation


Horn of Africa

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

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

In October 2002, the Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) was established in Djibouti at Camp Le Monier. It contains approximately 2,000 personnel including U.S. military and Special Operations Forces (SOF) and coalition force members, Coalition Task Force 150 (CTF-150). The coalition force members consist of ships from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom. The primary goal of the coalition forces is to monitor, inspect, board and stop suspected shipments from entering the Horn of Africa region and areas of Operation Iraqi Freedom.[27] 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.[27] However, the War on Terror does not include Sudan, where over 400,000 have died due to state-sponsored terrorism.[28]

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.[29]

Somalia has been considered a “failed state” because its official central government was weak, dominated by warlords and unable to exert effective control over the country. Beginning in mid-2006, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), an Islamist faction campaigning on a restoration of “law and order” through Sharia Law, had rapidly taken control of much of southern Somalia. On December 14, 2006, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer claimed al-Qaeda cell operatives were controlling the Islamic Courts Union, a claim denied by the ICU.[30]

By late 2006, the UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia had seen its power effectively limited to Baidoa, while the Islamic Courts Union controlled the majority of Southern Somalia, including the capital of Mogadishu. On December 20, the Islamic Courts Union launched an offensive on the government stronghold of Baidoa, and saw early gains before Ethiopia intervened in favor of the government. By December 26, the Islamic Courts Union went into a “tactical retreat” towards Mogadishu, before again retreating as TFG/Ethiopian troops neared, leading them to take Mogadishu with no resistance. The ICU then fled to Kismayo, where they are currently fighting Ethiopian/TFG forces in the Battle of Jilib. The Prime Minister of Somalia claims that 3 terror suspects from the 1998 Embassy Bombings are being sheltered in Kismayo. [8] On 30 December 2006, al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called upon Muslims worldwide to fight against Ethiopia and the TFG in Somalia.[31]

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


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


Main articles: Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq

Iraq had been listed as a State Sponsor of Terror by the United States since 1990,[32] 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.[33] 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.

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.[34][35] 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. [10] 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.”[36] 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. [11] 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 Islamists and see themselves as fighting a religious war to liberate Iraq of foreign non-Muslim occupiers and their Iraqi collaborators. [12]


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[37] and 1300[38] Lebanese and 163 Israelis (119 military and 44 civilian) and wounding thousands more Israelis and Lebanese.[39] 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,[40] the U.S. government stated the conflict was also a front in the “War on Terror”[41] and President Bush reiterated it in a speech the day the ceasefire came into effect.[42]

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[43] movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda.[43] The U.S. provided military aid to Lebanon during the conflict.

Saudi Arabia

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

One of the Riyadh compounds bombing.

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 vying 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 it won the first free and democratic elections held in the Palestinian territories, Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, United Nations and the European Union.

Central Asia/South Asia

Republic of India

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

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

The international terrorist netowork al-Qaeda also lends ideological and financial support to terrorism in Kashmir, with Osama bin Laden constantly demanding that jihad be waged against India. [13] and Islamic Fundamentalist propaganda groups disseminating propaganda in many countries against India with rhetoric like “idol worshippers and Hindus” who “occupy Kashmir”[14]

The Indian Government and Military of India have taken numerous counter-terrorist measures to combat rising terrorism in the country[15][16]. 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 [17]. 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.[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]


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

Soldiers in south-eastern Afghanistan check their coordinates during a combat patrol.

