War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties^[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.^[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war (and other violence) is usually called peace.

In 2003, Nobel Laureate Richard E. Smalley identified war as the sixth (of ten) biggest problems facing the society of mankind for the next fifty years.^[4] In the 1832 treatise On War, Prussian military general and theoretician Carl von Clausewitz defined war as follows: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."^[5]

While some scholars see warfare as an inescapable and integral aspect of human culture, others argue that it is only inevitable under certain socio-cultural or ecological circumstances. Some scholars argue that the practice of war is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. Rather, as discussed by John Keegan in his History of Warfare, war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it.^[6] Another argument suggests that since there are human societies in which warfare does not exist, humans may not be naturally disposed for warfare, which emerges under particular circumstances.^[7] The ever changing technologies and potentials of war extend along a historical continuum. At the one end lies the endemic warfare of the Paleolithic^{[citation needed]} with its stones and clubs, and the naturally limited loss of life associated with the use of such weapons. Found at the other end of this continuum is nuclear warfare, along with the recently developed possible outcome of its use, namely the potential risk of the complete extinction of the human species.

Etymology[link]

Mural of War (1896), by Gari Melchers.

The English word war derives from the late Old English (c.1050) words wyrre and werre; the Old North French werre; the Frankish werra; and the Proto-Germanic werso. The denotation of war derives from the Old Saxon werran, Old High German werran, and the German verwirren: “to confuse”, “to perplex”, and “to bring into confusion”.^[8] Another posited derivation is from the Ancient Greek barbaros, the Old Persian varhara, and the Sanskrit varvar and barbara. In German, the equivalent is Krieg; the equivalent Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian words for "war" is guerra, derived from the Germanic werra (“fight”, “tumult”).^[9] Etymologic legend has it that the Romanic peoples adopted a foreign, Germanic word for "war", to avoid using the Latin bellum, because, when sounded, it tended to merge with the sound of the word bello ("beautiful")

History of warfare[link]

Before the dawn of civilization, war likely consisted of small-scale raiding. One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence.^[10] Since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago,^[11] military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare. According to Conway W. Henderson, "One source claims 14,500 wars have taken place between 3500 BC and the late 20th century, costing 3.5 billion lives, leaving only 300 years of peace (Beer 1981: 20)."^[12]

In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says that approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare,^[13] and many fought constantly.^[14]

The percentages of men killed in war in eight tribal societies, and Europe and the U.S. in the 20th century. (Lawrence H. Keeley, Archeologist)

Keeley explained several styles of primitive combat such as, small raids, large raids, and massacres. All of these forms of warfare were perpetrated by primitive societies. The use of the massacre by pre-state societies can be exhibited by the Dogrib tribes of the subartic in North America. The Dogrib tribe eventually destroyed the Yellowknife tribe by killing 4 men, 13 women, and 17 children which accounted for 20 percent of the population.^[10] This was a devastating blow from which the Yellowknife tribe never recovered. Keeley further explains how small raids are not organized due to the lack of leadership and any formal training. This causes raids to be short and quick with relatively low numerical casualties but may significantly damage a percentage of a population. The deficit of resources also can account for a lack of fortifications and defensive structures in primitive prestate societies. The protection provided by a defensive could not justify the valuable resources used and labor implemented to build it.^[10]

William Rubinstein wrote that "Pre-literate societies, even those organised in a relatively advanced way, were renowned for their studied cruelty ... 'archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography [ie, after the coming of the Europeans]'. At Crow Creek, South Dakota, as noted, archaeologists found a mass grave of 'more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. AD 1325)' ".^[15]

In Western Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles have taken place.^[16]

Japanese samurai attacking a Mongol ship, 13th century

The Human Security Report 2005 documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. However, the evidence examined in the 2008 edition of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management's "Peace and Conflict" study indicated that the overall decline in conflicts had stalled.^[17]

Recent rapid increases in the technologies of war, and therefore in its destructiveness (see Mutual assured destruction), have caused widespread public concern, and have in all probability forestalled, and may hopefully altogether prevent the outbreak of a nuclear World War III. At the end of each of the last two World Wars, concerted and popular efforts were made to come to a greater understanding of the underlying dynamics of war and to thereby hopefully reduce or even eliminate it all together. These efforts materialized in the forms of the League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations.

Shortly after World War II, as a token of support for this concept, most nations joined the United Nations. During this same post-war period, with the aim of further delegitimizing war as an acceptable and logical extension of foreign policy^{[citation needed]}, most national governments also renamed their Ministries or Departments of War as their Ministries or Departments of Defense, for example, the former US Department of War was renamed as the US Department of Defense.

In 1947, in view of the rapidly increasingly destructive consequences of modern warfare, and with a particular concern for the consequences and costs of the newly developed atom bomb, the initial developer of the concept of this bomb, Albert Einstein famously stated, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."^[18] Fortunately, the anticipated costs of a possible third world war are currently no longer deemed as acceptable by most, thus little motivation currently seems to exist on an international level for such a war.

Still since the close of World War II, limited non-nuclear conflicts continue, and surprisingly enough, some outspoken celebrities and politicians have even advocated for the proclamation of another world war.^[19] Mao Zedong urged the socialist camp not to fear nuclear war with the United States since, even if "half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist."^[20]

Ten largest wars (by death toll)[link]

Three of the ten most costly wars, in terms of loss of life, have been waged in the last century. These are of course the two World Wars, then followed by the Second Sino-Japanese War (which is sometimes considered part of World War II, or overlapping with that war). Most of the others involved China or neighboring peoples. The death toll of World War II, being 60 million plus, surpasses all other war-death-tolls by a factor of two. This may be due to significant recent advances in weapons technologies, as well as recent increases in the overall human population.

• 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)^[21][22]
• 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)^[23]
• 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)^[24][25][26]
• 25,000,000 - Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)^[27]
• 20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)^[28]
• 20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1850–1864) (see Dungan revolt)^[29]
• 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)^[30]
• 8,000,000–12,000,000 - Dungan revolt (China, 1862–1877)
• 7,000,000–20,000,000 Conquests of Tamerlane (1370–1405)^[31][32]
• 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1922)^[33]

Types of warfare[link]

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010)

War, to become known as one, must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics. War Studies by military theorists throughout military history have sought to identify the philosophy of war, and to reduce it to a military science.

Ruins of Guernica (1937). The Spanish civil war was one of Europe's bloodiest and most brutal civil wars.

In general, modern military science considers several factors before a National defence policy is created to allow a war to commence: the environment in the area(s) of combat operations, the posture national forces will adopt on the commencement of a war, and the type of warfare troops will be engaged in.

Conventional warfare is an attempt to reduce an opponent's military capability through open battle. It is a declared war between existing states in which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used or only see limited deployment in support of conventional military goals and maneuvers.

The opposite of conventional warfare, unconventional warfare, is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.

Nuclear warfare is warfare in which nuclear weapons are the primary, or a major, method of coercing the capitulation of the other side, as opposed to a supporting tactical or strategic role in a conventional conflict.

Civil war is a war where the forces in conflict belong to the same nation or political entity and are vying for control of or independence from that nation or political entity.

Asymmetric warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military capability or size. Asymmetric conflicts often result in guerrilla tactics being used to overcome the sometimes vast gaps in technology and force size.

Intentional air pollution in combat is one of a collection of techniques collectively called chemical warfare. Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World War I, and resulted in an estimated 91,198 deaths and 1,205,655 injuries.^{[citation needed]} Various treaties have sought to ban its further use. Non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear gas and pepper spray, are widely used, sometimes with deadly effect.

Warfare environment[link]

The environment in which a war is fought has a significant impact on the type of combat which takes place, and can include within its area different types of terrain. This, in turn, means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific types of environments and terrains that generally reflects troops' mobility limitations or enablers. These include:

British paratroopers inside one of the C-47 transport aircraft, September 1944 Warfare by objective: Defensive warfare Offensive warfare Warfare by doctrine: Attrition warfare/Fabian warfare Maneuver warfare Guerilla warfare Static warfare/Positional warfare Insurgency warfare Counterinsurgency warfare U.S. Marine Raiders gathered in front of a Japanese dugout, January 1944 Warfare by terrain: Jungle warfare Desert warfare Mountain warfare Arctic warfare Naval warfare Littoral warfare Urban warfare Amphibious Warfare

Behaviour and conduct in war[link]

The behaviour of troops in warfare varies considerably, both individually and as units or armies. In some circumstances, troops may engage in genocide, war rape and ethnic cleansing. Commonly, however, the conduct of troops may be limited to posturing and sham attacks, leading to highly rule-bound and often largely symbolic combat in which casualties are much reduced from that which would be expected if soldiers were genuinely violent towards the enemy.^[35] Situations of deliberate dampening of hostilities occurred in World War I by some accounts, e.g., a volley of gunfire being exchanged after a misplaced mortar hit the British line, after which a German soldier shouted an apology to British forces, effectively stopping a hostile exchange of gunfire.^[36] Other examples of non-aggression, also from World War I, are detailed in "Good-Bye to All That." These include spontaneous ceasefires to rebuild defences and retrieve casualties, alongside behaviour such as refusing to shoot at enemy during ablutions and the taking of great risks (described as 1 in 20) to retrieve enemy wounded from the battlefield. The most notable spontaneous ceasefire of World War I was the Christmas truce.

The psychological separation between combatants, and the destructive power of modern weaponry, may act to override this effect and facilitate participation by combatants in the mass slaughter of combatants or civilians, such as in the bombing of Dresden in World War II.^{[citation needed]} The unusual circumstances of warfare can incite apparently normal individuals to commit atrocities.^[37]

Effects of war[link]

Nations customarily measure the ‘costs of war’ in dollars, lost production, or the number of soldiers killed or wounded. Rarely do military establishments attempt to measure the costs of war in terms of individual human suffering. Psychiatric breakdown remains one of the most costly items of war when expressed in human terms.

