The Error of the War on Terror

The war on terror polarizes the world.

The Forgotten Side of the War on Terrorism

Russia u0027s Incompetent War on Terror

The fight against terrorism is also at stake.

The war on terror is an aberration.

The fight against terrorist financing is an essential part of the international fight against terrorism more generally.

The fight against terrorism cannot ignore human rights.

None of these characteristics apply here.

Winning the war on terrorism will require a combination of offense and defense.

But continuing support for the war on terror makes it no less self defeating.

Detention without trial is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.

In the fight against terrorism, the Strategy abandons the predominantly military viewpoint underlying the war against terror, and embraces a more significant role for the intelligence services.

Taken together, these factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won.

The war on terror appears to be causing a surge in protectionism.

The war on terrorism cannot be fought in Afghan villages.

It is also key to the present war on terror in Southeast Asia.

But this can happen only when the US and Pakistani governments disengage from their war on terror.

Democracy is intrinsically messy, but it won t jeopardize Pakistan s partnership in the war on terror.

But we are committed to ensuring that asset freezing is an effective tool in the fight against terrorist financing.

A third weakness is that the war on terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics.

Similarly, the US has become less safe since President Bush declared war on terror.

But, as in Colombia, the effort to militarize the war on drugs and the war on terrorism seems likely only to generate more disorder.

Ultimately, however, the war against terrorism could be won only through cooperation.

Unfortunately, like the Cold War, the current war on terror is likely to be a matter of decades, not years.

Donald Rumsfeld, America s Secretary of Defense, recently spoke about the Bush administration s global war on terror.

This fact is unrecognized at home because the victims of the war on terror are not Americans.

Last year, with the stroke of his pen, Obama ended his predecessor s global war on terror.

Pakistan, they said, was as deeply engaged as their countries in the war against terrorism.

So what, then, needs doing? The first thing to do is to drop the metaphor of a war on terrorism.

We hope the US will change its war on terror paradigm and re think its conception of a global armed conflict against Al Qaeda.

Against war and those against War.

Defending Israel against its Islamic enemies may indeed be a factor in the existential alarmism that underlies the present war on terror.

President Bush recently drew an analogy between the current struggle against violent jihadi terrorism and the Cold War.

Finally, the war on terror drives a wedge between â œusâ and â œthem.â We are innocent victims they are perpetrators.

Indeed, since September 2001, the war on terror has claimed more innocent victims than those terrorist attacks.

Pakistan s involvement in the war on terror proved to be far more economically costly than expected.

A generalized war on fire is as ill conceived as, say, a global war on terror.

War games between Philippine and American troops became more frequent during the so called War on Terror after the September 11 attack in New York City.

While other US forces became heavily involved in the war on terrorism, USSOUTHCOM scaled up its war on drugs, with its commanders targeting the industry s bosses in the Andes, Mexico, and Central America.

The Bush administration still uses the phrase war on terror and behaves as though it really is a war, the ordinary kind where one government fights another.

But countering them does not involve warfare, or even a rhetorically looser war on terror.

Another weakness of the war on terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches.

At least for now, engaging China in the global fight against terrorism is in America's interest.

During a speech at the meeting, he boasted that Uzbekistan was a partner of the United States in the war on terror and for Karimov the war on terror is tantamount to a license to torture in his quest to remain in power.