In October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, NATO invaded 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.[47] The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden’s link to the September 11 attacks and, if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial in an Islamic Court.[48] On October 7, 2001 the official invasion began with British and American forces conducting aerial bombing campaigns.[49]


The Saudi born Zayn al-Abidn Muhammed Hasayn Abu Zubaydah was arrested by Pakistani officials during a series of joint U.S. and Pakistan raids during the week of March 23, 2002. During the raid the suspect was shot three times while trying to escape capture by military personnel. Zubaydah is said to be a high-ranking al-Qaeda official with the title of operations chief and in charge of running al-Qaeda training camps.[18] 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.[19]

On March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested during CIA-led raids on the suburb of Rawalpindi, nine miles outside of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. Mohammed at the time of his capture was the third highest ranking official in al-Qaeda and had been directly in charge of the planning for the September 11 attacks. Escaping capture the week before during a previous raid, the Pakistani government was able to use information gathered from other suspects captured to locate and detain Mohammed. Mohammed was indicted in 1996 by the United States government for links to the Oplan Bojinka, a plot to bomb a series of U.S. civilian airliners. Other events Mohammed has been linked to include: ordering the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, the USS Cole bombing, Richard Reid’s attempt to blow up a civilian airliner with a shoe bomb, and the terrorist attack at the El Ghriba synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has described himself as the head of the al-Qaeda military committee[20].

Amidst all this, in 2006, Pakistan was accused by NATO commanding officers of aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan;[50] but NATO later admitted that there was no known evidence against the ISI or Pakistani government of sponsoring terrorism.[51] However in 2007, allegations of ISI secretly making bounty payments up to CDN$ 1,900 (Pakistani rupees. 1 lakh) for each NATO personnel killed surfaced.[52] The Afghan government also accuses the ISI of providing help to militants including protection to the recently killed Mullah Dadullah, Taliban’s senior military commander, a charge denied by the Pakistani government.[53] India, meanwhile continues to accuse Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence of planning several terrorist attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the Indian repubic, including the 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which Pakistan attributes it to “homegrown” insurgencies.[54] Many other countries like Afghanistan and the UK have also accused Pakistan of State-sponsored terrorism and financing terrorism. The upswing in American military activity in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan corresponded with a drastic increase in American military aid to the Pakistan government. In the three years before the attacks of September 11, Pakistan received approximately $9 million in American military aid. In the three years after, the number increased to $4.2 billion, making it the country with the maximum funding post 9/11.[55]. Such a huge inflow of funds has raised concerns that these funds were given without any accountability, as the end uses not being documented, and that large portions were used to suppress civilians’ human rights and to purchase weapons to contain domestic problems like the Balochistan unrest.[56][57]

Main article: Waziristan War

In 2004 the Pakistani Army launched a campaign in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan’s Waziristan region, sending in 80,000 troops. The goal of the conflict was to remove the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in the region. After the fall of the Taliban regime many members of the Taliban resistance fled to the Northern border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Pakistani army had previously little control. With the logistics and air support of the United States, the Pakistani Army captured or killed numerous al-Qaeda operatives such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, wanted for his involvement in the USS Cole bombing, Oplan Bojinka plot and the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. However, the Taliban resistance still operates in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas under the control of Haji Omar.[58]

Southeast Asia


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

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

On September 9, 2004, a car bomb exploded outside of the Australian embassy in Jakarta, killing 10 Indonesians and injuring over 140 others; despite conflicting initial reports there were no Australian casualties.[59] 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.[60] Abu Bakar Ba’asyir was imprisoned on charged of treason for his support of the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings.[61] 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.[62]


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

United States Customs and Border Protection officers.

United States Customs and Border Protection officers.

Further information: Detentions following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack

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

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

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

Several laws were passed to increase the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States, notably the USA PATRIOT Act. Many civil liberties groups have alleged that these laws remove important restrictions on governmental authority, and are a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties, possible unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. On July 30th, 2003, the ACLU filed the first legal challenge against Section 215 of the Patriot Act, claiming that it allows the FBI to violate a citizen’s 1st Amendment rights, 4th Amendment Rights, and right to due process, by having the ability to search business, bookstore, and library records in a terrorist investigation – without disclosing to the individual that records were being searched. [21] Also, 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. [22]

International military support

Main article: Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan: Allies
Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006
Main article: Afghanistan War order of battle