—No More Heroes, Richard Gabriel^[16]

Disability-adjusted life year for war per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.^[38]

  no data

  less than 100

  100-200

  200-600

  600-1000

  1000-1400

  1400-1800

  1800-2200

  2200-2600

  2600-3000

  3000-8000

  8000-8800

  more than 8800

The Apotheosis of War (1871) by Vasily Vereshchagin

On soldiers[link]

Soldiers subject to combat in war often suffer psychological and physical casualties, including depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, disease, injury, and death.

In every war in which American soldiers have fought in, the chances of becoming a psychiatric casualty – of being debilitated for some period of time as a consequence of the stresses of military life – were greater than the chances of being killed by enemy fire.

—No More Heroes, Richard Gabriel^[16]

During World War II, research conducted by US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall found that, on average, only 15% to 20% of American riflemen in WWII combat fired at the enemy.^[35] In Civil War Collector’s Encyclopedia, F.A. Lord notes that of the 27,574 discarded muskets found on the Gettysburg battlefield, nearly 90% were loaded, with 12,000 loaded more than once and 6,000 loaded 3 to 10 times. These studies suggest that most soldiers resist firing their weapons in combat, that- as some theorists argue- human beings have an inherent resistance to killing their fellow human beings.^[35] Swank and Marchand’s WWII study found that after sixty days of continuous combat, 98% of all surviving soldiers will become psychiatric casualties. Psychiatric casualties manifest themselves in fatigue cases, confusional states, conversion hysteria, anxiety, obsessional and compulsive states, and character disorders.^[35]

One-tenth of mobilised American men were hospitalised for mental disturbances between 1942 and 1945, and after thirty-five days of uninterrupted combat, 98% of them manifested psychiatric disturbances in varying degrees.

—14–18: Understanding the Great War, Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau, Annette Becker^[16]

Additionally, it has been estimated that anywhere from 18% to 54% of Vietnam war veterans suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.^[35]

Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white American males aged 13 to 43 died in the American Civil War, including about 6% in the North and approximately 18% in the South.^[39] The war remains the deadliest conflict in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers. United States military casualties of war since 1775 have totaled over two million. Of the 60 million European soldiers who were mobilized in World War I, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.^[40]

Why?, from The Disasters of War (Los desastres de la guerra), by Francisco Goya, 1812-15. A collection of depictions of the brutalities of the Napoleonic-Peninsular War.

During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French soldiers died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.^[41] Felix Markham thinks that 450,000 crossed the Neman on 25 June 1812, of whom less than 40,000 recrossed in anything like a recognizable military formation.^[42] More soldiers were killed from 1500-1914 by typhus than from all military action during that time combined.^[43] In addition, if it were not for the modern medical advances there would be thousands of more dead from disease and infection. For instance, during the Seven Years' War, the Royal Navy reported that it conscripted 184,899 sailors, of whom 133,708 died of disease or were 'missing'.^[44]

Les Grandes Misères de la guerre depict the destruction unleashed on civilians during the Thirty Years' War.

It is estimated that 378 000 people died due to war each year between 1985 and 1994.^[45]

On civilians[link]

Many wars have been accompanied by significant depopulations, along with destruction of infrastructure and resources (which may lead to famine, disease, and death in the civilian population). Civilians in war zones may also be subject to war atrocities such as genocide, while survivors may suffer the psychological aftereffects of witnessing the destruction of war. During the Thirty Years' War in Europe, for example, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%.^[46][47] The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.^[48]

Estimates for the total casualties of World War II vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, comprising around 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.^[49] The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, about half of all World War II casualties.^[50] Since a high proportion of those killed were young men, the postwar Soviet population was 45 to 50 million fewer than post–1939 projections would have led one to expect.^[51] The largest number of civilian deaths in a single city was 1.2 million citizens dead during the 872-day Siege of Leningrad.

On the economy[link]

Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay war reparations to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions.

Typically speaking, war becomes very intertwined with the economy and many wars are partially or entirely based on economic reasons such as the American Civil War. In some cases war has stimulated a country's economy (World War II is often credited with bringing America out of the Great Depression) but in many cases, such as the wars of Louis XIV, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, warfare serves only to damage the economy of the countries involved. For example, Russia's involvement in World War I took such a toll on the Russian economy that it almost collapsed and greatly contributed to the start of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

World War II[link]

One of the starkest illustrations of the effect of war upon economies is the Second World War. The Great Depression of the 1930s ended as nations increased their production of war materials to serve the war effort.^[52] The financial cost of World War II is estimated at about a trillion U.S. dollars worldwide,^[53][54] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives.

By the end of the war, the European economy had collapsed with 70% of the industrial infrastructure destroyed.^[55] Property damage in the Soviet Union inflicted by the Axis invasion was estimated to a value of 679 billion rubles. The combined damage consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, 2,508 church buildings, 31,850 industrial establishments, 40,000 miles of railroad, 4100 railroad stations, 40,000 hospitals, 84,000 schools, and 43,000 public libraries.^[56]

Factors ending a war[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010)

Women and priests retrieve the dead bodies of Swabian soldiers just outside the city gates of Constance after the battle of Schwaderloh. (Luzerner Schilling)

The political and economic circumstances, in the peace that follows war, usually depend on the facts on the ground. Where evenly matched adversaries decide that the conflict has resulted in a stalemate, they may cease hostilities to avoid further loss of life and property. They may decide to restore the antebellum territorial boundaries, redraw boundaries at the line of military control, or negotiate to keep or exchange captured territory. Negotiations between parties involved at the end of a war often result in a treaty, such as the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which ended the First World War.

A warring party that surrenders or capitulates may have little negotiating power, with the victorious side either imposing a settlement or dictating most of the terms of any treaty. A common result is that conquered territory is brought under the dominion of the stronger military power. An unconditional surrender is made in the face of overwhelming military force as an attempt to prevent further harm to life and property. For example, the Empire of Japan gave an unconditional surrender to the Allies of World War II after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see Surrender of Japan), the preceding massive strategic bombardment of Japan and declaration of war and the immediate invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union. A settlement or surrender may also be obtained through deception or bluffing.

Many other wars, however, have ended in complete destruction of the opposing territory, such as the Battle of Carthage of the Third Punic War between the Phoenician city of Carthage and Ancient Rome in 149 BC. In 146 BC the Romans burned the city, enslaved its citizens, and razed the buildings.

Some wars or aggressive actions end when the military objective of the victorious side has been achieved. Others do not, especially in cases where the state structures do not exist, or have collapsed prior to the victory of the conqueror. In such cases, disorganised guerilla warfare may continue for a considerable period. In cases of complete surrender conquered territories may be brought under the permanent dominion of the victorious side. A raid for the purposes of looting may be completed with the successful capture of goods. In other cases an aggressor may decide to end hostilities to avoid continued losses and cease hostilities without obtaining the original objective, such as happened in the Iran–Iraq War.

Some hostilities, such as insurgency or civil war, may persist for long periods of time with only a low level of military activity. In some cases there is no negotiation of any official treaty, but fighting may trail off and eventually stop after the political demands of the belligerent groups have been reconciled, a political settlement has been negotiated, the combatants are gradually killed or decide the conflict is futile, or the belligerents cease active military engagement but still threatens each other. An example is the Chinese Civil War which essentially ceased by 1950 but the People's Republic of China fought diplomatically to isolate Taiwan, but it still threatens Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) with an invasion. For this reason, some historians consider the war not ended but continuing.

List of ongoing wars[link]

This article is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (May 2011)

Conflicts in the following list are currently causing at least 1,000 violent deaths per year, a categorization used by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program^[57] and recognised by the United Nations.^[58][59] The UN also use the term "low intensity conflict," which can overlap with the 1,000 violent deaths per year categorisation.^[60]

Start of conflict	War/conflict	Location	Cumulative fatalities	Fatalities in 2010/11
1964	Colombian Armed Conflict	Colombia	50,000+	1,000+[61]
1967	Naxalite-Maoist insurgency	India	~11,200	1,174+[62]
1978	Afghan Civil war	Afghanistan	600,000–2,000,000[citation needed]	10,461+ [63]
1991	Somali Civil War	Somalia	300,000[64]–400,000[65]	2,318+[66]
2004	War in North-West Pakistan	Pakistan	30,452[67]	7,435[68]
2004	Shia Insurgency in Yemen	Yemen and  Saudi Arabia	25,000[69]	8,000
2006	Mexican Drug War	Mexico	39,392+[70]	24,374[71]
2009	Sudanese nomadic conflicts	Sudan	2,000–2,500[72]	708
2011	Sudan–SPLM-N conflict	Sudan	1,500+	1,500+[citation needed]
2011	2011 Syrian uprising	Syria	3,000+[73]	3,000+

Efforts to stop wars[link]

Execution at Verdun at the time of the mutinies of 1917, when parts of the French Army refused to conduct further offensive operations.

Anti-war movements have existed for every major war in the 20th century, including, most prominently, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. In the 21st century, worldwide anti-war movements occurred ever since the United States declared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2001, the US government decided to invade Afghanistan to fight against international terrorism that caused the September 11 attacks. Opposition to the War in Afghanistan spread all over the world. Protests occurred in cities in Europe, Asia, and all over the United States, criticizing its ineffectiveness and illegitimacy. However, they did not stop the US engagement in the war. As of now, the public view worldwide does not seem to favor the war. Organizations like Stop the War Coalition, based in the United Kingdom, keep working on campaigning against the War. They raise awareness of the war, organize demonstrations, and lobby the governments.^[74]

There also exist significant worldwide opposition to the Iraq War. The US engaged in the war to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqi government allegedly had developed. Critics oppose the war based on the argument of violation of sovereignty, civilian deaths, absence of the UN approval, and lack of justification. However, they did not stop the involvement again. Since then, the US government has been harshly criticized by the public, domestically and internationally, for its conduct during the war, especially in the killings of civilians. Even though the government has been counting the US soldiers up until now, they have refused to release numbers on the civilian deaths.^[75] Individual projects like Iraq Body Count project tries to reveal the actual number of deaths from the war based on journalistic data, showing the civilian effort to face the truth of war.

