Support terrorism

Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support. While the rest of the world led by the Islamic world with countries like Pakistan have opposed the war from start with many protests spread across around its cities especially in western capitals like London also home to the largest anti-war protest yet.

ROLE OF COUNTRIES LIKE PAKISTAN DUE TO DIPLOMACY FOR WAR ON TERROR: Pakistan moved decisively to ally itself with the United States in its war against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda It provided the U. S. a number of military airports and bases, for its attack on Afghanistan. It has arrested over five hundred Al-Qaeda members and handed them over to the U. S. President George W. Bush and senior U. S. officers have been lavish in their praise of Pakistani efforts. Since this strategic re-alignment towards U. S. policy, economic and military assistance has been flowing from the U. S.

to Pakistan and sanctions have been lifted. In June 2004, President Bush designated Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, making it eligible, among other things, to purchase advanced American military technology. In May, 2006, The Bush administration announced a major sale of missiles to Pakistan, valued at $370 Million USD. On November 6, 2001, US President Bush declared his polity: "You are either with us or against us". President Musharraf later claimed that U. S. threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" after the Sept. 11 attacks if Pakistan refused to help America with its war on terrorism.

Musharraf writes in his "In the Line of Fire" The next morning I was chairing an important meeting at the Governor's House when my military secretary told me that the U. S. secretary of state, General Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said that I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting and take the call. Powell was quite candid: "You are either with us or against us. " I took this as a blatant ultimatum. … our director general of Inter Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the U. S. deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage.

… told the director general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age. This was a shockingly barefaced threat, but it was obvious that the United States had decided to hit back, and hit back hard. I also analysed our national interest. First, India had already tried to step in by offering its bases to the United States. If we did not join the United States, it would accept India's offer.

What would happen then? … Second, the security of our strategic assets would be jeopardized. … And India, needless to say, would have loved to assist the United States to the hilt. Third, our economic infrastructure, built over half a century, would have been decimated. The ultimate question that confronted me was whether it was in our national interest to destroy ourselves for the Taliban. Were they worth committing suicide over? The answer was a resounding no. Eric Margolis who had interviewd Musharraf, writes:

Leaked cabinet documents from 10 Downing Street show three months before invading Iraq in 2003, President Bush told British PM Tony Blair that once he finished off Iraq, he planned to `go after’ Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was in America’s cross hairs. Every time Pakistan got into trouble with Washington, it would suddenly discover `one of al-Qaida’s top commanders’ and deliver him to the Americans. So far, almost 700 have been sent, in each case for rewards of millions of dollars, as Musharraf unwisely boasted. Musharraf acknowledges the payments in his book:

"We've captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We've earned bounties totaling millions of dollars" CRITICISM: Some have criticized the name "War on Terrorism," by arguing you cannot have a war against a tactic — you can only have a war with a country or an entity (such as against Germany in World War Two, or against a state within a state like Al Qaeda after 9/11). In addition, since "terrorism" is difficult to define (for example, the United Nations still has not reached consensus on a definition of "terrorism") a "War Against Terrorism" has no uncontroversial meaning.

Further, this criticism that the title is a misnomer is linked to the argument that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It has also been noted that by openly declaring "war" on terrorism, this could be read as entitling any terrorists to engage in militant or offensive acts of war with some legitimacy. It should be noted that, since the 1960s the United States government has declared several "wars" on intangible concepts. There was, or is, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, the "War on Inflation" (better known as the Whip Inflation Now Campaign), Richard Nixon declared "War on Cancer", and a general "War on Crime".

These programs have met with varying success although, particularly in the case of drugs, have led to a great increase in federal law enforcement activities. Others have criticized the War on Terrorism as counterproductive. British Liberal Democrat politician Shirley Williams writes that the American and United Kingdom governments "must stop to think whether it is sowing the kind of resentment which is the seedbed of future terrorism". The United Kingdom ambassador to Italy, Ivor Roberts, said that U. S.

President Bush is "the best recruiting sergeant ever for al Qaeda"Brigitte L. Nacos has published research indicating a correlation between increases in terrorism alert levels and increases in Bush's poll ratings. Referring to her study of terrorism alerts, media coverage and Bush's popularity, journalist Matthew Stannard wrote in the San The very premise that the War on Terrorism intends to reduce or eliminate acts of terrorism is rejected by some who claim it is an artifice that can be evoked when it is politically desirable and ignored otherwise.

For instance, critics point out that many terror "suspects" are targeted without evidence while known anti-Cuba terrorists such as Luis Posada Carriles and Roberto Ferro are spared. Civilian deaths caused by United States and Coalition military action have been criticized. Estimates of civilian deaths vary greatly. Within Iraq, these estimates are between 4,000 to 98,000. In any estimate, non-Coalition civilian deaths exceed those of the United States in the attacks of 11 September 2001 from which the "war on terrorism" began. U. S. President George W.

Bush articulated the goals of the "War on Terrorism" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". Critics argue that such goals create a state of perpetual war, and that "terrorist groups" could continue to arise indefinitely. Ira Chernus, professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the ideology underlying the war on terrorism inevitably leads to a state of perpetual war, because it is based on Bush's domestic crusade against sin and evil.

Others have criticized the double standards of the US when dealing with countries known to support terrorism, but are yet key allies like Islamic world condemning Israel for its state persecution of Palestinians in the occupied territories. References 1)    Momentum & Sustainment: Supporting the War fighter. Defense Supply Center, Columbus (September 23, 2004). Retrieved on 2006-08-09 2)    "9/11 Hijacker Video Surfaces", Washington Post, October 2, 2006.