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

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

In the following months, NATO took a wide range of measures to respond to the threat of terrorism. On November 22, 2002, the member states of the EAPC decided on a Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism which explicitly states that “EAPC States are committed to the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, as well as the rule of law, in combating terrorism.”[63] 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.[64]

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).[65][66][67][68]

Criticisms of U.S. objectives and strategies

Main article: Criticism of the War on Terrorism

The War on Terrorism as indefinite and indeterminate

Policy experts have criticized the “War on Terrorism” as an irresponsible metaphor, arguing that “war” must by definition be waged against nations—not against broad and controversial categories of activity such as “terrorism.” Cognitive linguist George Lakoff writes:

“Literal—not metaphorical—wars are conducted against armies of other nations. They end when the armies are defeated militarily and a peace treaty is signed. Terror is an emotional state. It is in us. It is not an army. And you can’t defeat it militarily and you can’t sign a peace treaty with it.”[69]

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

“We must distinguish Al Qa’eda and the broader militant movements it symbolises – entities that use terrorism – from the tactic of terrorism itself. In practice, as will be demonstrated, the ‘War on Terrorism’ is a defensive war against a world-wide Islamist jihad, a diverse confederation of movements that uses terrorism as its principal, but not its sole tactic.”[70]

Francis Fukuyama, a prominent former neoconservative, has made the similar point that “The term “war on terrorism” is a misnomer, resulting in distorted ideas of the main threat facing Americans today. Terrorism is only a means to an end; in this respect, a “war on terror” makes no more sense than a war on submarines.”[71]

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

“The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state’s “terrorist” is another state’s “freedom fighter.”[72]

Opponents critical of this inherent subjectivity point out that governments such as Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela consistently use the term “terrorism” to describe actions taken by the United States.[73]

Further criticism maintains that the War on Terrorism provides a framework for perpetual war; that the announcement of such open-ended goals produces a state of endless conflict, since “terrorist groups” can continue to arise indefinitely.[74]. President Bush has pledged that the War on Terrorism “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”[75] During a July 2007 visit to the United States, newly appointed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown defined the War on Terror, specifically the element involving conflict with Al Qaeda, as “a generational battle”.[76]

The War on Terrorism as counterproductive

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

“Al-Qaida and its affiliates remain active and effective, with a stronger support base and a higher intensity of attacks than before 9/11. …Far from winning the ‘war on terror’, the second George W. Bush administration is maintaining policies that are not curbing paramilitary movements and are actually increasing violent anti-Americanism.”[77]

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

  • “The war in Iraq … has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world … Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act.”[78]

Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law, have argued that the “globalization of martyrdom” potentiated by the Iraq War “has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost.”[79]

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate issued the following among its “key judgments”:

  • “The Iraq conflict has become the —cause celebre“ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”[80]

Double standards

Others have criticized the U.S. for double standards in its dealings with key allies that are also known to support terrorist groups, such as Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly stated that in the “war against terrorism,” “the central front is Pakistan”; Pakistan has also been alleged to provide Taliban operatives with covert support via the ISI.[81] These accusations of double dealing regard civil liberties[82] and human rights as well as terrorism. According to the Federation of American Scientists, “[i]n its haste to strengthen the “frontline” states’ ability to confront transnational terrorist threats on their soil, and to gain the cooperation of regimes of geostrategic significance to the next phases of the “War on Terrorism”, the administration is disregarding normative restrictions on U.S. aid to human rights abusers.” [83] Amnesty International has argued that the Patriot Act gives the U.S. government free reign to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.[84] The Bush administration’s alleged use of extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and torture have all fueled opposition to the War on Terrorism. [85] [86][87]

Decreasing international support

British citizens have repeatedly stated they do not support President Bush’s War on Terrorism and hold the belief that it’s aim was to steal Iraqi oil. Statistics used by the US to justify the war have also be proven to be fake. In 2002, strong majorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terrorism in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terrorism, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas 63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terrorism in 2003, only 19% of the population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supports the War on Terrorism, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan support the effort. Indian support for the War on Terrorism has been stable.[88] Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, “majorities or pluralities in seven of the nine countries surveyed said the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not really a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. This was true not only in Muslim countries such as Morocco and Turkey, but in France and Germany as well. The true purpose of the war on terrorism, according to these skeptics, is American control of Middle East oil and U.S. domination of the world.”[89]

