The neutrality of this article is disputed.
| This article is part of the Terrorism series: |
| Definition & Conventions |
| Counterterrorism & "War on Terror" |
| Lists: Groups,
State sponsors, |
| Types: Nationalist, Religious, Left-wing, Right-wing, State, Islamic, Ethnic, Bioterrorism, Narcoterrorism, Domestic, Nuclear, Anarchist |
| Tactics: Hijacking, Suicide bomber |
| Configurations: Fronts, Independent actors |
| Other: Terrorism insurance |
| Edit this template (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Terrorism&action=edit) |
</font>
Template:Message box The War on Terrorism or War on Terror is a rhetorical phrase that, since 2001, describes the claimed state of warfare of the United States of America and its economic and political allies, against those who perpetrate terrorism.
In various forms, the term "War on Terrorism," has been used throughout the 20th century to refer to a number of initiatives, both national and international, with the stated goals of reducing terrorism. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the phrase "War on Terror" has been used primarily by the USA to refer to the international effort to neutralize al-Qaida and prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S. and their allies.
Especially in the Arab World there is a perception that "terrorism" in this context mostly refers to Islamic-rooted violence, characterized as being a more immoral form of violence than the forms sanctioned for use to combat it. All political violence being equal, the violence perpetrated in the name of "fighting terrorism" is seen in the Arab world as simply a "new crusade;" another war of conquest and hegemony by Western powers against nations of Islamic culture.
| Table of contents |
The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the western press to refer to the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish terrorist 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 reprisals, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine.
A representative article from the period in (New York Times, August 5th, 1947, p. 16) reads:
After the withdrawal of the British, the newly formed Israeli government began using the term "war on terrorism" to refer to its efforts to crack down on Palestinian and Lebanese terrorist groups operating in Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East.
The phrase "war on terrorism" was used frequently by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. In his 1986 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Reagan said:
Immediately following and in response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, the United States government announced its intentions to begin a "War on Terrorism", a protracted struggle against alleged terrorists and some of the states that are alleged to aid terrorists.
The war was implicitly declared on September 18, 2001, when the US Congress authorized the president to
On September 20, 2001, the US President George W. Bush presented his position in an Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People:
On October 10, 2001, the US President presented a list of 22 most wanted terrorists. Then in the first such act since World War II, President Bush signed an executive order [3] (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/exec_order.html) on November 13, 2001 allowing military tribunals against any foreigners suspected of having connections to terrorist acts or planned acts on the United States. US-led military forces later invaded both Afghanistan (see U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and, controversially, Iraq (see 2003 Iraq War) under the aegis of the War on Terrorism.
These undertakings were advanced through fear that subsequent terror attacks could be much worse. Significantly, there has been a growing fear of nuclear terrorism.
Several governments have provided aid in some aspect of the conflict, making arrests of suspected terrorists and freezing bank accounts, for example.
The US has received limited military help from some (with the exception of the United Kingdom) usually small governments. In the United States, the War on Terrorism became the prism through which international relations were viewed, supplanting the Cold War and in some cases the War on Drugs. Many pre-existing disputes were re-cast in terms of the War on Terrorism, including Plan Colombia and the Colombian civil war; the United States' diplomatic and military disputes with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea; the war between Russia and Chechnya; and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two largest campaigns undertaken as part of the War have been those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The United States has based its counter-terrorist strategy on several steps:
In doing so, the strategy is not very different from successful counter-guerrilla operations, such as in Malaysia in the 1950s. There is a fine distinction between guerrilla operations and terrorist operations. Many guerrilla organizations, such as the Zionist armed group known as the Irgun in British-Mandated Palestine, and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) during the Algerian Civil War, and Vietnam's National Liberation Front (NLF), included urban terrorism as part of their overall strategy.
Denial of safe havens involves a fairly large military force; however, as in Afghanistan in 2002, once the major safe haven areas are overrun, the large-scale forces can be withdrawn and special forces, such as U.S. Special Operations Forces or the British Special Air Service (SAS), operate more effectively.
