Chris Hedges: How Is the War on Terrorism Being Fought? Military Financing (2002
- Duration: 56:05
- Updated: 02 Oct 2014
In the three years before the attacks of 11 September, Pakistan received approximately US$9 million in American military aid. In the three years after, the number increased to US$4.2 billion, making it the country with the maximum funding post 9/11.
Such a huge inflow of funds has raised concerns in the Indian press that these funds were given without any accountability, as the end uses not being documented, and that large portions were used to suppress civilians' human rights and to purchase weapons to contain domestic problems like the Balochistan unrest. Pakistan has stated that India has been supporting terror groups within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan with the aim of creating unrest within the country.
On 20 May 2007, a conflict began in north Lebanon after fighting broke out between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist militant organization, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in Nahr al-Bared, a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli. The conflict evolved mostly around the Siege of Nahr el-Bared, but minor clashes also occurred in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in southern Lebanon and several bombings took place in and around Lebanon's capital, Beirut.
Fatah-al-Islam has been described as a militant mujahid[123] movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda.[123] The US provided military aid to the Lebanese government during the conflict. On 7 September 2007, Lebanese government forces captured the camp and declared victory.
Analysts describe an unofficial end to the war on terror with President's Obama speech of May 23, 2013. Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, interprets that speech as close to a "mission accomplished" declaration that prudent politics will allow.[168] The President said that low-grade terror will continue but "need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11."[168] Republicans reject the President's proposals to end measures taken in the name of the "war on terror" and counter that it is too soon to "argue that al Qaeda is quote 'on the run.'"[169] Peter Beinart writing a month after the President's speech, declares that most Americans accept that the "war on terror" has ended.[170] Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, explains that President "Obama intends to end a seemingly endless war" by entering a wind-down phase.
Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terror and made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy / military objectives,[172] reduce civil liberties,[173] and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since there is no identifiable enemy, and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.[174]
Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling it a "war on terror", obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage Shirley Williams maintains this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.[175] There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy,[176] media induced hysteria,[177] and that differences in foreign and security policy have damaged America's image in most of the world.
http://wn.com/Chris_Hedges_How_Is_the_War_on_Terrorism_Being_Fought?_Military_Financing_(2002
In the three years before the attacks of 11 September, Pakistan received approximately US$9 million in American military aid. In the three years after, the number increased to US$4.2 billion, making it the country with the maximum funding post 9/11.
Such a huge inflow of funds has raised concerns in the Indian press that these funds were given without any accountability, as the end uses not being documented, and that large portions were used to suppress civilians' human rights and to purchase weapons to contain domestic problems like the Balochistan unrest. Pakistan has stated that India has been supporting terror groups within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan with the aim of creating unrest within the country.
On 20 May 2007, a conflict began in north Lebanon after fighting broke out between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamist militant organization, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in Nahr al-Bared, a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli. The conflict evolved mostly around the Siege of Nahr el-Bared, but minor clashes also occurred in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in southern Lebanon and several bombings took place in and around Lebanon's capital, Beirut.
Fatah-al-Islam has been described as a militant mujahid[123] movement that draws inspiration from al-Qaeda.[123] The US provided military aid to the Lebanese government during the conflict. On 7 September 2007, Lebanese government forces captured the camp and declared victory.
Analysts describe an unofficial end to the war on terror with President's Obama speech of May 23, 2013. Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, interprets that speech as close to a "mission accomplished" declaration that prudent politics will allow.[168] The President said that low-grade terror will continue but "need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11."[168] Republicans reject the President's proposals to end measures taken in the name of the "war on terror" and counter that it is too soon to "argue that al Qaeda is quote 'on the run.'"[169] Peter Beinart writing a month after the President's speech, declares that most Americans accept that the "war on terror" has ended.[170] Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, explains that President "Obama intends to end a seemingly endless war" by entering a wind-down phase.
Criticism of the War on Terror addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terror and made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy / military objectives,[172] reduce civil liberties,[173] and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since there is no identifiable enemy, and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.[174]
Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling it a "war on terror", obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage Shirley Williams maintains this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West.[175] There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy,[176] media induced hysteria,[177] and that differences in foreign and security policy have damaged America's image in most of the world.
- published: 02 Oct 2014
- views: 0