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[90] 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[91] 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[92] contains many examples of controversies concerning mainstream reporting of the War on Terror. Cooper found that bloggers’ criticisms of factual inaccuracies in news stories or bloggers’ discovery of the mainstream press’s failure to adequately check facts before publication caused many news organizations to retrack or change news stories.

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

Military decorations

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

  • “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


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 — 950,000 to 1,124,000
  • Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that “48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.”[93][94][95][96]
  • Between 392,979 and 942,636 estimated Iraqi (655,000 with a confidence interval of 95%), civilian and combatant, according to the second Lancet survey of mortality.[97]
  • A minimum of 62,570 civilian deaths reported in the mass media up to 28 April 2007 according to IraqBodyCount.
  • 100,000 to 150,000 estimated civilian deaths in hospitals according to the Iraqi Health Ministry in November 2006, based on extrapolating current rate of death back to March 2003.Over 20,000 Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda allied Sunni militants have been killed, with the number of injured estimated to be in the tens of thousands.[citation needed]
  • 4000 U.S. military dead (2008 26 March). 22,401 wounded in action, of which 10,050 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. 6,640 non-hostile injuries and 18,183 diseases (both requiring medical air transport).[98]
  • 249 Coalition military dead. Breakdown: Australia 2. Bulgaria 13. Denmark 6. El Salvador 5. Estonia 2. Hungary 1. Italy 33. Kazakhstan 1. Latvia 3. Netherlands 2. Poland 18. Romania 2. Slovakia 4. Spain 11. Thailand 2. Ukraine 18. United Kingdom 130.[citation needed]
  • Afghanistan — between 1,300 and 49,600
  • According to Marc W. Herold,[99] up to 3,600 civilians were killed as a result of U.S. bombing.
  • Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute and Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives question Herold’s heavy use of the Afghan Islamic Press, “suspicious” tallies of other news agencies, and statistical errors in Herold’s study.[100] Conetta’s study puts total civilian casualties between 1000 and 1300.[101]
  • 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.[102]