The Mexican Drug War, with estimated casualties of 40,000 since December 2006, has been recently facing a fundamental opposition.^[76] In 2011, the movement for peace and justice has started a popular middle-class movement against the war. It has won the recognition of President Calderon, who started the war, but has not ended it.^[77]

Governments also use the method of disarmament to stop and prevent the cost of war.

Motivations[link]

There is no scholarly agreement on which are the most common motivations for war.^[78] Motivations may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For example, in the Third Punic War, Rome's leaders may have wished to make war with Carthage for the purpose of eliminating a resurgent rival, while the individual soldiers may have been motivated by a wish to make money. Since many people are involved, a war may acquire a life of its own from the confluence of many different motivations.

The Jewish Talmud describes in the BeReshit Rabbah commentary on the fight between Cain and Abel (Parashot BeReshit XXII:7) that there are three universal reasons for wars: A) Economic, B) Ideological/religious, and C) Power/pride/love (personal).^[79]

The Ottoman campaign for territorial expansion in Europe in 1566, Crimean Tatars as vanguard. The Tatars essentially sought booty, especially slaves.

In Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger, the author points out that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. He also states that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties and costs), and on misperceptions of the enemy's intentions.

As the strategic and tactical aspects of warfare are always changing, theories and doctrines relating to warfare are often reformulated before, during, and after every major war. Carl Von Clausewitz said, 'Every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.' ^[80] The one constant factor is war’s employment of organized violence and the resultant destruction of property and/ or lives that necessarily follows.

Psychoanalytic psychology[link]

Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo held that, "War is often...a mass discharge of accumulated internal rage (where)...the inner fears of mankind are discharged in mass destruction."^[81] Thus war can sometimes be a means by which man's own frustration at his inability to master his own self is expressed and temporarily relieved via his unleashing of destructive behavior upon others. In this destructive scenario, these others are made to serve as the scapegoat of man's own unspoken and subconscious frustrations and fears.

Other psychoanalysts such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings are inherently violent.^[82] This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers his or her grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed and predetermined by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it.

The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, thought that war was the paranoid or projective “elaboration” of mourning.^[83] Fornari thought that war and violence develop out of our “love need”: our wish to preserve and defend the sacred object to which we are attached, namely our early mother and our fusion with her. For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation.

Despite Fornari's theory that man's altruistic desire for self-sacrifice for a noble cause is a contributing factor towards war, in history only a tiny fraction of wars have originated from a desire for war from the general populace.^[84] Far more often the general population has been reluctantly drawn into war by its rulers. One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh.^[85] He argues that the general populace is more neutral towards war and that wars only occur when leaders with a psychologically abnormal disregard for human life are placed into power. War is caused by leaders that seek war such as Napoleon and Hitler. Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. – Hermann Göring at the Nuremberg trials, April 18, 1946^[86]

Evolutionary theories[link]

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2011)

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Several theories concern the evolutionary origins of warfare. There are two main schools one sees organized warfare as emerging only in the mesolithic, as a result of the emergence of complex social organization, higher population density and political organization and competition over resources. The other school tends to see human warfare simply as an extension of animal behavior, such as territoriality and sexual competition.^[87]

This school argues that since organized warlike behavior patterns are also found in many other primate species such as chimpanzees,^[88] as well as in many ant species,^[89] this suggests that between group conflict is a general feature of animal social behavior. Biologists studying primate behavior have added to the debate, documenting warlike activities among several primate species and seeing similarities to humans.^[90] Others argue that while war may be a natural phenomenon, the development of technology and complex social organization has accelerated the scale of warfare to exceptional levels among modern humans, starting at some point in the mesolithic, and escalating with the development of weaponry and large-scale state formations.^[91]

Dayak headhunters in Borneo, ca. 1927

One line of evidence for violent conflict among the ancestors of humans is sexual dimorphism. In species that have high levels of male competition over females, males tend to be larger and stronger than females. Humans have considerable sexual dimorphism, although lower than our nearest primate relatives.^[92] The strength difference is greater for upper-body strength than for lower-body strength. Men are in general terms also larger, faster, and more aggressive. Their skeleton, especially in the vulnerable face, is more robust. This suggests that male competition has been an important factor in human evolution.^[93]

Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that raiding or warfare between groups of humans in the ancestral environment was often beneficial for the victors. This includes gaining control over scarce resources as well as the women of the defeated or raided group. Various features of modern warfare such as alliances between groups and preemptive wars were likely part of these conflicts. In order to have a credible deterrence against other groups (as well as on an individual level), it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting a group's (or an individual's) reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of warfare and violence compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely important.

Ashley Montagu strongly denied universalistic instinctual arguments, arguing that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus, he argues, while human aggression may be a universal occurrence, warfare is not, and would appear to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies.^[94] This argument has been supported by ethnographic research conducted in societies where the concept of aggression seems to be entirely absent, e.g., the Chewong of the Malay peninsula.^[95] Crofoot and Wrangham have instead argued that warfare, if defined as group interactions in which "coalitions attempt to aggressively dominate or kill members of other groups", is a characteristic of most human societies. Those in which it has been lacking "tend to be societies that were politically dominated by their neighbors".^[96]

Economic theories[link]

Kuwaiti oil wells on fire, during the Gulf War, 1 March 1991

War can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resources and for wealth. While this theory has been applied to many conflicts, such counter arguments become less valid as the increasing mobility of capital and information level the distributions of wealth worldwide, or when considering that it is relative, not absolute, wealth differences that may fuel wars. There are those on the extreme right of the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of a strong nation to whatever the weak cannot hold by force.^[97][98] Some centrist, capitalist, world leaders, including Presidents of the United States and US Generals, expressed support for an economic view of war.

Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? – Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis.^[99]

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. – Major General Smedley Butler (simultaneously the highest ranking and most decorated United States Marine (including two Medals of Honor) and Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate) 1935.^[100]

For the corporation executives, the military metaphysic often coincides with their interest in a stable and planned flow of profit; it enables them to have their risk underwritten by public money; it enables them reasonably to expect that they can exploit for private profit now and later, the risky research developments paid for by public money. It is, in brief, a mask of the subsidized capitalism from which they extract profit and upon which their power is based. – C. Wright Mills, Causes of World War 3, 1960.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. – Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.

Marxist theories[link]

The Marxist theory of war is quasi-economic in that it states that all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of the free market and class system. Part of the theory is that war will only disappear once a world revolution, over-throwing free markets and class systems, has occurred. German Marxist Rosa Luxembourg theorized that imperialism was the result of capitalist countries needing new markets. Expansion of the means of production is only possible if there is a corresponding growth in consumer demand. Since the workers in a capitalist economy would be unable to fill the demand, producers must expand into non-capitalist markets to find consumers for their goods, hence driving imperialism.^[101]

Demographic theories[link]

Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian theories and youth bulge theories.

Malthusian theories[link]

US Army soldiers in Somalia, 1993

Malthusian theories see expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict.

Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, spoke:

For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.^[102]

This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.^[103]

This theory is thought by Malthusians to account for the relative decrease in wars during the past fifty years, especially in the developed world, where advances in agriculture have made it possible to support a much larger population than was formerly the case, and where birth control has dramatically slowed the increase in population.

Youth bulge theory[link]

Median age by country. A youth bulge is evident for Africa, and to a lesser extent for South and Southeast Asia and Central America.

Youth bulge theory differs significantly from Malthusian theories. Its adherents see a combination of large male youth cohorts – as graphically represented as a "youth bulge" in a population pyramid – with a lack of regular, peaceful employment opportunities as a risk pool for violence.

While Malthusian theories focus on a disparity between a growing population and available natural resources, youth bulge theory focuses on a disparity between non-inheriting, 'excess' young males and available social positions within the existing social system of division of labour.

Contributors to the development of youth bulge theory include French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul,^[104] U.S. sociologist Jack A. Goldstone,^[105] U.S. political scientist Gary Fuller,^{[106][107][108]} and German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn.^[109] Samuel Huntington has modified his Clash of Civilizations theory by using youth bulge theory as its foundation:

I don't think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. But the key factor is the demographic factor. Generally speaking, the people who go out and kill other people are males between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s there were high birth rates in the Muslim world, and this has given rise to a huge youth bulge. But the bulge will fade. Muslim birth rates are going down; in fact, they have dropped dramatically in some countries. Islam did spread by the sword originally, but I don't think there is anything inherently violent in Muslim theology.^[110]

Youth Bulge theories represent a relatively recent development but seem to have become more influential in guiding U.S. foreign policy and military strategy as both Goldstone and Fuller have acted as consultants to the U.S. Government. CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to youth bulge theory in his 2002 report "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change".^[111]

Palestinian militant with rifle, 2009

According to Heinsohn, who has proposed youth bulge theory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility rates as high as 4-8 children per woman with a 15-29 year delay.

A total fertility rate of 2.1 children born by a woman during her lifetime represents a situation of in which the son will replace the father, and the daughter will replace the mother accounting for a small proportion of deaths to factors such as illness and accidents. Thus, a total fertility rate of 2.1 represents replacement level, while anything below represents a sub-replacement fertility rate leading to population decline.

Total fertility rates above 2.1 will lead to population growth and to a youth bulge. A total fertility rate of 4-8 children per mother implies 2-4 sons per mother. Consequently, one father has to leave not 1, but 2 to 4 social positions (jobs) to give all his sons a perspective for life, which is usually hard to achieve. Since respectable positions cannot be increased at the same speed as food, textbooks and vaccines, many "angry young men" find themselves in a situation that tends to escalate their adolescent anger into violence: they are

1. Demographically superfluous,
2. Might be out of work or stuck in a menial job, and
3. Often have no access to a legal sex life before a career can earn them enough to provide for a family. See: Hypergamy, Waithood.

The combination of these stress factors according to Heinsohn^[112] usually heads for one of six different exits:

Mexican soldiers detain cartel suspects in Michoacán, 2007

1. Emigration ("non violent colonization")
2. Violent Crime
3. Rebellion or putsch
4. Civil war and/or revolution
5. Genocide (to take over the positions of the slaughtered)
6. Conquest (violent colonization, frequently including genocide abroad).

Religions and ideologies are seen as secondary factors that are being used to legitimate violence, but will not lead to violence by themselves if no youth bulge is present. Consequently, youth bulge theorists see both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism and today's "Islamist" civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges.^[113] With the Gaza Strip now being seen as another example of youth-bulge-driven violence, especially if compared to Lebanon which is geographically close, yet remarkably more peaceful.^[114]

Among prominent historical events that have been linked to the existence of youth bulges is the role played by the historically large youth cohorts in the rebellion and revolution waves of early modern Europe, including French Revolution of 1789,^[115] and the importance of economic depression hitting the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.^[116] The 1994 Rwandan Genocide has also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.^[117]

While the implications of population growth have been known since the completion of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974,^[118] neither the U.S. nor the WHO have implemented the recommended measures to control population growth to avert the terrorist threat. Prominent demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of the Catholic Church.^[119]

Youth Bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank,^[120] Population Action International,^[121] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development.^[122] Detailed demographic data for most countries is available at the international database of the United States Census Bureau.^[123] Statistic data about historical development of demographic and economic parameters over the last 200 years for each country can be visualized at Gapminder.^[124]

Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age "discrimination".^[125]

Rationalist theories[link]

Rationalist theories of war assume that both sides to a potential war are rational, which is to say that each side wants to get the best possible outcome for itself for the least possible loss of life and property to its own side. Given this assumption, if both countries knew in advance how the war would turn out, it would be better for both of them to just accept the post-war outcome without having to actually pay the costs of fighting the war. This is based on the notion, generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Carl von Clausewitz, that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. Rationalist theory offers three reasons why some countries cannot find a bargain and instead resort to war: issue indivisibility, information asymmetry with incentive to deceive, and the inability to make credible commitments.^[126]

U.S. Marines direct a concentration of fire at the enemy, Vietnam, 8 May 1968

Issue indivisibility occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, only owned entirely by one side or the other. Religious issues, such as control over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, are more likely to be indivisible than economic issues.

A bigger branch of the theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, is that both sides decide to go to war and one side may have miscalculated.

Some go further and say that there is a problem of information asymmetry with incentives to misrepresent. The two countries may not agree on who would win a war between them, or whether victory would be overwhelming or merely eked out, because each side has military secrets about its own capabilities. They will not avoid the bargaining failure by sharing their secrets, since they cannot trust each other not to lie and exaggerate their strength to extract more concessions. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely, partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.

The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces.

Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.^[127] In this scenario, the two countries might be able to come to a bargain that would avert war if they could stick to it, but the benefits of the bargain will make one side more powerful and lead it to demand even more in the future, so that the weaker side has an incentive to make a stand now.

Rationalist explanations of war can be critiqued on a number of grounds. The assumptions of cost-benefit calculations become dubious in the most extreme genocidal cases of World War II, where the only bargain offered in some cases was infinitely bad. Rationalist theories typically assume that the state acts as a unitary individual, doing what is best for the state as a whole; this is problematic when, for example, the country's leader is beholden to a very small number of people, as in a personalistic dictatorship. Rationalist theory also assumes that the actors are rational, able to accurately assess their likelihood of success or failure, but the proponents of the psychological theories above would disagree.

Rationalist theories are usually explicated with game theory, for example, the Peace War Game, not a wargame as such, rather a simulation of economic decisions underlying war.

Political science theories[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.

There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for security. Which sometimes is argued to contradict the realist view, that there is much empirical evidence to support the claim that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea that has come to be known as the democratic peace theory. Other factors included are difference in moral and religious beliefs, economical and trade disagreements, declaring independence, and others.

Another major theory relating to power in international relations and machtpolitik is the Power Transition theory, which distributes the world into a hierarchy and explains major wars as part of a cycle of hegemons being destabilized by a great power which does not support the hegemons' control.

Military adventurism can sometimes be used by political leaders as a means of boosting their domestic popularity, as has been recorded in US war-time presidential popularity surveys taken during the presidencies of several recent US leaders.^[128]

War ethics[link]

Morning after the Battle of Waterloo, by John Heaviside Clarke, 1816

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (January 2010)

The seeming contradiction between warfare and morality has led to serious moral questions, which have been the subject of debate for thousands of years.^[129] The debate, generally speaking, has two main viewpoints: Pacifists, who believe that war is inherently immoral and therefore is never justified regardless of circumstances, and those who believe that war is sometimes necessary and can be moral.

There are two different aspects to ethics in war, according to the most prominent and influential thought on justice and war: The Just War Theory.^[130][131] First is Jus ad bellum (literally translated as "right to war"), which dictates which unfriendly acts and circumstances justify a proper authority in declaring war on another nation. There are six main criteria for the declaration of a just war: first, any just war must be declared by a lawful authority; second, it must be a just and righteous cause, with sufficient gravity to merit large-scale violence; third, the just belligerent must have rightful intentions – namely, that they seek to advance good and curtail evil; fourth, a just belligerent must have a reasonable chance of success; fifth, the war must be a last resort; and sixth, the ends being sought must be proportional to means being used.^[132][133]

Once a just war has been declared, the second standard, or aspect, is put into effect. Jus in bello, which literally translates to "right in war", are the ethical rules of conduct when conducting war. The two main principles in jus in bello are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered.^[134] The principle of Discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not.^[134] Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the just war belligerent, and so thereby forfeit the moral right and justice of their cause.^[131]

In besieged Leningrad. "Hitler ordered that Moscow and Leningrad were to be razed to the ground; their inhabitants were to be annihilated or driven out by starvation. These intentions were part of the 'General Plan East'." —The Oxford Companion to World War II.^[135]

The Just War standard is as old as Western Civilization itself, and still has significant impact on thinking about the morality of wars and violence today.^[136] Just War Theory was foundational in the creation of the United Nations and in International Law's regulations on legitimate war.^[129]

These two positions generally cover the broad philosophical and ethical bents mainstream society. However, there are several theories on and about War which are in the minority in culture, but which, because of the influence they have had in recent history, demand mention here. These strains of thought on human society and war can be broken up into two main camps: Marxist and Fascist, both of which view war as purely practical.

Marxism, and other such historicist ideals, hold that history advances through a set of dialectics (as stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus: thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Marx, and his followers, in particular held that history advances through violence. Marxism-Leninism, in fact, held the belief that outright incitement to violence and war was necessary to topple Capitalism and free the proletariat. In these theories, the question of ethics has no place, as the value of the war is entirely dependent on whether it advances the revolution or synthesis.

Fascism, and the ideals it encompasses, such as Pragmatism, Racism, and Social Darwinism, hold that violence is good.^[137][138] Pragmatism holds that war and violence can be good if it serves the ends of the people, without regard for universal morality. Racism holds that violence is good so that a master race can be established, or to purge an inferior race from the earth, or both. Social Darwinism thinks that violence is sometimes necessary to weed the unfit from society so that civilization can flourish. These are broad archetypes for the general position that the ends justify the means.

See also[link]

War portal

	Book: War
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

General reference

War-related lists

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: War

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Warfare

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: War

• Correlates of War Project
• Correlates of War 2
• Antiwar.com
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
• Complex Emergency Database (CE-DAT) – A database on the human impact of conflicts and other complex emergencies.
• The Art of the War
• World War I primary source collection
• Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
• International humanitarian law – International Committee of the Red Cross website
• Customary international humanitarian law International Committee of the Red Cross
• International humanitarian law database – Treaties and States Parties
• Customary IHL Database

War in North-West Pakistan
Part of the War on Terror
Saltar a: navegación, buscar
Date March 16, 2004 – ongoing (&100000000000000080000008 years, &1000000000000009800000098 days) Location Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as NWFP) in Pakistan Status Ongoing Ongoing insurgency Large part of FATA under Taliban control Shifting public support for the Pakistani government Drone strikes being conducted by CIA.
Belligerents
Pakistan Pakistan Army Pakistan Air Force ISI Frontier Corps 26px Frontier Constabulary Militias  United States U.S. Air Force CIA	Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan TNSM Al-Qaeda Lashkar-e-Islam Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Ghazi Force[1]
Commanders and leaders
Pervez Musharraf (former) Asif Ali Zardari Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Ahmad Shuja Pasha Nadeem Taj Masood Aslam Asif Yasin Malik Tariq Khan Alam Khattak Ghayur Mahmood Nadir Zeb Javed Iqbal Ashfaq Nadeem Ahmad Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed Rao Qamar Suleman Haroon Islam  † Barack Obama George W. Bush Michael Mullen	Hakimullah Mehsud Baitullah Mehsud  † Hafiz Gul Bahadur Faqir Mohammed  † Maulana Fazlullah Nek Muhammad Wazir  † Osama bin Laden † Ilyas Kashmiri † Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim † Atiyah Abd al-Rahman † Abu Laith al-Libi † Mangal Bagh Abdul Rashid Ghazi  † Abdul Aziz Ghazi Sufi Muhammad Nasib Zada  †[2] Sheikh Fateh  †[3]
Strength
Pakistan 140,000 Pakistani troops[4] Unknown no of F-16 Fighter aircraft[5] ~10,000 Frontier Corps United States UAV drones CIA operatives U.S. Special Forces[6]	20,000 Hakimullah Mehsud's Taliban[7] 4,500~ TNSM militia 7,000~ TTP militia 500~ Al-Qaeda militia[8]
Casualties and losses
Pakistan: 3,946 security forces members killed[9] (3,097 soldiers[10]) 8,671 soldiers wounded[11] 857+ soldiers and policemen captured (558 released) Tribes: 235+ killed,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] United States: 15 soldiers killed[20]	Over 17,000 militants killed or captured (as of February 2010)[21]
Over 3.44 million civilians displaced[22] 40,309 total killed[10] (11 Frenchmen, 4 Chinese, 3 Americans, 1 Czech, 1 Dane, 1 Pole, 1 Turk and 1 Vietnamese)[23][24][25]

The War in North-West Pakistan is an armed conflict between the Pakistan Armed Forces and armed religious groups such as the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Islam, TNSM, Arab, and Central Asian militants including Al-Qaeda, regional armed movements, and elements of organized crime.^[26][27][28]

The armed conflict began in 2004 when tensions, rooted in the Pakistan Army's search for Al-Qaeda fighters in Pakistan's mountainous Waziristan area (in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas), escalated into armed resistance.^[29] Pakistan's actions were presented as its contribution to the international War on Terror.^[30][31] Clashes erupted between Pakistani army troops and Arab and Central Asian militia forces. The foreign militants were joined by Pakistani non-military veterans of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) which subsequently established the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and other militia organizations such as Lashkar-e-Islam. The Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TSNM) established in 1992 allied with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Islam.

Background[link]

In the aftermath of Battle of Tora Bora, formal deployment was begun by the Pakistan Army, at the request of the Pakistan Government, in 2002. The XI Corps, under its core-commander Lieutenant-General Ali Jan Aurakzai. The XI Corps entered the Tirah Valley in the Khyber Agency for the first time since Pakistan independence in 1947. The troops later moved into the Shawal Valley of North Waziristan, and eventually South Waziristan. The Naval Special Service Group established a reconnaissance base and began to monitor suspicious activities in the area. The troubles mounted as the Tribes began to see Army's deployment and repeated Air Force's flights in the region as an act of subjugation.

In December 2003, two assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf were traced to Waziristan. The government responded by intensifying military pressure on the area, however the fighting was costly and government forces sustained heavy casualties throughout 2004 and into early 2005 when the government switched to a tactic of negotiation instead of direct conflict.^[32]

Fighting breaks out[link]

On March 16, 2004, a bloody mountainous battle between Pakistan Army and the combined Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters ensued. The media speculated that Pakistan Armed Forces had surrounded a "high value target" in the mountainous region, possibly Al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri. The battle was concluded after the Army had captured the entire mountainous region, along with hundreds of Al-Qaeda fighters. However, the Army failed to capture Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Peace deals[link]

In April 2004, the Government of Pakistan signed the first of three peace agreements with militants in South Waziristan. It was signed by militia commander Nek Muhammad Wazir, but was immediately abrogated once Nek Muhammad was killed by an American Hellfire missile in June 2004.^[26] The second was signed in February 2005 with Nek's successor Baitullah Mehsud, which brought relative calm in the South Waziristan region. This deal would later, in September 2006, be mimicked in the neighboring North Waziristan territory as the third and final truce between the government and the militants. However, all of these truces would not have a substantial effect in reducing bloodshed.^[32] The latter two deals were officially broken in August 2007 with the Lal Masjid siege, which saw a tenfold increase in suicide attacks on Pakistani forces.^[29]

2005–2006[link]

Map showing the districts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) FATA and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan.

On May 4, 2005, Pakistani commandos captured Abu Faraj al-Libbi after a raid outside the town of Mardan, 30 miles (48 km) northeast of Peshawar. Abu Farraj al-Libbi was a high ranking al-Qaeda official, rumored to be third after Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Libbi replaced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after his arrest in March 2003 in connection with the September 11 attacks. The Pakistani government arrested al-Libbi and held him on charges in relation to being a chief planner in two assassination attempts on the life of President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003.^[33]

On January 13, 2006, the U.S. launched an airstrike on the village of Damadola. The attack occurred in the Bajaur tribal area, about 7 km (4.3 mi) from the Afghan border, and killed at least 18 people. The attack again targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, but later evidence suggests he was not there.

Ceasefire[link]

On June 21, 2006, pro-Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan militants in the Bannu region of North Waziristan stated they shot down a Bell military helicopter that was reported to have crashed. The government denied missile fire as the cause, stating it was due to technical faults. The helicopter had taken off from a base camp in Bannu at around 7 am for Miramshah and crashed 15 minutes later into the Baran Dam in the Mohmandkhel area on Wednesday morning. Four soldiers were killed while three others were rescued. On the same day militants killed an inspector and two constables on a road connecting Bannu and the main town of Miranshah.^[34]

On June 21, 2006, Afghan Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani issued a decree that it was not (Afghan) Taliban policy to fight the Pakistan Army. However, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan intentionally did not circulate the decree in North Waziristan thereby keeping pressure on the government.^[35]

Waziristan peace accord signed[link]

On September 5, 2006, the Waziristan Accord, an agreement between tribal leaders and the Pakistani government was signed in Miranshah, North Waziristan.^[36] to end all fighting. The agreement includes the following provisions:^[37]

• The Pakistani Army will help reconstruct infrastructure in tribal areas of North and South Waziristan.
• The Pakistani Military will not tolerate any assistance to intruders in North Waziristan, and will monitor actions in the region.
• The Pakistan government is to compensate tribal leaders for the loss of life and property of innocent tribesmen.
• “Foreigners” (informally understood to be foreign jihadists) are not allowed to use Pakistani territory for any terrorist activity anywhere in the world.
• 2,500 foreigners who were originally held on suspicion of having links to the Taliban^[38] were to be detained for necessary action against them.

The agreement, dubbed the Waziristan accord, has been viewed by some political commentators as a success for Pakistan.^[39] Others were far more critical, seeing it as allowing militants to regroup and reorganize after military operations.^[29]

Madrassa air strike[link]

On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani army conducted an air strike against a madrassa in the Bajaur region bordering Afghanistan. The madrassa was destroyed killing 70 to 80 people.

In retaliation for the attack the militants conducted a suicide bombing on an army camp on November 8, 2006, killing 42 Pakistani soldiers and wounding 20.

2007[link]

In March, Pakistan signed a peace treaty with Faqir Mohammed, the main militant leader in Bajaur.^[40][41] Militant groups now held three districts in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas: South Waziristan, North Waziristan and Bajaur Agency.^[42]

Waziri-Uzbek tensions[link]

Reportedly, the fighting sparked by the killing of Saiful Adil, an al-Qaeda-linked Arab, blamed on the Uzbeks by Maulvi Nazir, described as a top pro-Taliban militant commander in the region. According to the other version, fighting started after Mullah Nazir, whom the government claimed had come over to its side, ordered the Uzbek followers of Tohir Yo‘ldosh, formerly a close confidant of Osama bin Laden, to disarm. It was also preceded by the clashes between the IMU and a pro-government tribal leader in Azam Warsak, in which 17 to 19 people died before a ceasefire was announced.^[43]

Defeat of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan[link]

Local militants allied to the tribesmen were reported attacking and seizing the IMU's private jail in Azam Warsak. The Pakistan Army said it did not intend to step in, but witnesses say government artillery fired on the Uzbek bunkers they set up to fight the tribesmen.

Heavy fighting resumed on March 29, ending a week-long ceasefire between tribal fighters and foreign militants. According to initial reports, tribesmen attacked a checkpoint manned by Uzbek militants and captured two of them. The clashes also left one tribal fighter dead and three wounded. The following day, a senior Pakistani official announced that 52 people were killed during the past two days, 45 of them Uzbeks and the rest tribesmen. One of Maulvi Nazir's aides put the death toll at 35 Uzbeks and 10 tribal fighters. However, residents in the area said that the death toll on both sides was inflated.

The conflict further escalated on April 2 when a council of elders declared jihad against foreign militants and started to raise an army of tribesmen. According to Pakistani security officials, heavy fighting concentrated in the village of Doza Ghundai left more than 60 people dead, including 50 foreigners, 10 tribal fighters and one Pakistani soldier. He also said that "dozens" of Uzbeks had surrendered to tribal forces and that many bunkers used by militants were seized or destroyed.

On April 12, 2007 the army general in charge of South Waziristan said that tribal fighters had cleared the Uzbeks out of the valleys surrounding Wana and the foreign militants had been pushed back into the mountains on the Afghan border.^[44] Four days later, the local tribesmen has urged Islamabad to resume control of law and order in the area.^[45]

Lal Masjid siege[link]

On July 3, 2007, the militant supporters of Lal Masjid and Pakistani security forces clashed in Islamabad after the students from the mosque attacked a nearby government ministry building with stones. Their resultant faceoff with the military escalated, despite the intervention of then-ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Q) leaders Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Muhammad Ijaz-ul-Haq. The Pakistani security forces immediately put up a siege around the mosque complex which lasted until July 11 and resulted in 108 deaths. This represented the main catalyst for the conflict and eventual breakdown of the truce that existed between Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban groups. Already during the siege there were several attacks in Waziristan in retaliation for the siege.

Truce in Waziristan broken[link]

As the siege in Islamabad ensued, several attacks on Pakistani troops in Waziristan were reported. On July 14, 2007, a suicide bomber attacked a Pakistani Army convoy killing 25 soldiers and wounding 54. On July 15, 2007, two suicide bombers attacked another Pakistani Army convoy killing 16 soldiers and 5 civilians and wounding another 47 people. And in a separate incident a fourth suicide bomber attacked a police headquarters killing 28 police officers and recruits and wounding 35 people.^[46][47] The assault on the Red Mosque prompted rebels along the border with Afghanistan to scrap the controversial Waziristan Accord with the government.^[48]

New war in Waziristan[link]

The Army moved large concentration of troops into Waziristan and engaged in fierce clashes with militants in which at least 100 militants were killed including wanted terrorist and former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Abdullah Mehsud.^[49] The militants also struck back by attacking Army convoys, security check points and sending suicide bombers killing dozens of soldiers and police and over 100 civilians. In one month of fighting during the period from July 24 to August 24, 2007, 250 militants and 60 soldiers were killed. On September 2, 2007, just a few dozen militants led by Baitullah Mehsud managed to ambush a 17-vehicle army convoy and captured an estimated 247 soldiers without a shot being fired, an event that shocked the nation.^[50] Several officers were among the captured.

After the army returned to Waziristan, they garrisoned the areas and set up check-points, but the militants hit hard. In mid-September the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and other forces attacked a number of Pakistani army outposts all across North and South Waziristan. This resulted in some of the heaviest fighting of the war. Following the Lal Masjid Siege, On September 12, 2007, the first outpost was attacked and overrun by the militants resulting in the capture of 12 Pakistani soldiers. The next day on September 13, 2007, a suicide bomber in Tarbela Ghazi attacked a Pakistani army base, destroying the main mess hall and killing 20 members of the Karrar commando group; Pakistan's most elite army unit. A series of attacks ensued and by September 20, 2007 a total of five Pakistani Army military outposts had been overrun and more than 25 soldiers captured. More than 65 soldiers were either killed or captured and almost 100 wounded. A little over two weeks later, the Army responded with helicopter gunships, jet fighters and ground troops. They hit militant positions near the town of Mir Ali. In heavy fighting over four days, 257 people were killed, including 175 militants, 47 soldiers and 35 civilians.

Battle of Swat Valley[link]

By the end of October fighting erupted in the Swat district of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, with a large Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi force, under the command of Maulana Fazlullah, trying to impose Sharia law. Around 3,000 paramilitary soldiers were sent to confront them. After almost a week of heavy fighting the battle came to a standstill with both sides suffering heavy casualties. Then on November 1 and November 3, 220 paramilitary soldiers and policemen surrendered or deserted after a military position on a hill-top and two police stations were overrun. This left the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM) in control of most of the Swat district.

The fighting in Swat is the first serious insurgent threat from militia forces in what is known as a settled area of Pakistan. Forces loyal to Maulana Fazlullah, including some foreign fighters, after taking control of a series of small towns and villages, tried to implement strict Islamic law in November 2007. In mid-November the regular army was deployed with the help of helicopter gunships to crush the uprising. The Pakistan Army deployed over 2,500 men. By the beginning of December the fighting had ended and the Army recaptured Swat. Almost 400 of Maulana Fazlullah's fighters were dead along with 15 Pakistani soldiers and 20 civilians in the military offensive.^[51] Despite the victory by the Pakistani army, TNSM militants slowly re-entered Swat over the coming months and started engaging security forces in battles that lasted throughout 2008. By early February 2009, the whole district was in Pakistan Army Control.^[52]

Rawalpindi attacks[link]

On September 3, two suicide bombers targeted a military intelligence (ISI) bus and a line of cars carrying ISI officers.^{[citation needed]} The bus attack killed a large number of Defence Ministry workers and the other attack killed an Army colonel. In all 31 people, 19 soldiers and 12 civilians, were killed.

Two months later on November 24 a military intelligence bus was again attacked. Almost everyone on the bus was killed. Another bomber blew up at a military checkpoint. 35 people were killed, almost all military.^{[citation needed]}

State of emergency[link]

A state of emergency was declared by Pervez Musharraf on 2007-11-03. It lasted until 2007-12-15. During this time the constitution of the country was suspended.^[53][54] This action and its responses are generally related to the controversies surrounding the re-election of Musharraf during the presidential election that had occurred on 2007-10-06, and also was claimed by the government to be the reaction to the actions by militants in Waziristan.^[55]

Benazir Bhutto's assassination[link]

On December 27, 2007, Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was killed upon leaving a political rally for the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.^[56][57] A suicidal assassin reportedly fired shots in Bhutto's direction just prior to detonating an explosive pellet-laden vest, killing approximately 24 people and wounding many more.^[58][59][60] Musharraf and the army blamed the attack on Al-Qaida, but the following day a statement by Baitullah Mehsud was sent to the media saying that he and Al-Qaida had no involvement in the murder of the former Prime Minister, and that they believed that Musharraf and the army were responsible. The killing was followed by a wave of violence across the country that left 58 people dead, including four police officers. Most of the violence was directed at Musharraf and the pro-Musharraf political party,PML-Q Pakistan Muslim League (Q). PML-Q was branded as Qatil League or killer league. Bhutto had previously survived an assassination attempt made on her life during her homecoming which left 139 people dead and hundreds wounded.^[61]

More fighting in South Waziristan[link]

In January 2008, militants overran Sararogha Fort, and may have overrun a fort in Ladah as well. Both forts are in South Waziristan, and were held by the Pakistani army.^[62] On February 25, 2008, a suicide bomber struck in the garrison-town of Rawalpindi killing Pakistani Lt. Gen. Mushtaq Baig along with two more soldiers and five civilians. Baig was the highest-level military official to be assassinated since Pakistan joined the War on Terror.^[63][64]

Operation Zalzala[link]

A full-fledged security operation called 'Zalzala' (earthquake) was undertaken by Pakistan Army’s 14th Infantry Division in January with the goal of flushing out Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan militants from the area. The area had previously been a more or less safe zone for militants, with some villagers providing them support and shelter. Many militants were killed during the operation, and within three days the security forces were in full control of the area. The army later captured a few other villages and small towns as part of their attempt to pressure Baitullah Mehsud.^[65]

However, the operation led to a huge displacement of local population. According to 14 Division GOC Maj Gen Tariq Khan, about 200,000 men, women and children, were displaced. Khalid Aziz, former NWFP chief secretary and expert on tribal affairs, said the displacement was "one of the biggest in tribal history" adding that human cost of the conflict in Waziristan "has gone unrecorded."^[66]

Peace agreement[link]

On February 7, 2008, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan offered a truce and peace negotiations resulting in a suspension of violence.^[67] On May 21, 2008 Pakistan signed a peace agreement with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.^[68]

Despite the agreement sporadic fighting continued until late June and escalated with the takeover of the town of Jandola on June 24, by the militants. 22 pro-government tribal fighters were captured and executed by the TTP at that time.^[69]

On June 28, 2008, Pakistan's Army started an offensive against militia fighters in Kyhber, codenamed Operation Sirat-e-Mustaqeem. The military took control of a key town and demolished an insurgent group's building. 1 militant was reportedly killed while 2 soldiers died in Swat valley.^[70] The operation was halted in early July.

On July 19, 2008, clashes erupted between the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and a faction of pro-government Taliban militants. 10–15 of the pro-government fighters were killed and another 120 were captured. Among the captured were two commanders who were tried under "Islamic" law by the Taliban and then executed.

On July 21, 2008, heavy fighting in Baluchistan killed 32 militants, 9 soldiers and 2 civilians. More than two dozen militants were captured and a large weapons cache was found.^[71] Between July 28 and August 4, 2008, heavy fighting flared up in the northwestern Swat valley leaving 94 militants, 22 soldiers and policemen and 28 civilians dead.^[72]

Bajaur offensive starts[link]

Heavy fighting erupted on August 6, 2008, in the Loisam area of Bajaur district. Loisam lies on the strategically important road leading towards the main northwestern city of Peshawar. The fighting started when hundreds of militants poured into the area and began attacking government forces. After four days of fighting on August 10 the military withdrew from the area. 100 militants and 9 soldiers were confirmed killed and another 55 soldiers were missing, at least three dozen of them captured by the militants.^[73][74] While the fighting was going on in Bajaur, in the Buner area of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa militants killed at least nine policemen in an attack on a check post.^[75] The checkpoint was then abandoned, and the local Pakistani forces withdrew to Khar, the main town of Bajaur Agency. There were reports that the town of Khar was then besieged by tribal militants.^[76]

On August 21, 2008, in response to the military offensive in Bajaur, two suicide bombers attacked the Pakistan Ordnance Factories in Wah while workers were changing shifts. The attack killed at least 70 people.^[77]

Tribesmen declare war against the militants[link]

By the beginning of September 2008, Pakistani tribal elders began organising a private army of approximately 30,000 tribesmen to fight the militias. A lashkar, or private army, composed of Pakistani tribesmen, began burning the houses of militia commanders in Bajaur, near the Afghan border, vowing to fight them until they are expelled. This included the house of a local militant commander named Naimatullah, who had occupied several government schools and converted them into seminaries. A tribal elder named Malik Munsib Khan, who heads the lashkar, said that tribesmen would continue their struggle until the militants were expelled from the area, adding that anyone found sheltering militants would be fined one million rupees and their houses will be burned. The tribesmen also torched two important centres of the militant activity in the area and gained control of most of the tehsil.

One of the main motivations for this was the operations that were taking place in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that had displaced some 300,000 people while dozens of citizens had been killed in clashes between the militants and military. Since the start of Pakistan's war against the militants some 150,000 tribesmen have sided with them.^[78][79][79]

US support and aid for Pakistani tribesmen[link]

American military proposals outlined an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani militia groups, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against militancy in the region.

The proposal was modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Iraq that had been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raised the question of whether such partnerships can be forged without a significant American military presence in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes. Small numbers of United States military personnel have served as advisers to the Pakistani Army in the tribal areas, giving planning advice and helping to integrate American intelligence. Under this new approach, the number of advisers would increase.

American officials said these security improvements complemented a package of assistance from the Agency for International Development and the State Department for the seven districts of the tribal areas that amounted to $750 million over five years, and would involve work in education, health and other sectors. The State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also assisted the Frontier Corps with financing for counternarcotics work.^[80][81][82]

Islamabad Marriott Hotel Bombing[link]

On September 23, 2008, the Pakistani Army, backed by helicopter gunships and artillery killed more than 60 insurgents in northwest Pakistan in offensives in response to the bombing over the weekend at the Marriott hotel in the capital Islamabad that killed 53 people. In the nearby Bajur tribal region, the Army killed at least 10 militants, according to government officials.^[83] The Bajur operations, which the army said left more than 700 suspected militants dead, won praise from U.S. officials.^[84]

Renewed Bajaur offensive[link]

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari publicly vowed revenge in response to the Marriott Hotel bombing. By September 26, 2008, Pakistani troops had successfully conducted and completed a major offensive in the Bajaur and the Tang Khata regions of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, codenamed Operation Sherdil. Pakistani troops had killed over 1,000 militants in a huge offensive, a day after President Asif Ali Zardari lashed out at US forces over a clash on the Afghan border.

Tariq Khan, Inspector General of the Paramilitary Frontier Corps, mentioned to journalists that since the beginning of the Bajaur operations, there were up to 2,000 militant fighters including hundreds of foreigners who were fighting with the soldiers and the security forces. The overall death toll was over 1,000 militants and also adding that 27 Pakistani soldiers had also been killed with 111 soldiers seriously wounded.^[85][86]

Five top Al-Qaeda and militia commanders were among those killed in a month-long operation in Bajaur. Of the five militant commanders killed, four appeared to be foreigners: Egyptian Abu Saeed Al-Masri; Abu Suleiman, an Arab; an Uzbek commander named Mullah Mansoor; and an Afghan commander called Manaras. The fifth was a Pakistani commander named only Abdullah, a son of ageing hardline leader Maulvi Faqir Mohammad who is based in Bajaur and has close ties to Al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri.^[87][88]

Between October 22 and October 24, security forces engaged in another push against militants in the restive Bajaur and Khyber tribal regions. Air strikes were carried out in the Nawagai and Mamond sub-districts of Bajaur Agency. The troops destroyed several centres of militants at Charmang, Chinar and Zorbandar and inflicted heavy losses on them. Gunship helicopters shelled in Charming, Cheenar, Kohiand Babarha areas of Nawagai and Mamund Tehsil of Bajaur agency, destroying various underground hideouts and bunkers of militants. The security forces also took control of different areas of Loisam, a militant headquarters, and advanced towards other areas for complete control.^[89][90]

Intensified U.S. strikes[link]

An MQ-9 taking off in Afghanistan

At the end of August 2008, the United States stepped up its attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.^[91] On September 3 a commando attack took place in a village near the Afghan border in South Waziristan, and there have been strikes from unmanned drones in North Waziristan, culminating on the morning of September 8, 2008, when a United States Air Force drone aircraft fired a number of missiles at a "guest house for militants arriving in North Waziristan." 23 people were killed, but the operations target, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was not among them.^[92]

On September 25, 2008, following exchanges of gunfire between US and Pakistani forces on the frontier, President Zardari told the United Nations that Pakistan would not tolerate violations of its sovereignty, even by its allies. The incident happened after two US military helicopters came under fire from the Pakistani forces. A US military spokesman insisted that they had been about a mile and a half inside Afghanistan.

President Zardari told the United Nations, "Just as we will not let Pakistani's territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our neighbours, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our friends," he said, without specifically citing the United States or the border flareup.^[87]

Militants targeting of tribesmen[link]

On October 10, 2008, Islamic militants beheaded four kidnapped pro-government tribal elders in the Charmang area of Bajaur.^[93][94]

On October 11, 2008, a suicide bomber struck an anti-militant gathering of tribal elders just as they had decided to form a lashkar (tribal militia). At least 110 anti-Taliban tribesmen were killed and a further 125 were wounded. The suicide bomber drove his car into the gathering itself and blew himself up. The attack on the tribal council took place in Orakzai, normally a relatively quiet corner of the nation's chaotic tribal areas.^[95][96]

Fighting for the NATO supply lines[link]

On October 19, 2008, the Pakistan Army was locked in a fierce battle with militants to keep open the fuel and arms supply routes to British and American forces in Afghanistan. For months, militants had been trying to either attack or seal off the supply routes. The army claimed that Mohammad Tariq Alfridi, the militant commander, had seized terrain around the mile-long Kohat tunnel, south of Peshawar, three times since January. He had coordinated suicide bomb attacks and rocket strikes against convoys emerging from it. Maulvi Omar, a Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan spokesman, said that his fighters would lay down their arms if the Pakistan Army ceased fighting. The Pakistan Army ignored his offer. The battle for the tunnel began at the start of the year when Tehrik-i-Taliban fighters seized five trucks carrying weapons and ammunition. They held the tunnel for a week before they were driven out in fierce fighting with the Army. Since then, Tariq and his men have returned several times to attack convoys. The army launched its latest onslaught after a suicide bomb attack at one of its bases near the tunnel six weeks ago. Five people were killed and 45 were injured, including 35 soldiers, when a pickup truck packed with explosives was driven into a checkpoint.^[97]

On November 11, 2008, militants attacked two convoys at the Khyber Pass capturing 13 trucks which were headed for Afghanistan. One convoy was from the United Nations World Food Programme and was carrying wheat. The second was intended for NATO troops and one of the captured trucks was carrying with it two U.S. military Humvees, which were also seized.^[98]

On December 8, 2008, militants torched more than 160 vehicles destined for US-led troops in Afghanistan. The militants attacked the Portward Logistic Terminal in the northern city of Peshawar at around 02:30 am, destroying its gate with a rocket-propelled grenade and shooting dead a guard. They then set fire to about 100 vehicles, including 70 Humvees, which shipping documents showed were being shipped to the US-led coalition forces and the Afghan National Army. At the same time, militants torched about 60 more vehicles at the nearby Faisal depot, which like Portward is on the ring road around Peshawar, where convoys typically stop before heading for the Khyber Pass.^[99]

2009[link]

On February 3, 2009, militants blew up a bridge at the Khyber Pass, temporarily cutting a major supply line for Western troops in Afghanistan. After the attack supplies along the route had been halted "for the time being", according to NATO.

Swat ceasefire[link]

Pakistan agreed to impose Sharia law and suspend military operations in the Swat Valley. The decision was troubling for the United States, which believed it would embolden militants fighting US-led troops in Afghanistan and desire to impose Islamic law across nuclear-armed Pakistan. US officials believed it would provide another safe haven for the militants within 80 miles (130 km) of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, as well as a corridor between the Afghan border and the disputed region of Kashmir.

Pakistani officials said that it was the only way to pacify a fierce Islamist insurgency and avoid more civilian casualties in Swat – whose ski resort and mountain scenery once made it a popular tourist destination. Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the chief minister for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, announced the government’s decision after a meeting with militant leaders in the provincial capital, Peshawar. He said that local authorities would impose Islamic law across Malakand region, which includes Swat. Officials said that Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani President, would sign off on the deal once peace had been restored. The agreement came the day after the militants in Swat said that it would observe a ten-day ceasefire in support of the peace process. Pakistani officials say that the laws allow Muslim clerics to advise judges, but not to outlaw female education, music or other activities once banned by the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan.^[100]

Defeat of the militants in Bajaur[link]

On March 1, 2009, the Pakistan Army finally defeated Bajaur militants and foreign militants in Bajaur, which is a strategically important region on the Afghan border. Major-General Tariq Khan, who was commanding the military operations in five of the seven agencies, said his Army and the Frontier Corps had killed most militants in Bajaur, the smallest of the agencies but a major infiltration route into Afghanistan, after a six-month offensive. By the time the battle in Bajaur was over, the Pakistan Army killed over 1,500 militants while losing 97 of their own soldiers and 404 soldiers seriously injured.^[101]

Militant counter-attack[link]

On March 30, militia commandos struck in Lahore. They attacked the Munawan Police Academy killing and taking hostage police cadets. A siege was under way for about eight hours after the militants had barricaded themselves in the academy. Eventually police forces managed to retake the compound. 18 people were killed in the attack: eight policemen, eight militants and two civilians. At least 95 policemen were wounded and 10 were taken hostage before being rescued. Four gunmen were captured by the police.

On April 4, a suicide bomber attacked a military camp in Islamabad killing eight soldiers. Less than 24 hours later on April 5, two more suicide attacks occurred. One bomber targeted a market on the border with Afghanistan killing 17 people and the other attacked a mosque in Chakwal, in the eastern Pakistani province of Punjab, killing 26 more civilians. The next day, the leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, promised that there were to be two suicide attacks per week in the country until the Pakistani army withdrew from the border region and the United States stopped its missile attacks by unmaned drones on militant bases.

Militants violate Swat deal[link]

In March 2009, many Pakistanis were horrified when a videotape surfaced that showed miliant enforcers publicly whipping a 17-year-old girl in Swat accused of having an affair. The girl had not committed fornication or adultery but was flogged simply because she refused her brother's demand to marry someone of his choosing. Protests broke out all over Pakistan to demonstrate against the flogging. Raja Zafar ul-Haq, a well-respected Pakistani Islamic scholar and political activist said this summary punishment of flogging simply for refusing a marriage proposal was totally un-Islamic and had nothing to do with Sharia. He went on to say that Prophet Muhammad had strictly forbidden the practice of forced marriages and in this case, the girl had not done anything wrong by refusing a marriage proposal.^[102]

A five-member team appointed by the Supreme Court investigated the video's origins, and concluded that it had been faked, raising questions at Pakistani intelligence agencies.^[103][104]

In Buner, the Taliban continued their criminal activities when residents said Taliban fighters had been stealing cattle for meat, stealing other livestock, berating men without beards and recruiting teenagers into their ranks. The Taliban also began to steal vehicles belonging to government officials and ransacked the offices of some local non-government organisations for no apparent reason.^[105] 12 schoolchildren were killed by a bomb contained in a football.^[106]

Second Battle of Swat[link]

On April 26, 2009, the Pakistani Army started Operation Black Thunderstorm, with the aim of retaking Buner, Lower Dir, Swat and Shangla districts from the Pakistani Taliban after the militants took control of the area since the start of the year.

The operation largely cleared the Lower Dir district of militia forces by April 28 and Buner by May 5. On May 5, operations started to retake Swat and later on Shangla. Fighting in Swat was particularly fierce since the Taliban threw away their insurgent tactics and the army their counter-insurgency tactics. Both sides favored more conventional frontline warfare as a means of fighting each other. By May 14, the military was only six kilometers south of Mingora, the milita-held capital city of Swat, and preparations for all-out street fighting were underway.

On May 23, the battle for Mingora started and by May 27, 70 percent of the city was cleared of militants.

On May 30, the Pakistani military had taken back the city of Mingora from the Pakistani Taliban, calling it a significant victory in its offensive against the militants. However, some sporadic fighting was still continuing on the city's outskirts.^[107][108]

In all, according to the military, 128 soldiers and more than 1,475 militants were killed and 317 soldiers were wounded during operation Black Thunderstorm. 95 soldiers and policemen were captured by the militants, 18 of them were rescued while the fate of the others remained undetermined. 114 militants were captured, including some local commanders. At least 23 of the militants killed were foreigners.

Sporadic fighting throughout Swat continued up until mid-June. On June 14, the operation was declared over and the military had regained control of the region. Only small pockets of Taliban resistance remained and the military started mopping up operations.

This led to a refugee crisis, and by August 22, 1.6 million of 2.3 million have returned home according to UN estimates.^[109][110]

Blockade of South Waziristan[link]

On June 16, 2009, in the aftermath of the successful victory and recapture of the entire Swat valley, the Pakistan Army began a massive troop build-up along the southern and eastern borders of South Waziristan. Pakistan was now taking the fight to Mehsud's mountainous stronghold, ordering an expansion of its current offensive against Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan fighters in the Swat valley. On Sunday night, denouncing Mehsud as "the root cause of all evils," Owais Ghani, the governor of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said the government has called on the army to launch a "full-fledged" military operation to eliminate Mehsud and his estimated 20,000 men.

Islamabad's decision to launch the offensive against Mehsud signaled a deepening of Pakistani resolve against the militants. The army had targeted the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan leader on three separate occasions – in 2004, 2005 and 2008 – but walked away each time after signing peace deals with Mehsud. The military appeared more determined this time. It also enjoyed the backing of a government that had gained public support as a wave of terrorist attacks had swayed public sentiment against the Taliban.^[7]

Killing of Baitullah Mehsud[link]

The leader of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in a drone attack in early August 2009. This was later confirmed by captured chief spokesman Maulvi Umar.^[111] He was replaced by Hakimullah Mehsud.

Militant October–November 2009 counter-offensive[link]

In early October 2009, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan started a string of attacks in cities across Pakistan. The goal of the attacks was to show that the militants were still a united fighting force following the death of their leader and to disrupt a planned military offensive into South Waziristan. Places targeted include the U.N. World Food Program offices in Islamabad,^[112] Khyber bazaar in Peshawar,^[113] Army General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, a market in Shangla,^[114] security establishments in Lahore,^[115][116] police stations in Kohat and Peshawar, the International Islamic University, Islamabad,^[117] and Pakistan Air Force Complex in Kamra. The month ended with a car bombing of Meena Bazaar, Peshawar killing 118 civilians.^[118] The army then began a ground offensive in South Waziristan.

November saw suicide bombings of the Army's National Bank of Pakistan in Rawalpindi,^[119] a market in Charsadda, and six bombings in Peshawar including the regional headquarters of the ISI and the Judicial Complex.^{[120][121][122]}

South Waziristan offensive[link]

On October 17, the Pakistani Army launched a large-scale offensive in South Waziristan involving 28,000 troops advancing across South Waziristan from three directions.^[123] t he first town to fall to the Army was Kotkai, the birthplace of the Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, on October 19. However, the next day, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan re-took the town. Troops had thrust into Kotkai only to be hit by a determined counteroffensive that killed seven soldiers, including an army major, and wounded seven more.^[124] The Army managed to take the town once again on October 24, after days of bombardments.^[125]

On October 29, the town of Kaniguram, which was under the control of Uzbek fighters from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, was surrounded.^[126] And on November 2, Kaniguram was taken.^[127]

On November 1, the towns of Sararogha and Makin were surrounded,^[128] and fighting for Sararogha started on November 3.^[129] The fighting there lasted until November 17, when the town finally fell to the military. The same day, the town of Laddah was also captured by the Army and street fighting commenced in Makin. Both Sararogha and Laddah were devastated in the fighting.^[130]

By November 21, more than 570 militants and 76 soldiers had been killed in the offensive.^[131]

On December 12, 2009, the Pakistan army declared victory in South Waziristan.^[132]

2010[link]

Orakzai and Kurram offensive[link]

In an offensive in Bajaur by Frontier Corps, a militants' stronghold village Damadola was captured and cleared by February 6, 2010.^[133] Bajaur was declared conflict free zone by April 20.^[134]

On March 23, 2010, the Pakistan army launched an offensive to clear Orakzai.^[135] Officials also announced a future offensive in North Waziristan.^[136] The week prior the Pakistan military killed approximately 150 militants in fighting in the region.^[137] It was expected that all tribal areas would be cleared by June 2010.^[138]

June 3, Pakistani authorities announced a victory over the insurgents in Orakzai and Kurram.^[139]

2011[link]

2011 Taliban counter-offensive[link]

By 2011 Pakistan's armed forces were stretched thin by natural disasters and deployments against extremist groups, with one third of the army deployed for the fight, another third along the Indian border and the rest engaged in preparing to deploy.^[140] On May 1, Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS in Abbottabad. The Pakistan Taliban vowed to revenge Osama's death to Pakistan Armed Forces. On April 21 and April 28, the Taliban began to attack the Pakistan Navy. The Taliban targeted a number of high naval officials of Pakistan Navy. On May 22, Taliban attacked the Mehran Naval Base, killing up to 10 naval officers, 30 others were wounded with 2 Naval aircraft were destroyed during their counter offense. On June 4 senior Al Qaeda operative Ilyas Kashmiri was killed by a US drone strike in South Waziristan.

Casualties[link]

In a debriefing to parliamentarians on October 19, 2011, the military stated that a total of 3,097 security forces members were killed and 721 other were permanently disabled in the war on terror. The Inter-Services Intelligence lost 63 of its personnel owing to targeted assaults on ISI installations. In the same report it confirmed that since 2001 a total of 40,309 Pakistanis, both military and civilian, had lost their lives in the conflict.^[10]

In addition, 17,742 militants had been killed or captured by February 2010.^[21] Among these, by November 2007, were 488 foreign extremists killed, 24 others arrested and 324 injured.^[141][142] Before all-out fighting broke out in 2003, independent news sources reported only four incidents of deaths of Pakistani security forces members in 2001 and 2002, in which a total of 20 soldiers and policemen were killed.^{[143][144][145][146]} The independent South Asia Terrorism Portal website has estimated that at least 1,865 soldiers and policemen were killed between 2003 and 2008.^[147] The Pak Institute For Peace Studies has estimated that 1,185 soldiers and policemen were killed in 2009.^[148]

At least 857 soldiers and policemen were reported captured by the militants in the course of the war, with at least 558 of them being released.^{[149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176]}

Mr. Naushad Ali Khan Superintendent of Research and Analysis,^[177] NWFP Police in his article Suicide and terrorist attacks and police actions in NWFP, Pakistan^[178] has provided details of different activities of the terrorists during 2008. Accordingly 483 cases were registered with 533 deaths and 1290 injured. Similarly 29 suicidal attacks were recorded, resulting 247 deaths and 695 injuries. During the same period 83 attempts acts of terrorism were foiled by the NWFP Police.^[178]

United States role[link]

Until July 2009 the conflict, as well as terrorism in Pakistan, had cost Pakistan $35 billion.^[179] According to US Congress and the Pakistani media, Pakistan has received about $18 billion from the United States for the logistical support it provided for the counter-terrorism operations from 2001 to 2010, and for its own military operation mainly in Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Durand Line.^[180] The Bush administration also offered an additional $3 billion five-year aid package to Pakistan for becoming a frontline ally in its 'War on Terror'. Annual installments of $600 million each split evenly between military and economic aid, began in 2005.^[181]

In 2009, President Barack Obama pledged to continue supporting Pakistan and has said Pakistan would be provided economic aid of $1.5 billion dollars each year for the next five years. Unfolding a new US strategy to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Obama said Pakistan must be a 'stronger partner' in destroying Al-Qaeda safe havens.^[182] In addition, President Obama has also planned to propose an extra $2.8 billion dollars in aid for the Pakistani military to intensify the US-led 'War on Terror' along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The military aid would be in addition to the civilian aid of $1.5 billion dollars a year for the next five years from 2009 onwards.^[183]

In his autobiography, President Musharraf wrote that the United States had paid millions of dollars to the Pakistan government as bounty money for capturing al-Qaeda operators from tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. About 359 of them were handed over to the US for prosecution.^[181]

Pakistan has purchased 1,000 laser-guided bomb kits and 18 F-16 fighter jets from USA.^[184]

Amongst Pakistanis opinion about the role of the US is generally negative.^[26] Incidents of terrorism cause rage and anger against the terrorist organizations but they also cause frustration with the United States. According to Pew Global Polls only 17% of Pakistanis have a positive view of the US and only 11% see it as a useful partner in the 'War on Terror'.

See also[link]

Military of Pakistan portal

• Human rights in Pakistan
• List of wars 2003–2010
• Sectarian violence in Pakistan
• Targeted killing
• Violence in Pakistan 2006-09, table and map providing overview of all violence in Pakistan between 2006 and 2009.

References[link]