In addition, the U.S. Army is involved in increasingly large civil affairs programs in Afghanistan to provide employment for Afghans and to reduce sympathy in the civilian population for parties the United States has designated as terrorist.
The U.S. strategy faces several obstacles:
A Washington Post investigation published on December 26, 2002 quotes anonymous CIA and other government officials who claim that US military and CIA personnel employ physical coercion during their interrogation of suspects and that US officials believe these practices are necessary and unavoidable in light of the September 11th terrorist attacks. They state that CIA is using "stress and duress" techniques at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, a base leased from Britain at Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, and numerous other secret facilities worldwide.
The CIA reportedly transfers suspects, along with a list of questions, to foreign intelligence services of countries routinely criticized by the US Department of State for torturing suspects, where they are alleged to be severely tortured with the assent and encouragement of the United States. These countries include Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Syria. One official stated, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." (See also the article on Maher Arar.)
Anonymous sources quoted in the Washington Post article have stated that those held in the CIA detention center "are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles," and are duct-taped to stretchers for transport. The Post continues that according to Americans with direct knowledge and others who have witnessed the treatment, that suspects are often beat up and confined in tiny rooms and are also blindfolded and handcuffed following arrest. Later, suspects are sometimes "held in awkward, painful positions and deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights" and loud noises. The Post article goes on to say that national security officials suggested that pain killers, on at least one occasion, were "used selectively" to treat a detainee that was shot in the groin during apprehension.
The United States State Department has previously described such interrogation tactics as "abusive tactics". The 1999 State Department Human Rights Country Report on Israel and the Occupied Territories [4] (http://www.usis.usemb.se/human/human1999/israel.html) stated:
"However, a landmark decision by the High Court of Justice in September prohibited the use of a variety of abusive practices, including violent shaking, painful shackling in contorted positions, sleep deprivation for extended periods of time, and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures."
Nevertheless, the Post admits that there is no direct evidence that the US government is mistreating prisoners. Additionally, as reported by Reuters, the U.S. military denied these allegations and stated that the Post's article was "false on several points". [5] (http://www.afghannews.net/news.php?topicid=753)
National security officials interviewed for the investigation defended the use of such techniques as necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks. As one official put it, "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
The human rights organization Human Rights Watch called on the United States to respond to these reports by publicly denouncing the use of torture. In response to reports that some of the evidence that Colin Powell intended to present against Iraq to the United Nations was derived from torture, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to Powell, asking him to use that speech as an opportunity to condemn any use of torture to gather intelligence. [6] (http://hrw.org/press/2003/02/powell20303.htm)
The techniques reported to be used are similar to techniques that have been used by the Soviet Union on captured CIA operatives, according to accounts by retired CIA agents. In addition, similar techniques were used by French security services in the Algerian War of Independence and in the suppression of the Secret Army Organization in the 1960s. Ethically, such techniques are seen by human rights advocates as deplorable, but interrogators see them as necessary when information must be gained from a reluctant subject.
Human rights advocates point out that torture can generate false responses; tortured suspects may give interrogators false information in order to stop the torture. Therefore, the use of torture may actually hurt the War on Terror.
On September 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, NATO declared the attacks to be an attack against all the 19 NATO member countries. This was the first time in NATO's history, that the Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one ore more NATO member will be considered an attack against all. 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" [7] (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b021122e.htm).
At the same time, NATO and Russia intensified their cooperation.
The almost unlimited international support for the United States' war on terrorism crumbled only after U.S. preparations for the invasion of Iraq intensified in late 2002. Some countries, like the United Kingdom, Spain, or Poland, joined the "coalition of the willing", unconditionally supporting a U.S.-led military action against Iraq. Other countries, like Germany, opposed military actions that were not fully backed by a UN resolution.
Main article: U.S. invasion of Afghanistan
The first target was Afghanistan and the Al-Qaida terrorist organisation based therein. The US demanded that the Taliban government extradite Saudi exile and Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden with no preconditions. The Taliban responded first by asking to see proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks. When the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action, the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law. This offer too was refused. The United States and other western nations then led an attack along with local Afghan anti-Taliban forces, including several local warlords and the Northern Alliance. Many of the Afghani groups had held power before the Taliban came to power, and ruled with human rights records similar to the Taliban. This effort succeeded in removing the Taliban from power. Most Taliban did not fight; they simply went back to their tribe. The weak government in Kabul, the well armed Warlords and the hidden Taliban did not change the situation, that Afghanistan is an unstable country. To date, Osama bin Laden has not been found. His words have reportedly come to light from time to time, often via Arabic media outlets, and usually in support of anti-western atrocities, such as the bombing in Bali and Tunisia.
On March 2, 2003, authorities in Pakistan announced the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
Main Article Axis of Evil
In his 2002 State of the Union address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html) George W. Bush referred to "states like" Iraq, Iran, North Korea "and their terrorist allies" as "axis of evil". These countries "could provide" Weapons of Mass Destruction to terrorists, "giving them the means to match their hatred". The phrase itself was coined by his speechwriter David Frum, who wanted to draw a parallel to World War II's Axis Powers. Not some single rogue states threaten the U.S., but possible alliances between states and terrorists.
The phrase "axis of evil" has triggered widespread criticism. The moral label "evil" was perceived by many outside the U.S. as an insult. It reinforced fears of a religious motivation (Christian mission) behind the War on Terrorism.
Unlike the historical Axis Powers, the three countries Iran, Iraq and North Korea had no political links in 2002 that would justify the political term "axis". Islamist, shi'ite, non-arabic Iran and secular-islamic, arabic Iraq, ruled by socialist, sunnite Ba'ath Party and dictator Saddam Hussein, had a long history of military conflicts and open mutual hostility. North Korea was an self-isolated, secular, socialist, far-eastern country in a Cold War-like lock with its neighbours. The only common elements between the three countries were political distance from the United States, non-Christian culture, non-democratic governments and rather closed economies.
When George W. Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea "axis of evil", he gave critics another reason to believe, that the War on Terrorism is not about terrorist threats against the U.S., but in fact a religiously and economically motivated, unilateralist war waged by the U.S. against wantonly chosen foreign states.
Main articles: 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. plan to invade Iraq
The United States and Iraq have been involved in military and diplomatic disputes since the Gulf War in 1990-91, continuing through the remainder of George H. W. Bush's presidency, Bill Clinton's presidency and the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency. On September 4, 2002, George W. Bush announced the Bush Doctrine that the United States had the right to launch a preemptive military strike at any nation that could put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.
In September 2002, Israel went public with claims that it possessed evidence linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist groups in the region and to weapons of mass destruction. Details were released about the interception of three members of the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front terrorist organization who were caught as they returned to the West Bank from Iraq, presumably after having received training in Iraq[8] (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/24/73826.shtml). A connection between Palestinian terrorists and Iraq seemed plausible in light of Saddam Hussein's high-profile practice of sending checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers[9] (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766319.html). Israeli intelligence organizations also claimed they had evidence that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (although later, when no such weapons were found, at least one senior Israeli intelligence officer admitted Israel may have overstated this threat[10] (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mcherald/news/world/7421069.htm)).
In light of this evidence. and evidence supplied by US and British intelligence organizations, in October 2002 President Bush sought and obtained congressional approval for a strike against Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail[11] (http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html).
Intensive negotiations began with other members of the United Nations Security Council, especially the three permanent members of the Council with veto power, Russia, China, and France, which are known to have reservations about an invasion of Iraq. On November 8, 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed a new resolution, calling for Iraq to disarm or face tough consequences. On November 18, UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq for the first time in four years. In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, the U.S., Britain, France and other countries felt that the declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.
On January 16, 2003 U.N. inspectors discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warhead components not previously declared by Iraq. Iraq dismissed the warheads as old weapons that had been packed away and forgotten. After performing tests on the warheads, U.N. inspectors believe that they were new. While the warheads are evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, they may not amount to a "smoking gun", according to U.S. officials, unless some sort of chemical agent is also detected. U.N. inspectors also searched the homes of several Iraqi scientists.
Although the invasion and occupation of Iraq is portrayed by the Bush administration as part of the War on Terrorism, some members of Congress, especially members of the Democratic Party, have suggested that the War on Iraq draws focus away from the War on Terrorism. This appears to not be the case, considering that major operations and arrests continue to take place all over the world as part of the War on Terrorism. Newsweek conducted a poll after the 2002 elections and found that a majority believed that this played a large part in the Republican victory during the elections.
Despite attempts by the CIA and US administration, certain Republican politicians and the government of Israel to prove one, some critics claim that there is no demonstrable link between the Iraqi government and any anti-American terrorist group.
Around the world, the threats to Iraq from the US and Britain have led to a rise in scepticism over the motives for invasion and the "war" in general.
In early 2003, CIA director George Tenet reported that an al-Qaida cell is operating inside Baghdad, although no evidence of assistance from the government of Saddam Hussein to this cell has been revealed publicly.
Main article: George W. Bush administration policy toward North Korea
In October 2002 North Korea announced that it was running a nuclear weapon development program, in violation of treaties, and said they would be willing to negotiate a new position with the United States. The response from the United States government has been muted; they have stated that North Korea is not as great a danger as Iraq, and do not seem to be willing to pursue the interventionist policy they are advocating for in Iraq.
On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.
As mentioned, the nation is part of the "axis of evil". The United States State Department refers to the Islamic Republic of Iran as the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran provides funding, weapons, and training to terrorist groups based in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Iran funding of Islamic terrorist groups include Hezbollah (founded with help of Iran), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Kurdistan Workers Party (among others).
Iran was involved with Hezbollah's attempt to smuggle arms to the Palestinian Authority in January 2002. On August 6, 2003, North Korea and Iran plan to form an alliance to develop long-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the plan, North Korea will transport missile parts to Iran for assembly at a plant near Tehran, Iran.
There has been speculation about the administrations plans, and Iran is seen by some as 'next on the list' -- both because of its "axis of evil" status and its geopolitical relationship with Iraq. Reformist elements (including leaders and the public) in Iran are challenging the hard-liners' policies, intolerant fundamentalism, and anti-Western viewpoints.
Main article: War on Terrorism: Pankisi Gorge
In February 2002, the U.S. sent approximately two hundred Special Operations Forces troops to the former Soviet republic of Georgia to train Georgian troops to fight rebels from the breakaway Russian province Chechnya, crossing the border for safe haven in their war with Russia. This move drew protests from many Russians, who believed that Georgia should remain within the Russian sphere of influence, and not the United States'. On March 1, 2002, over domestic outcry, Russian president Vladimir Putin met with Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze in Kazakhstan and pledged his support for the American military initiative.
Main article: War on Terrorism: Yemen
The Bush Administration approved sending about 100 Special Operations forces to Yemen, a power base for Al-Qaida. The Special Operations forces, along with the CIA, are engaged in targeted attacks on suspected Al-Qaida members, especially in the regions of Yemen bordering Saudi Arabia, which are not well-controlled by the central Yemeni authorities.
Main article: War on Terrorism: Philippines
In January 2002, a U.S. force approximately 1,000 strong was sent to assist Philippine forces. About 600 troops, including 160 Special Operations forces, remain training forces in the Philippines to combat Abu Sayyaf on Basilan. On October 2, 2002, a bomb in Zamboanga killed a U.S. Army Special Forces master sergeant and two civilians. In October 2002 additional Zamboanga bombings killed six and wounded 200. In February 2003, the U.S. sent approximately 1700 soldiers to the Philippines to engage in active combat against Abu Sayyaf, as opposed to training.
Main Article: War on Terrorism: Indonesia
Near the end of 2001, Congress relaxed restrictions put into place in 1999 against the U.S. training of Indonesian forces because of human rights abuses in East Timor. In October 2002 the Bali car bombing killed and wounded hundreds of civilians, the majority of whom were foreign tourists.
Syria and Lebanon are hosting the headquarters of several terrorist organization (according to the State Department list and the EU list) such as Hizbullah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The USA is also upset about the passage of Arab militants to Iraq through the Syrian border. The White House declared it holds Syria accountable for supporting terrorism and officially implemented sanctions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040511-7.html) on 11 May, 2004.
Both Israel and the USA define the following militias as terrorists: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the PFLP and the PDLF. The USA called on Palestinian Authority to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist groups who targets Israeli civilians. The US government expressed great concern about the suicide bombers, which became popular among other Muslim terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The Palestinians refuse to dismantle those groups and claim they are legitimate political factions who fight against occupation. The Israeli Defence Forces conducted a lot of counter-terrorism operations in order to thwart suicide bombings. US army officers studied Israeli operations and methods and even held joint trainings. The US army adopted some of the Israeli methods such as missile-strike on terror leaders, the use of armoured bulldozers in urban warfare and new techniques for gathering military intelligence. In addition to agreed-upon terrorist organizations, the US also includes Kach, an ultra-nationalist Israeli organization on its official list of terrorist organizations, and recently added support of their websites to be an act of supporting terrorism. The USA also has a political involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and acts as a negotiator between the two parties, in order to solve the conflict in a peaceful manner.
Many people captured in the military conflict in Afghanistan have been detained at a facility known as Camp X-ray at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and have been treated as "illegal combatants" rather than POWs. Many persons state that the term 'illegal combatant' has no meaning under international law and serves to justify denying these detainees rights granted to POWs under the Geneva convention. However, the U.S. position is that the detainees do not fall under any of the categories of combatants or noncombatants protected by the Geneva or Hague conventions (See Camp X-ray for further details.)
A $40 billion emergency spending bill was quickly passed by the United States legislature, 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, and/or questioned. Many of those targeted by the Bush administration have been secretly detained, and have been denied access to an attorney. Among those secretly detained are U.S. citizens. For more, see September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Detentions. The Justice Department launched a Special Registration procedure for certain male non-citizens in the US, requiring them to register in person at INS offices.
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. However, no official legal challenges have been launched so far.
The Bush administration launched an unprecedented and sweeping initiative in early 2002 with the creation of the Information Awareness Office, designed to collect, index, and consolidate all available information on everyone in a central repository for perusal by the United States government.
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 US federal government since the creation of the Pentagon. There was a proposal to create an Office of Strategic Influence for the purpose of coordinating propaganda efforts, but it was cancelled due to negative reactions. For the first time ever, the Bush administration implemented the Continuity of Operations Plan (or Continuity of Government) to create a shadow government to ensure the executive branch of the U.S. government would be able to continue in catastrophic circumstances.
Overturning previous regulations which prevented the CIA from operating against US citizens, President Bush has granted the CIA broad authority to secretly assassinate U.S. citizens (in addition to anyone else) anywhere in the world if the CIA thinks that they are working for Al Qaida. The individuals in question need not be tried or convicted in any court of law, or even formally charged in order for them to be targeted for assassination. [12] (http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20021204/frontpage/20780.shtml)
Main article:Criticisms of War on Terrorism
The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by the participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe 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 that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war. Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists. Its supporters argue that a reduction in civil liberties is a necessary price to pay for greater protection against what they perceive as a heightened risk of terrorism. They also contend that some previous wars waged by America and its allies lasted many years but were ultimately successful.
Some claim that the 2003 invasion of Iraq is part of the "War on Terror," most notably but not exclusively because Hussein's WMD activities, and financial and logistical support for various Palestinian Terrorist groups, including payments of approximately $25,000 (US) to the families of successful suicide bombers. Others charge that because the inclusion of Iraq under Hussein appears to violate the critera for terrorism, having given weight to charges that the US-led War on Terrorism has, at least in part, self-serving ulterior motives.
Official sites by governments and international organizations:
General War on Terrorism news:
Primary Legal Documents:
Specific articles: