- Title: VARIOUS: WAR ON TERROR - SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ANNIVERSARY FEATURE
- Date: 16th August 2002
- Summary: (L!1) BAGHDAD, IRAQ (FILE - DECEMBER 31 ,2000) (REUTERS - ACCESS ALL) SMV IRAQI PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN FIRING GUN IN THE AIR ON BALCONY , SALUTING MILITARY. SMV ARMED IRAQI SOLDIER MARCHING.
- Embargoed: 31st August 2002 13:00
- Keywords:
- Location: NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK; WASHINGTON, D.C.; ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES/ ABOARD USS PELELIU IN THE ARABIAN SEA/ NEAR RABAT, NORTHERN AFGHANISTAN/ GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA/ KABUL, AFGHANISTAN/ TEHRAN
- City:
- Country: Afghanistan
- Topics: Crime,Conflict,Quirky,Light / Amusing / Unusual / Quirky
- Reuters ID: LVA8L4ODMSUS07FB3KD9EAPTHOII
- Aspect Ratio:
- Story Text: The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were the opening salvo in a new kind of global war that has introduced combat to battlefields from Afghanistan to cyberspace. With the possibility of another war with Iraq dominating headlines, the world is still coming to grips with President Bush's edict one year ago that "either you're with us or you are with the terrorists".
The devastation of New York's World Trade Center after September 11 quickly became known as "Ground Zero." But "Ground Zero," wasn't just a place; it became a starting point or U.S. President George W. Bush, and his administration's response.
The U.S. identified an international underground radical Islamic organisation called al Qaeda, and it's Saudi-born, millionaire leader Osama bin Laden as the party responsible for the attack.
But a U.S.-led war against a syndicate with members in over 60 nations required an unprecedented degree of co-ordination, and communication with allies and others. Soon after the attack Bush put the entire globe on notice.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,"
Bush declared just nine days after the attacks.
The most visual of the battles marking a response began in Afghanistan. The country was ruled by a moslem fundamentalist group called the Taliban, which hosted bin Laden, and paramilitary training camps for al Qaeda.
The Taliban was routed, hundreds of suspected al Qaeda members have been captured, but bin Laden, and many of his top lieutenants have not been captured.
Mara Rudman, a Deputy National Security Advisor in the Clinton administration and Vice-President of the Cohen Group, an international consulting firm, says that while bin Laden's capture would be welcome, the war against terror is larger than just one man.
"I think the Bush administration's legacy on this issue will be determined by more than just whether this particular individual was captured, or was made ineffective. I think it goes to a broader question of what happened to the al Qaeda structure itself, and the ability for that network of individuals to continue to threaten the rest of the world,"
Rudman said.
Warfare in the 21st century also brings battles to places that armies, and diplomats cannot travel. A key component in the campaign against al Qaeda has been waged in a theatre consisting of Internet web sites, such as this one, and financial markets. The Bush administration has led a world-wide crackdown, and freeze-out of al Qaeda's assets.
According to the White House, the United States has blocked $34.3 million in assets used by groups they have placed on a "terrorist" list. $77.9 million has been frozen by other countries. Over 167 countries have issued orders freezing terrorist assets.
Unlike the combat at the battle lines of Afghanistan, the battles on the financial front are shadowy, and it's results perhaps unclear. David Rothkopf is a former under-secretary at the U.S. Commerce Department. He says that there's a lot more money available to groups like al Qaeda than that which has been confiscated so far.
"It's the tip of the iceberg, and I think that's what we have to recognise. We can disrupt them temporarily, but for people who are offering a mission of disrupting the United States, unsteadying international markets, or advancing local agendas - they'll always be able to come up with new money,"
Rothkopf told Reuters Television.
But the Bush Administration is beginning to move beyond the war against al Qaeda. At his annual State of the Union address in January, Bush identified three countries as possible future targets of action: North Korea, a communist regime locked in an antiquated cold war with the west; Iran, a theocracy which has been accused of financing attacks against western interests; and Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who is accused of developing weapons of mass destruction.
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred," Bush said during his annual State of the Union address.
Iraq, has been considered by many as the next target for the United States and its campaign. Iraq agreed to allow weapons inspectors oversee the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction facilities after a U.S.-led coalition evicted its troops from Kuwait in 1991, but the United Nations says it has not met its obligations in full and withdrew the inspectors in December 1998.
And as members of the Bush administration openly meet with Iraqi opposition leaders, the question remains if the United States is prepared to pursue a campaign against Iraq.
"If you remember, during the Gulf War, we had an international force. We had troops from many, many, different nations involved, and that gave us a great deal of strength I think we would be lacking if we went forward at this time.
It's great to have other people with you, even if their military contribution is small, it' a commitment on their part that helps us strengthen the overall coalition," Retired U.S.
Army General Norman Schwartzkopf said recently.
But while a large international coalition might bring greater credibility, Rudman says that any nation thinking about getting involved with military action against Iraq needs to take a close look at what's been accomplished in Afghanistan, and evaluate its effectiveness.
"We have a lot more work to do - including in what the post-Taliban Afghanistan looks like. And anyone who is contemplating action in Iraq needs to look closely at what we're doing, how we're doing it, and how effective we're being in a post-Taliban Afghanistan," Rudman said.
If comments from U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld are any indication, the intervention in Afghanistan could serve as an encouraging model of what could be attained by the United States in Iraq.
"Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Iraq were similar to Afghanistan. If a bad regime was thrown out, people were liberated, food could come in, borders could be opened, repression could stop, prisons could be opened, I mean it would be fabulous. The idea that Afghanistan should be held up as something that one would not want to have happen is just exactly opposite from the truth," Rumsfeld said.
As the Bush administration ponders what exactly its next move in this vast endeavour, the President has a vision of its eventual outcome.
"I see a peaceful world beyond the war on terror, and with courage and unity, we are building that world together," Bush said during a ceremony marking the six-month passing after September 11.
Aside from international military and political support, strong popular backing from the American public needs to be in place if Bush plans to lead U.S. troops into a potentially long, and bloody conflict. Prominent foreign policy experts from Bush's own political party have raised concerns over a war with Iraq - concerns echoed by many Americans.
"I don't think the administration is levelling with the American public. I don't think the American public is ready to see American boys die on the streets of Baghdad. I think that would happen, as it did in Somalia. I don't think the American public is ready to spend 10 years in Iraq. I don't think they realise the destabilising effect it could have in the region. And I don't think they realise - and I think this is the worst part about it - it's going to destroy the war on terrorism. It's not going to do anything to advance our interests in fighting the global war against terrorism,"
Steven Williamson of New York told Reuters.
"I think we're right if there's strong evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. That's the way I feel about it. I don't know whether we have that evidence. So I'm really somewhat undecided, until I see whether there is strong evidence he has weapons of mass destruction, and he's poised to use them," Jeff Houlihan, another New Yorker said.
Whatever its next target, the world's only military super power is now mobilised, and preparing for action - whether it be launched against al Qaeda, Iraq, or other members of President Bush's "axis of evil."
dp/rm - Copyright Holder: FILE REUTERS (CAN SELL)
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None