Further reading

  • Müller, Sebastian R. Hawala. An Informal Payment System and Its Use to Finance Terrorism, Dec. 2006, ISBN 3-8655-0656-9
  • Kuypers, Jim A. Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age, ISBN 0-7425-3653-X
  • Brian Michael Jenkins, Unconquerable Nation, RAND Corporation, Fall 2006, ISBN 0-8330-3893-1 and ISBN 0-8330-3891-5
  • Igmade (Stephan Trüby et al., eds.), 5 Codes: Architecture, Paranoia and Risk in Times of Terror, Birkhäuser; 2006, ISBN 3-7643-7598-1
  • Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, Free Press; 2004, ISBN 0-7432-6024-4
  • Ira Chernus. Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006 ISBN 1-59451-276-0
  • Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, ISBN 1-57488-849-8
  • From ‘Cold War’ to ‘Full-Spectrum Dominance’, on the MagMa Report
  • Michelle Malkin, In Defense Of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on terror, September, 2004, National Book Network, hardcover, 416 pages, ISBN 0-89526-051-4
  • Steven Emerson (2002), American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Free Press; 2003 paperback edition, ISBN 0-7432-3435-9
  • Lyal S. Sunga, (2002) US Anti-Terrorism Policy and Asia’s Options, in Johannen, Smith and Gomez, (eds.) September 11 & Political Freedoms: Asian Perspectives (Select) 242–264, ISBN 981-4022-24-1
  • Marina Ottoway, et al., Democratic Mirage in the Middle East, Carnegie Endowment for Ethics and International Peace, Policy Brief 20, (October 20, 2002). Internet, available online at:
  • Marina Ottoway and Thomas Carothers, Think Again: Middle East Democracy,Foreign Policy (Nov./Dec. 2004). Internet, available online at:
  • Chris Zambelis, The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East, Parameters, (Autumn 2005). Internet, available online at:
  • 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:
  • 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:
  • 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:
  • 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:
  • 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:
  • Fawaz Gergez, Is Democracy in the Middle East a Pipedream?,Yale Global Online (April 25, 2005). Internet, available online at:
  • Donald Rumsfeld, Bureaucracy to Battlefield Speech, (September 10, 2001) Internet, available online at:
  • Leon Hadar, The Green Peril: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat, (August 27, 1992) Internet, available online at:
  • George W. Bush, A Period of Consequences, (September 23, 1999) Internet, available online at:
  • George W. Bush, A Distinctly American Internationalism, (November 19, 1999) Internet, available online at:
  • Nicholas Lemann, Dreaming About War, (July 16, 2001) The New Yorker, Internet available online at:
  • James Der Derian, The Illusion of a Grand Strategy, (May 25, 2001) The New York Times, Internet available online at:
  • Paul Wolfowitz, Briefing on the Defense Planning Guidance, (August 16, 2001), Internet, available online at:
  • Henry Shelton, Change, Troops and Transformation, (August 28, 2001), Internet, available online at:
  • Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, (September 2000), Internet, available online at:
  • Foreign Policy in Focus, The Bush Administration’s Strategic Defense Review, (May 2001), Internet, online at:
  • Col. Daniel Smith and others, Reforging the Sword: Forces for the 21st Century Security Strategy, Center for Defense Information, (September 2001), Internet, online at:
  • BBC News, Stumbling towards Pentagon reform: Ambitious agenda, (August 16, 2001), Internet, online at:
  • Philip Gold, Savaging Donald Rumsfeld, The Washington Times, (August 28, 2001), Internet, online at:
  • Condoleezza Rice, Life after the Cold War, Council on Foreign Relations, (September 2000), Internet, online at:
  • Ashton Carter and William Perry, Preventive Defense, A New Security Strategy for America, Brooking Institution, (1999), Internet, online at:
  • Steven Metz, Asymmetry and U.S. Military Strategy: Definition, Background, and Strategic Concepts, U.S. Army War College, (January 2001), Internet, online at:
  • Kenneth McKenzie, The Revenge of the Melians: Asymmetric Threats and the next QDR, National Defense University, (November 2000), Internet, online at:
  • L. Ali Khan, A Theory of International Terrorism (2006) & The Essentialist Terrorist (2006)
  • Mohsin Hamid, The Reluctant Fundamentalist; 2007, ISBN 978-0241143650

See also

  • List of military strikes against presumed terrorist targets
  • Airport security repercussions due to the September 11, 2001 attacks
  • Axis of evil
  • Allegations of state terrorism by the U.S.
  • Barbary Wars
  • Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005
  • Black sites (CIA secret detention centers)
  • Crusade (modern)
  • Islamism
  • Anti-Arabism
  • Islam by country
  • List of wars in the Muslim world
  • Criticisms of the “War on Terrorism”
  • Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies, an Italian “parallel police” under investigations since July 2005
  • Executive Order 12333
  • Extrajudicial execution
  • Extraordinary rendition
  • Guantánamo Bay
  • Homeland security
  • Iraq War
  • Long War (21st century)
  • McCain Detainee Amendment
  • Manhunt (Military)
  • Manhunt (law enforcement)
  • Manhunting
  • Operation Eagle Assist
  • NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
  • Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group
  • Rendition (game)
  • Strategic reset
  • Terrorist surveillance program
  • Targeted killing
  • 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)
  • Algerian Civil War
  • War in Afghanistan
  • War on Islam
  • List of wars by death toll
  • War on Terror (game)
This text comes from Wikipedia. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikipedia.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress