Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Archived Articles
General Analysis on US Military Expansion and Intervention
2004
Back to Current Articles | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001
Continuity and Change in Two Turn-of-the-Century Wars (March 27, 2004)
The Spanish-American War of 1898 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are often cited as turning points in US foreign policy. Political scientist Stephen R. Shalom revisits both moments in history and finds that unprovoked military intervention, unilateralism and conquest were not innovations at all, but were in fact consistent with ongoing US policies.National Sovereignty? (December 23, 2004)
At a continental security conference, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested rejoining armed forces and police—a separation the US once advocated to prevent Latin American militaries from committing abuses under the pretenses of defending “national security.” Critics say Rumsfeld’s initiatives to prioritize fighting terrorism ignore human rights and indicate Washington’s desire for more control in the region. Several countries’ delegates instead emphasized eradicating poverty, corruption and drug trafficking as root causes of terrorism in order to strengthen security. (Inter Press Service)Dollars for Democracy?: US Aid to Ukraine Challenged (December 21, 2004)
Has the US confused "promoting democracy" with "imposing democracy"? Russian leaders, many Ukrainians and some members of the US Congress are questioning whether the US has spent the past two years and a total of $58 million trying to oust the Ukrainian government through aiding the political opposition. (New York Times)The US Is Suffering a Chronic Deficit of Legitimacy (December 13, 2004)
The New Statesman debates the US policy of “aggressive” promotion of democracy as a universal doctrine. Democracy, it argues, cannot simply be “delivered,” and forcing this ideology onto the rest of the world “smack[s] of imperial hubris.” Instead of forcefully imposing democratic values, the article argues, the US should put efforts into gaining genuine belief and trust in countries it wishes to assist.Ukraine in Turmoil as Agreement Crumbles (December 7, 2004)
East and west grapple over influence in Ukraine’s presidential re-elections, as Russia backs presidential incumbent and the US supports the opposition. Both Washington and Moscow accuse one another of meddling with the country’s elections. (Reuters)US Campaign Behind the Turmoil in Kiev (November 26, 2004)
The Guardian claims that the US government has “funded and organized” the “chestnut revolution” in the Ukraine. The “engineered democracy,” or “democracy template,” aims to mobilize youth in order to uproot the country’s present “unsavory” administration. The article claims that this allegedly US-run campaign takes place through “western branding and mass marketing” and boasts a budget of $14 million.Afghanistan's Drug Problem (November 18, 2004)
A United Nations survey raises concerns about the record levels of opium poppies growing in Afghanistan. The plant, which Radio Free Europe considers the country’s “main engine of economic growth,” may jeopardize Afghanistan’s security if the international community categorizes it as a “narco state.” The US and NATO have already began to combat drug trafficking in the country. (Christian Science Monitor)Rumsfeld Urges a Latin Push Against Terror (November 17, 2004)
Washington continues to advocate increased military and government cooperation with Latin America, claiming “terrorist organizations” move weapons, people and money through the region. (New York Times)Pentagon Envisioning a Costly Internet for War (November 13, 2004)
The US is developing an ultra-sophisticated “war net” called Global Information Grid (GIG), a military world wide web which would provide commanders and troops instant information and “deploy a war-fighting force anywhere, anytime.” The multibillion dollar project aims to fuse US “weapons, secret intelligence and soldiers in a global network.” (New York Times)More Troops for Iraq (November 8, 2004)
In a startling New York Times op-ed piece calls for a large-scale deployment of troops to Iraq. Although more and more countries are withdrawing from the region, the article suggests rather than Washington “scaling back its objectives,” Bush’s “mandate” should “stay its course” and continue with its interventionist policy.The Coup Connection (November 2004)
The International Republican Institute (IRI), a US government-financed organization which calls itself “nonpartisan,” aims at “democratization” overseas. This article explains how the IRI organizes political training sessions for opposition movements in countries where the governments' policies do not coincide with Washington's interests, such as in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Cambodia. (Mother Jones)Special Forces Enter CIA Territory with a New Weapon (October 31, 2004)
Under a new policy meant to reinforce the US “war on terrorism,” the Pentagon grants US Special Operations $25 million a year to use for equipment and weapons as well as for “foreign forces, irregular forces, groups or individuals” assisting the US in its counterterrorism missions. (Los Angeles Times)Safeguarding Colombia's Oil (October 22, 2004)
Colombia, a top oil supplier to the US, has mobilized its entire army to secure the country’s oil resources from rebel groups. The worsening conflict has scared off private investors, leading to a significant drop in oil investment in the country. In its newest efforts to resuscitate its economy, the Colombian government invites US military assistance in securing the region for oil companies. (New York Times)US Sets Its Sights on Chavez, Castro (October 17, 2004)
Secretary of State Colin Powell has expressed US concerns about Cuba “training terrorists” and Venezuela hosting a “large Cuban presence.” This article considers the US call for “regime change” in the countries eerily reminiscent of US pressure on Iraq before its invasion. (Jamaica Observer)Does the US Need the Draft? (October 18, 2004)
A severe shortage of troops in Iraq may make the US military draft necessary. While the Bush administration denies the possibility, US military commanders believe the need for increased troops in Iraq and "the next" war may require a draft. (Time)US Military: Help Wanted (October 13, 2004)
Washington continues to refute allegations of plans to institute a military draft even as Iraq and Afghanistan stretch US military forces thin. The army plans to spend its $180 million budget on measures to recruit potential soldiers, the majority of whom oppose a draft, to join its “war on terrorism.” (Mother Jones)Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service (October 7, 2004)
Growing numbers of US companies edge themselves into volatile areas under the protection of the US military. This article gives three explanations for rapidly increasing military presence in oil rich regions: growing dependence on oil, shift of oil production to impoverished countries and the growing militarization of US foreign energy policy. (TomDispatch.com)Guarding the Empire (October 4, 2004)
The US military has troops and bases in 136 countries worldwide and outspends so-called “rogue states” twenty-two to one. This LewRockwell.com article attempts to see through US rationale for its overextended “military-industrial complex” and proposes a return to a “Jeffersonian foreign policy of peace, commerce, friendship, and no entangling alliances.”US Militarizing Latin America (October 6, 2004)
According to a report by the Latin America Working Group Education Fund, the Center for International Policy and the Washington Office on Latin America, the US aid for the training and financing in Latin America nearly exceeds all of its economic assistance in the region. The report states that the US Southern Command is increasing pressure on governments in Latin America to cooperate with the US in targeting “terrorism.” (OneWorld)Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country (updated September 30, 2004)
This table shows the number of US military personnel on active duty in the US and throughout the world. (United States Department of Defense)Panel Calls US Troop Size Insufficient for Demands (September 23, 2004)
According to a Pentagon-appointed panel, US military forces are lacking in numbers, jeopardizing “current and anticipated stability operations,” states the New York Times.Azerbaijan's Precarious Balancing Act (September 22, 2004)
Azerbaijan maintains sensitive diplomatic relations with Iran, Russia, France, Germany and the US. These countries have overlapping interests in Azerbaijan, which hosts both substantial oil resources and appealing locations for military bases. The US in particular looks to strengthen its ties to Azerbaijan due to the combination of these very factors. (Power and Interest Report)Titide’s Downfall (September 2004)
This article from Le Monde diplomatique traces the rise and fall of Haiti's only democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The author looks at the role of Haiti's internal politics as well as the strong hand of Washington in Aristide's removal from office. Haiti has since been plunged into chaos and violence, and many worry that "the Franco-American intervention in Haiti [is] a dangerous precedent" for US involvement in regimes that "have the nerve to upset the established disorder in the US's backyard."US and Russia Still Dominate Arms Market, But World Total Falls (August 30, 2004)
According to the report "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations," the total value of global arms sales has dropped for the third consecutive year. US and Russia continue to top the list; the US maintaining its place as number one arms dealer while Russia’s sales have dropped sharply. (New York Times)15 Years After Cold War, A Troop Shift (August 17, 2004)
US President George W. Bush announced plans to redeploy 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia to bases in the US. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that this restructuring is aimed at “making the US military a leaner, potentially faster-moving machine.” The author suggests that “the strain of the US deployments in Iraq - plus the pressures of presidential politics” might be among the reasons for this shift in military strategy. (Christian Science Monitor)1,000 Billion Dollars for Weapons (August 17, 2004)
According to a report prepared by a group of international military experts appointed by the UN, global military spending has increased significantly since the “Cold War” ended, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. The “top spenders” include the US, Japan, the UK, France and China. The report cites US spending alone as accounting for over half of world weapons expenditure altogether. (Inter Press Service)The Island Idyll and the US Occupation (August 12, 2004)
Thousands of protesters, many more than sixty years old, are resisting the construction of the 39th US military base in Okinawa, Japan. Activists claim that the new base will threaten the survival of the region’s unique marine wildlife, disrupting traditional livelihoods and devastating the local environment. (Independent)New US Strategy: 'Lily Pad' Bases (August 10, 2004)
The US military is pulling thousands of troops from the large, sprawling bases built during the Cold War and placing them in smaller, less permanent bases throughout the world. These newer bases are strategically placed to act as launch pads for the “fast, flexible, and efficient projection of force,” and are located in countries such as Bosnia and the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan. (Christian Science Monitor)Secret Proposals: Fighting Terror by Attacking ... South America? (August 9, 2004)
Less than a week after 9/11, a senior Pentagon official suggested that the US attack South America or Southeast Asia in order to “surprise” the terrorists. The official, apparently Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, “lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan.” The same day, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz advocated an attack on Iraq, a “non-al Qaeda target” according to Feith. (Newsweek)Denmark to Sign US Airbase Deal (August 6, 2004)
Denmark gives thumbs up to the US missile defense program by agreeing to costly improvements of the missile base in Greenland, a Danish autonomous region. Greenland strongly opposes the US base, saying that it does not wish to “launch a new arms race.” (BBC)US Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean (August 2004)
The US pursues its interests in the Western Hemisphere using a complex, interlocking web of military bases throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. US policy objectives in the region include access to markets, control over narcotics flows, and the acquisition of natural resources, especially oil. This article provides an overview and critique of current policies, and recommendations for reform. (Foreign Policy in Focus)The Last War First: The War on Terror and the War on Russia (July 22, 2004)
Since 9/11, the US has stationed troops in nine out of fourteen former Soviet republics, drawing “a big chalk circle” around Russia. Sobaka magazine presents a “brief primer on the covert creation of this launching pad for World War III,” detailing US relations with each host state, several of which are repressive dictatorships.China, US Each Hold Major War Exercises (July 20, 2004)
China is carrying out a mock invasion of Taiwan while the US deploys seven aircraft-carrier strike groups, 50 warships, 600 aircraft and 150,000 troops in “one of the biggest military exercises ever staged.” Officials of both countries claim that the timing is coincidental, but analysts believe the events reflect growing tensions over the issue of Taiwan. China recently pledged to recover the breakaway island state and US ally by 2020. (Los Angeles Times)US Yanks Aid to Uzbekistan, a War on Terror Ally (July 15, 2004)
Under pressure to acknowledge Uzbekistan’s poor human rights record, the United States will not renew an $18 million aid package to that country. However, the US will likely approve future aid to Uzbekistan on a project-by-project basis rather than cut it off completely. The US continues to base troops in Uzbekistan, a strategic location for the “war on terror.” (Christian Science Monitor)Sailing Toward a Storm in China (July 15, 2004)
The US Navy announced that it will deploy seven of its twelve carrier strike groups off the coast of China in a massive and unprecedented show of force. Only three or four strike groups were deployed during each of the Iraq wars, and seven in the same location at the same time “is unheard of.” Chalmers Johnson argues that this provocative action could spark a war with China, with disastrous results. (Los Angeles Times)Army Expects Further Involuntary Troop Call-Up (June 30, 2004)
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the involuntary mobilization of thousands of former soldiers belonging to the Individual Ready Reserve, a “rarely used” source of military personnel. Many of these reservists have not served or undergone any training for several years. Critics said the call-up is a type of draft and represents a major failure in planning for the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. (Reuters)US Military on the Move (June 17, 2004)
The Pentagon confirmed plans to redeploy tens of thousands of troops from Germany and South Korea to smaller, more widely dispersed bases. Observers say that the location of these facilities, which form an arc ranging from Southeast Asia to West Africa, reveals a global strategy for the control of vital energy resources. (Inter Press Service)Global Military Spending Hits $956B in 2003 (June 9, 2004)
According to a Stockholm think tank, the United States accounted for nearly half of the world’s military spending in 2003. Tied for the position of second-highest defense spenders were Japan and Britain, who contributed a mere five per cent each to the global total. The study also revealed that the increase in spending worldwide “coincided with a decrease in the number of conflicts.” (Associated Press)Patrolling Malacca Straits a Sticky Issue (June 9, 2004)
Backtracking on earlier Pentagon statements, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld withdrew the suggestion that US forces could help to patrol the “vital” naval route, used for the transport of half the world’s oil. The US faced pressure from Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, who reject an increased US military presence in Asia and fear that “US counterterrorism forces in the region would fuel Islamic fanaticism.” (Christian Science Monitor)Renegotiate with US on Okinawa Base Issue (June 5, 2004)
US military bases control large amounts of the land, airspace, and waters in the Japanese prefecture of Okinawa. In this article, the former governor of Okinawa argues that the US presence results in the denial of sovereignty for the local population, and calls for relocating the bases to areas outside of Japan. (Herald Tribune/Asahi)Missile Defense: Defending America or Building Empire? (May 28, 2003)
Charles V. Peña of the Cato Institute argues that the US missile "defense" program is in fact an exercise in empire building. The writer claims that the system, rather than protecting US citizens from long range missiles, will instead be used to support US military forces abroad. (Cato Institute)Lifting the Cap: Bush Administration Seeks to Expand US Military Personnel in Colombia (May 12, 2004)
Records show that US military aid often ends up feeding a vicious cycle of human rights abuses. Despite the mess of US' war and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration is still keen on expanding its force involvement in Colombia. (Americas Program)International Arms Sales Total $30 Billion a Year (April 21, 2004)
The US has been the top supplier of major weapons since the end of Cold War. In 2002, US deliveries constituted over forty percent of the world total. Ironically, the biggest buyers come from the Middle East. (Progressive Policy Institute)The Cost of Empire (April 20, 2004)
US expansion of the “global war on terrorism” is very expensive. According to the US Congressional Budget Office, the US annual military bill could grow from $369 billion in 2004 to $600 billion in 2013. (Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy)Marine Rediscover a 1940s Manual (April 8, 2004)
The Pentagon has recently reprinted "Marine Corps Small Wars Manual" - a 64-year-old guide to battling insurgents. The Wall Street Journal reports that lessons learnt in earlier US interventions in the Philippines, Cuba, Honduras and China are considered useful for US troops today.Malaysia Rebuffs US Sea Force Plan (April 6, 2004)
Malaysia and Indonesia maintain that the security of the Malacca Straits is their joint responsibility. The governments argue that US should not launch any operation within their sovereign territory without their consent. (The Age)NATO Expansion: More Muscle for US to Flex (April 2, 2004)
This article argues that NATO’s inclusion of Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia is a result of “Russia’s endemic decline” and will further increase Washington’s influence over the organization. (Stratfor Weekly)US Strategic Priorities Shifting in Central Asia (March 25, 2004)
Russia and China are feeling more threatened than ever by the presence of US military bases in Central Asia, especially with the possibility that the US will make such bases permanent. (EurasiaNet)Reining in Our Weaponry: Is US Air Force Lost in Space? (March 15, 2004)
The author suggests signs exist that Congress is taking the first step “toward forcing the ‘space hawks’ in the Bush administration to explain their misguided goal of space dominion.” The Bush administration actively promotes the weaponization of space, which it sees as the next “high frontier” to be dominated by the US military. (San Francisco Chronicle)True Reactionaries (March 12, 2004)
Former US President Woodrow Wilson once said “I will teach the Latin Americans to elect good men.” This article argues that President Bush seems to have reintroduced the type of “righteous” attitude, typical of US and European imperialism of a century ago. (Inter Press Service)Learning to Love the Tiny Bomb? (March / April 2004)
Arms control advocates warn the Bush administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review – which explicitly endorses “bunker-busting” “mini-nukes” – represents a “major shift in the military and ethical rationale for nuclear weapons, no longer defining them as devices of deterrence, but as weapons of war.” Ethical questions aside, however, politicians and scientists still can’t explain why “mini-nukes” are preferable to conventional weapons for military purposes. (Foreign Policy)The Wild Weapons of DARPA (March 4, 2004)
This article examines the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) veritable menagerie of “biologically inspired” weapons and military platforms including ‘Big Dog’, ‘Wolfpack’, ‘Piranha’, ‘Hummingbird Warrior’, and ‘Organic Air Vehicles in the Trees.’ “Bonehead ideas”? Maybe. Expensive? Assuredly. Lethal? Absolutely. (TomDispatch)The Next Worst Thing: Is the Federal Government's Expansion of Biodefense Research Paving the Way for the Bioweapons of the Future? (March 2, 2004)
This article warns that US secret bioweapons research programs could lead to a “darker bioweapons future.” Many speculate that such research could create a “Pandora’s Box” that, once opened, would have dire consequences for the human race. (MotherJones)The Rise of the Shadow Warriors (March / April 2004)
The author warns the “success” of US Special Forces in Iraq could presage further extensive use of covert operations against other regimes in the “War on Terror.” The vagueness of US law governing covert action means the US could conduct such operations without Congressional oversight or public debate on the merits of such intervention. (Foreign Affairs)The Militarization of US Foreign Policy (February 2004)
The author argues the US Defense Department has eclipsed the US State Department as major driver of US foreign policy, leading to the abandonment of bipartisan arms control and disarmament polices carefully crafted over the past four decades. (Foreign Policy in Focus)Hidden Defense Costs Add Up to Double Trouble (February 23, 2004)
An economic historian argues that as a “rule of thumb,” simply doubling the Pentagon’s federal budget allocation will come close to capturing the true (and disguised) costs of US defense spending. (Christian Science Monitor)The Costs of Empire Part 2: Counting the Dollars and Cents (February 13, 2004)
Having examined US plans for radical reconfiguration of its overseas military installations in Part 1, the author now focuses on the true monetary and human costs of US military deployment and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Asia Times)The Costs of Empire Part 1: Starting With a Solid Base (February 12, 2004)
The author re-examines Paul Kennedy’s theory of “imperial overstretch” in light of the Bush administration’s plans to radically reconfigure the posture and capabilities of overseas US military installations. (Asia Times)America's 'Asymmetric' Warfare (February 9, 2004)
This BBC report notes terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare pose ‘asymmetric’ threats to the US. As a consequence the US has to maintain a wide range of forces and capabilities with sufficient flexibility to meet a variety of military challenges.America: The Accidental Empire? (February 2, 2004)
This BBC report suggests military opportunism rather than administrative design characterized early US imperialism. US victory in the Spanish-American War, however, led to a “changing of the imperial guard,” and gave the US confidence to assume a global role.Bush Moves Toward 'Star Wars' Missile Defense (February 2, 2004)
This article examines US plans to deploy missile interceptors, designed to target limited ballistic missile attacks, in orbit around the planet. These proposed interceptors could be used to destroy enemy satellites as well as warheads. Critics fear the plans could lead to a renewed arms race in space. (Reuters)US: A Bigger Stick – And No Longer Speaking Softly (January 15, 2004)
The US dominates the skies, enjoys unrivalled military dominance and is seeking to further widen its military lead through new technology. Whether “benevolent global hegemony” or “new empire,” the US now controls the air to a fair greater extent than Roman legions controlled the ground or the British fleet ruled the seas. (Christian Science Monitor)
2003
Back to Current Articles | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001
Stephen Howe argues that in spite of an increasing number of US direct military interventions the US empire differs from formal colonialism. The US essentially exercises its control through informal economic, diplomatic and cultural means. (openDemocracy)US to Expand its Military Empire (December 10, 2003)
The US already maintains a military presence in 140 countries but plans to build more military bases in Eastern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union because of "increased threats" in the world after September 11. (Al Jazeera)The US Military: Bringing Hope "to Every Corner of the World" (November 19, 2003)
Washington justifies its military expansion throughout the world as spreading democracy and development. It uses the same words to justify its occupation of Iraq. Where there is no “war on terrorism,” the US relies on the “war on drugs” as an excuse to build more military bases. (Focus on the Global South)Case for War Confected, Say Top US Officials (November 9, 2003)
A group of US intelligence professionals, diplomats and former Pentagon officials say that Iraq was not an imminent threat nor linked to terrorism. Vice President Dick Cheney pressured the CIA to come up with evidence to fit pre-fabricated conclusions. (Independent)US Eyes Second-Tier Threats in Terror War (October 14, 2003)
Washington expands the “axis of evil” and now turns its attention to Syria, Libya, and Cuba. “The US plans to keep up the pressure on countries it places on the wrong side in the war on terror.” reports the Christian Science Monitor.The Secrets Clark Kept (September 29, 2003)
This 2003 analysis discusses General Wesley Clark’s stint as a CNN commentator and the Pentagon’s hidden military plans made as part of the “war on terror.” General Clark viewed US President George Bush’s plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan as “a flawed strategy,” but did not voice these concerns publicly. Not voicing these concerns allowed the US government to “take the country recklessly into war.”(Village Voice)China's Support for North Korea Lies in its Fear of the United States (September 3, 2003)
According to the Power and Interest News Report, China’s policy toward North Korea partly depends on its wish to stop the increasing US influence in East Asia.Militarizing the Americas (September 3, 2003)
The Bush administration increasingly interprets Latin American security issues in terms of terrorism. Thus, instead of focusing on the larger social causes of drug production, guerilla and paramilitary activities and illegal immigration, the US allocates military support to the region. (Interhemispheric Resource Center)The Grand Strategy of the American Empire (Fall 2003)
Professor Alex Callinicos examines the forces behind US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. He argues that President Bush has exploited September 11 to shift the global balance of power in his favor. His foreign policies are based on the fear of long-term economic and geopolitical threats facing US capitalism. (Socialist Review)Repeating Mistakes of the Cold War (August 12, 2003)
The author argues that current US policymakers make the same mistakes as their predecessors during the Cold War. This analysis outlines the numerous US military interventions of the Cold War era, drawing comparisons with the US invasion Iraq and the prospect of further US interventions. (Alternet)Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime' (August 11, 2003)
Noam Chomsky states that Washington’s new national security strategy authorizes the US to carry out “preventive war,” denoting the willingness to use military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat. Chomsky argues that preventive war describes the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg. (ZNet)Foreign 'Crises' Show Limits of US Power (July 30, 2003)
The US has generally relied on its own resources for dealing with international challenges. Facing the increasing number of recent international crises, the US has turned to other countries for help. The US must come to terms with the limits of global hegemony or suffer the consequences. (Christian Science Monitor)America Is a Religion (July 28, 2003)
George Monbiot says that US leaders see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons, despots, and communism. For the Bush administration, the US soldiers in Iraq are not mere terrestrial combatants, but missionaries in a sacred cause. (Guardian)Neocons Dream of Lebanon (July 23, 2003)
prominent circle of neo-conservative intellectuals in the American Enterprise Institute helped incubate the ideas behind the Bush administration's war in Iraq. Now they turn their attention to advancing pro-Western, Christian and free-market forces in countries such as Lebanon. (ZNet)The Empire Unmasked (July 18, 2003)
The Socialist Worker says that the scandal over George W. Bush’s claims about Iraqi nuclear weapons lays bare Washington’s bigger lie- that its war was not about oil and empire.Bomb Before You Buy (July 15, 2003)
Naomi Klein argues that the Bush administration's economic plan for Iraq constitutes one element of a grander strategy to expand the power and wealth of US-based multinational corporations across the globe. (ZNet)A Realist Security Strategy for the United States (July 9, 2003)
Two analysts of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, argue that the US should pursue a realist-based foreign policies. The article compares the US with the post-Waterloo British Empire of 1815. (openDemocracy)Pre-emptive Wars and the End Times (July 4, 2003)
The “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive strike causes grave concerns. It may incite Russia and China to perceive the US as a threat, causing them to take pre-emptive measures of their own. This raises serious concerns about stability and peace between major powers. (Universal Press Syndicate)Hostages of the Empire (July 1, 2003)
British soldiers risking their lives in Iraq are not only “victims of an overbearing and inept occupation policy,” they may also end up entangled in the US’ next campaign in Iran. “Thus is the traditional logic of 19th-century empire being replayed in the 21st: protecting one conquest requires an indefinite extension of conflict.” (Guardian)After the Winning of the War (June 2003)
Historian Eric Hobsbawm argues that overwhelming US military and technological dominance combined with a domestic inclination toward economic protectionism make for an unprecedented kind of militaristic global empire. Hobsbawn warns that expanding US militarism could destabilize the world. (Le Monde Diplomatique)Re-Colonizing Iraq (May-June, 2003)
Tariq Ali discusses the US road to war with Iraq and the worldwide reactions to its new imperial policies. He argues that with the election of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the UN has played into Washington’s hands. The UN either complies with the desires of the US or rubber-stamps them after the event. (New Left Review)Pentagon Moving Swiftly to Become 'GloboCop' (June 10, 2003)
US military planners discuss deploying forces and equipment around the world in ways that would permit Washington to play “GloboCop.” (Inter Press Service)Further Fanning of the Flames (June 8, 2003)
Washington’s military interventions run the risk of creating more radical groups with the sole purpose of hurting the US government and its people. (Yellow Times)The US and Latin America after 9-11 and Iraq (June 2003)
Since 9/11 US policy towards Latin America has narrowly focused on fighting the “axis of evil” of the region: Colombian “narcoterrorists,” Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. (Foreign Policy in Focus)Does the USA Intend to Dominate the Whole World by Force? (June 2, 2003)
Noam Chomsky discusses the consequences that the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy may have on international peace and stability. He also talks about the administration’s proposed justifications for the Iraq war and its falsehoods, pointing out Washington’s political and economic ulterior motives for its pre-emptive strike. (ZNet)Missile Defense: Defending America or Building Empire? (May 28, 2003)
This article argues the “real rationale” behind US missile defense plans is to protect US forces engaged in military intervention abroad to “enforce a Pax Americana – a strategy of empire by another name.” It warns missile defenses will only increase resentment and animosity towards “what is perceived by the rest of the world as an imperialist America.” (Cato Institute)SE Asia Tries 'Shock and Awe' (May 20, 2003)
The US military victory over Iraq has triggered the collapse of peace initiatives in Indonesia and the Philippines. "In the context of the war against terrorism, there are few, if any, diplomatic costs to seeking a military solution," says an expert on regional insurgencies at Singapore's Institute for Defense and Strategic Studies. (Christian Science Monitor)Play It Again, Uncle Sam (May 20, 2003)
Before the US-led invasion of Iraq, a group of CIA veterans warned that the war "would further widen the divide between the Western and Islamic worlds and increase the incidence of terrorism." This Yellow Times article argues that the terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco could prove them right.The Oily Americans (May 19, 2003)
This Time article “illustrates the dark side of American oil policy” through the history of US covert action and foreign aid in Iran, and the fight against communism in the Middle East. Access to Iranian oil “came with a stiff price,” as the US-supported Shah created “the first American-hating Islamic Republic,” and Ayatollah Khomeini ended US-Iranian oil relations after his rise to power in 1979. These authors believe the US government’s handling of oil issues has caused the US public to rely on “foreign intervention rather than domestic conservation.”Paths of Glory (May 16, 2003)
This New York Times article says the Iraq war did nothing to make the US safer, in fact it did the terrorists a favor. The International Institute for Strategic Studies has declared that al-Qaeda is as dangerous as it was before September 11.Has the War Made America Safer? (April 23, 2003)
While the Bush administration calls the Iraq war a “remarkable success,” this article argues that only time can tell whether the war will reduce the number of terrorist plots against the US or inspire new recruits to terrorist movements. (International Herald Tribune)The Perils of Empire (April 20, 2003)
The British 20th century imperialism and the US neo-conservatives’ expansionist policy of today are strikingly similar. The British too, wanted to diminish French, Russian and German influence in the region. They sought secure access to Middle East oil, and to establish military bases. (Washington Post)A Mighty Global Power and Its Heir Apparent (April 18, 2003)
In his new book, British historian Niall Ferguson draws analogies between the British Empire and the US’ role in the world today. Ferguson suggests that a new era of globalization is occurring, with Americans having "taken our old role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it." (New York Times)Mulling Action, India Equates Iraq, Pakistan (April 11, 2003)
By asserting the same right of preemptive war that the US used to justify its invasion in Iraq, India has warned it could take military action against Pakistan. (Washington Post)Which Country Is Next on the List? (April 10, 2003)
This International Herald Tribune article criticizes the neoconservative agenda of remaking the political culture of the Muslim Middle East. “Traditional morality says that war is justified in legitimate defense. Totalitarian morality justifies war to make people or societies better.”Outrage Spreads in Arab World (March 30, 2003)
The US air assault that allegedly killed 58 people at a vegetable market in Baghdad has caused anger in the Middle East. People said that the war would harm the future of democracy in the area and greatly increase the risk of suicide attacks in the US. (Washington Post)The Shape of the Post-War World (March 26, 2003)
Contrary to Washington’s claim, there are no credible connections between Baghdad and al-Qaeda. The war on Iraq will not reduce the risk of terrorism in the US, rather it will “increase both amateur and organized terrorism.” (San Francisco Chronicle)Now, I Am the Terrorist (March 21, 2003)
On September 11, the US was the victim of terrorism. Now, writes William Rivers Pitt of Truthout, the US government pursues its own program of terror, as hundreds of massive missiles rain down on Baghdad, killing indiscriminately many civilians.Americans as Sitting Ducks (March 20-26, 2003)
Diaa Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements, argues that one of the effects of the imminent US military occupation of Iraq is the "logical and almost expected" entrance of Al-Qaeda militants into the Iraq crisis. The occupation of Iraq could thus become as bloody as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. (Al-Ahram Weekly)Top White House Anti-Terror Boss Resigns (March 19, 2003)
Rand Beers, the top National Security Council official in the US "war on terrorism," resigned this week. Intelligence sources say his resignation reflects concerns that the US war against Iraq will hurt counter-terrorism efforts. (UPI)Ridge Warns Iraq War Could Raise Terror Threat (March 4, 2003)
Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Secretary, and the FBI agree that a war on Iraq could bring new terrorist attacks within the US. "I mean, it's fairly predictable, and we see some of that now," Ridge told reporters. (New York Times)Terrorism and the War with Iraq (March 3, 2003)
A war on Iraq will greatly raise the risk of terrorist attacks in the US. When Saddam Hussein sees a war as unavoidable he may resort to terrorism either by employing Iraq’s own operatives or by working with al-Qaeda. In the past, Baghdad has not hesitated to forge new ties even with ideological enemies in times of crisis. (Saban Center for Middle East Policy)Al Qaeda Taps Arab War Fears (February 25, 2003)
According to counter-terrorism experts and a senior US intelligence official, a US-led war on Iraq will increase the number of al-Qaeda soldiers and generate more support for Osama bin Laden. (Christian Science Monitor)A US License to Kill (February 21, 2003)
International law scholars and international press criticize Washington’s authorization of the CIA to kill alleged terrorists. “Terrorism cannot be eliminated through terrorist methods." (Village Voice)Terror and Torture in the Philippines (February 21, 2003)
US troops in the Philippines will launch a new major counter-terror operation to fight the Muslim rebels. Anticipating an increase of human rights violations as a result of the operation, Washington has offered Manila $30 million in additional military aid in exchange for an agreement that would exempt US soldiers from the International Criminal Court. (Foreign Policy In Focus)Bin Laden's Voice Aside, War on Iraq Is Not War on Al Qaeda (February 13, 2003)
Bin Laden’s call on Muslims to rise up against the US in case of a war on Iraq does not demonstrate a link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. What his speech does show though, is that a US war on Iraq will bring bin Laden much closer to his goal. (Christian Science Monitor)Portrait of a Terror Suspect: Is He the Qaeda Link to Iraq? (February 10, 2003)
In his presentation to the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State Colin Powell singled out Abu Mussab Zarqawi as the most important link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. There is however no agreement among intelligence officials in the US and Europe about whether Zarqawi implicates collusion between Iraq and al-Qaeda. (International Herald Tribune)Leaked British Intelligence Report Contradicts US and Britain (February 5, 2003)
As the US and UK governments make their case for a war by claiming that the Iraq regime has links to al-Qaeda, a British intelligence report maintains that mistrust and incompatible ideologies makes a relationship between the two very unlikely. (BBC)The Philippines: Southeast Asian Keystone (February 3, 2003)
Following the war in Afghanistan, the Philippines became the second front in the US war against terrorism. In 2002, the US deployed over 1000 troops to train the Filipino army against the Islamist guerilla Abu Sayyaf. (Power and Interest News Report)False Trails that Lead to the Al-Qaeda 'Links' (February 2, 2003)
Washington’s attempt to link Iraq with al-Qaeda, so as to connect its war on terrorism with its goal of regime change in Baghdad, lacks convincing proof. Even the CIA has claimed that “the evidence is simply not there.” (Observer)Africa Activists Denounce Bush's "Malign Neglect" (January 29, 2003)
The US is increasing its military presence in African oil-producing nations, but ignoring African people who need economic support, health and education. 20 million Africans have already died of HIV, a scourge "far more deadly than terrorist or the alleged existence of Iraqi weapons," says Foreign Policy In FocusThe CIA's Secret Army (January 26, 2003)
After various CIA scandal operations in the 1970s and 1980s, the agency dropped its paramilitary operations. Since the beginning of the war on terrorism, however, the Bush administration has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the CIA budget to bring the Special Operations Group (SOG) back into business. (Time)The Rosy Dawn of US Imperialism (January 16, 2003)
Historians cite 1898 and the acquisition of an overseas empire as the beginning of US imperialism. This article claims that removal the queen of Hawaii in 1893 by the US Committee of Public Safety was imperialistic. (Counterpunch)Yemen: Coping With Terrorism and Violence in a Fragile State (January 8, 2003)
A report by the International Crisis Group concludes that a narrow militaristic approach to fighting terrorism in Yemen, which ignores the root causes of the country’s many problems, may jeopardize the stability of the state and boost the popularity of extremist groups and organizations.
2002
Back to Current Articles | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 Many Held at Guantanamo Not Likely Terrorists (December 22, 2002)
The US is detaining dozens of prisoners who have no link to Al-Quaeda or the Taliban at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detainees have no legal mechanism for appeal or legal representation. The Times suggests "If they weren't terrorists before, they certainly could be now." (Truthout)Pentagon Says US Forces Can Target Enemy Combatants at Any Time in “War against Terrorism” (December 16, 2002)
A Department of Defense official argues that US forces have the right to kill members of al-Qaeda or any other global terrorist organization at any time unless they are in custody. Crimes of War warns that this legal interpretation risks making international consensus on the rules of war impossible.Bush Has Widened Authority of CIA to Kill Terrorists (December 15, 2002)
The Bush administration has authorized the CIA to hunt down and kill terrorists without having to seek approval for each new operation. (New York Times)The Yemen Strike: The War on Terrorism Goes Global (November 14, 2002)
The US missile attack in Yemen represents a new stage in the war against terrorism, in which the US authorizes itself to eradicate suspected terrorists, not just in Afghanistan, but globally. (Crimes of War)Terrorism's Threat to Globalization (November 12, 2002)
The September 11 attacks and their aftermath have served to justify US expansion of its economic and military presence in regions previously beyond Washington’s sphere of influence, such as Caucasus and Central Asia. (Yellow Times)Government Must Not Sanction Extra-Judicial Executions (November 8, 2002)
In a press release on the US missile attack that killed 6 suspected al-Qaeda men in Yemen, Amnesty International expresses its concern that the killings could constitute “extra-judicial executions in violation of international human rights law.”Missile Strike Carried Out with Yemeni Cooperation (November 6, 2002)
The missile strike in Yemen met national and international critique. Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh said that, “If the USA is behind this with Yemen's consent, it is nevertheless a summary execution that violates human rights." (Washington Post)US Enters a Legal Gray Zone (November 5, 2002)
The Los Angeles Times says the US may have violated international law by launching a missile attack against six al-Qaeda members in Yemen. An international law expert warns that the attack sets a dangerous precedent, putting “governments at the same level as terrorists.”Remaking Policy in Asia? (November 2002)
September 11 enabled the US to expand its military presence throughout the Asia/Pacific region. These new ties have undermined democracy in the region by strengthening unaccountable and repressive militaries in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines. (Interhemispheric Resource Center)Against Terrorism or Expansion of the American Empire? (October 22, 2002)
According to this Yellow Times article, the US government does not care about ridding the world of terrorism. In fact, Washington supports paramilitaries in Colombia and harbors Cuban terrorists in Miami.The American Empire (October 16-18, 2002)
This article argues that the US is an empire, but one of reluctance and denial. It provides a concise account of the history leading to the rise of US hegemony in the world. In addition, the article provides comparisons between the US role in the world and past empires such as the Chinese, Roman and British variants. (Asia Times)Real Goal in Iraq (October 1, 2002)
The US intends to “mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire” by attacking Iraq. By establishing permanent military bases, the US will try to dominate the Middle East as well as every other region of the world. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)US Moves Commandos to East Africa to Pursue Qaeda in Yemen (September 18, 2002)
The US places increased focus on Yemen in its hunt for terrorists. US Special Operation forces, trained in “stealth attacks to kill or capture suspected terrorists,” move to military bases in the region to wait for “actionable intelligence.” (New York Times)Westward the Course of Empire (September 2002)
Le Monde Diplomatique argues that a new imperial ideology takes shape under President Bush. The new US empire strives for global expansion and “greater security and prosperity through the force of arms”, while submitting developing countries to a new period of colonization.US Military Troops and Bases Around the World (September 2002)
In this map, War Times shows the position of every major US military base in the world. The map reveals the enormous number and range of their bases.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 2002)
Not content with traditional deterrence and containment policies, US national policy now stipulates the US will act unilaterally and without hesitation to preemptively engage and attack deemed terrorist organizations and their supporters. The National Security Strategy, published in the run-up to the Iraq war, represents a radical revision of US foreign and military policy. (National Security Council)US Considers Assassination Squads (August 13, 2002)
Disregarding a presidential executive order, “the US government is considering plans to send elite military units on missions to assassinate al-Qaida leaders in countries around the world, without necessarily informing the governments involved.” (Guardian)Al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia: The Case of the “Ngruki Network” in Indonesia (August 8, 2002)
The International Crisis Group argues that “the challenge for the Indonesian government and the international community, is to be alert to the possibility of individuals making common cause with international criminals, without taking steps that will undermine Indonesia’s fragile democratic institutions.”‘US Anti Terrorist Aid Should Help Moderates Not Military' (August 6, 2002)
Prominent Muslim scholars are urging the United States to shift its counter-terrorism aid from Indonesia's notorious military to moderate Muslim groups promoting human rights and democracy. (Jakarta Post)Southeast Asian Nations and U.S. Sign Anti-Terror Treaty (August 1, 2002)
The United States and ASEAN signed a treaty that “would bring increased US technical and logistical aid to ‘prevent, disrupt and combat’ international terrorism” in Southeast Asia. Some fear the US will use this as a strategic ploy to set up military bases in the region. (Associated Press)US Troops Prepare to Leave Philippines (July 31, 2002)
As US troops leave the Philippines, only temporarily, feelings are mixed amongst the country’s citizens. Supporter of the US presence feel safer, while critics believe that a continued US presence is too reminiscent of the country’s colonial past. (BBC)US, Russia Group Fights Terror (July 27, 2002)
The US-Russia group was set up to deal with terrorism and other problems spreading from Afghanistan to Central Asian countries. In recent meetings, the two parties are discussing a broad range of anti-terror efforts extending “as far afield as Southeast Asia and East Africa.” (Associated Press)Central Asia: The Next Front in the Terror War? (July 10, 2002)
The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Islamic militants […] are beginning to regroup” in Central Asia. Referring to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, “experts and some Central Asian officials are warning that the question is no longer if the IMU will strike, but when.”Bases of Debate: America in Central Asia (July 1, 2002)
This article considers Central Asia’s geographically strategic position in the US’s “war on terror.” The authors offer arguments for and against a continued US presence in Central Asia. (National Interest)US Strategic Options for Iraq: Easier Said than Done (Spring 2002)
The Washington Quarterly analyzes US policy options toward Iraq offering a patient approach, a moderate approach and a "bold" strategy, each including the costs, benefits and risks associated with each option. The author privileges the patient approach as offering more gain than pain.War On Terror May Extend to Cuba (May 7, 2002)
The US threatens to place Cuba on Washington’s long list of new military targets. The Bush administration accuses Fidel Castro’s regime of developing “biological weapons and sharing its expertise with Washington's enemies.” (Guardian)Invasion of Iraq: It's Sooner Than You Think (May 7, 2002)
The mainstream media regularly reports that plans concerning the invasion of Iraq are contingency plans that “have not been operationalized,” and that “the target date has been postponed until next year.” However, “the invasion of Iraq may be sooner than we are being led to believe by the Pentagon propaganda machine,” argues Common Dreams.US Aims New Attack at Libya, Syria, Cuba (May 6, 2002)
The US accuses Libya, Syria, and Cuba of “pursuing weapons of mass destruction and warned it would take action to ensure they do not supply terrorists with such arms.” (Reuters)US Wants to Oust Saddam Even if He Makes Concessions (May 6, 2002)
The Bush administration will remove Iraqi President Hussein “regardless of what [UN] inspectors do.” According to US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, “the US reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change." (Guardian)A US Cabal Pulling America to War (May 3, 2002)
In the fall of 2002, the US will probably carry out a military strike against Iraq. Not because of terrorism or weapons of destruction. “No, it will happen because more than a decade ago a small cabal of political heavyweights in the administration of George Bush I, who now also run the foreign and defense policy of George Bush II, sat down and drew up a blueprint to rule the world.” (Foreign Policy in Focus)US Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year (April 28, 2002)
The New York Times reveals that the Bush Administration is “concentrating its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops.”US Units Attacking Al Qaeda In Pakistan (April 25, 2002)
Opening a new front in a “shadowy war,” covert US military units attack suspected al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan and conduct reconnaissance operations in the region. (Washington Post)Philippines Approves More US Troops (April 19, 2002)
The US sends several hundreds more American troops to the Philippines in the expanding “war against terror.” Another 2,700 American troops are also due to arrive in the country to take part in the second phase of the 2002 "Balikatan joint exercise” in the northern island of Luzon. (BBC News)A War Against the Peacemaker (April 16, 2002)
The US government will launch an international “coup” to depose Jose Bustani, a respected diplomat who could take away Washington’s pretext for war with Iraq. Bustani heads the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which enforces the Chemical Weapons Convention. (Guardian)Looking For Excuses For New War On Iraq (April 12, 2002)
Although Iraq has already indicated some willingness to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, a US intelligence official said the White House "will not take yes for an answer." (Socialist Worker)Blair Sees No Need For New UN Mandate to Attack Iraq (April 10, 2002)
British Prime Minister Tony Blair refuses to seek permission from the Security Council to attack Iraq in the expanding “war against terrorism.” (Guardian)Don't Always Trust What They Tell You In The War On Terror (March 30, 2002)
“Truth is already a casualty in the war against terror, but as the campaign against Iraq heats up, distinguishing facts from propaganda may become even harder.” (Independent)War on Iraq Based on Shaky Legal Ground (March 29, 2002)
Any military strikes against Iraq would violate international law. Only the Security Council holds the right to authorize the use of force. (Reuters)US Paves Way For War On Iraq (March 27, 2002)
The US Air Force relocates its headquarters from Saudi Arabia to Qatar to “bypass Saudi objections to military action against Iraq,” and prepare the next phase in the “war against terrorism.” (Guardian)Bush Won't Relent on Iraq (March 25, 2002)
A future military strike against Iraq may not result from US national security concerns. US President George Bush may have personal reasons to target Iraq. (Boston Globe)War Clouds Over Somalia (March 22, 2002)
A Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) report on Somalia as the next military target in the US “war against terrorism.” Although there remains no clear link between al-Qaeda and Somalia, the US may be laying plans for a major operation against the country.Georgia: US Opens New Front in War on Terror (March 20, 2002)
US President George Bush expands the “war on terrorism” to Georgia in what Washington insists is a terrorism spillover from the Afghan war. (Guardian)US Builds its Case Against Saddam (March 20, 2002)
CIA director George Tenet accuses Iraq of having links with al-Qaeda, but refuses to provide any details or evidence. This demonstrates that only the possibility of such links is sufficient to justify a US military strike against Iraq. (BBC News)Unlike 1990, Arab Support for Attacking Iraq Is Tepid (March 14, 2002)
According to this article, the US will have a hard time convincing the majority of Arab countries to support a military attack against Iraq. The US finds itself in a different position than in 1990. (Christian Science Monitor)Jordan, Turkey Warn US Against Strikes on Iraq (March 11, 2002)
Reflecting a growing belief among regional leaders that the risks of an attack on President Saddam Hussein of Iraq far outweigh any threat he may pose, Turkey and Jordan expressed unease about a potential US attack on Baghdad. (Washington Post)Britain and US Prepare Public for Iraq Strikes (March 6, 2002)
Though applying pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, Britain and the US seem intent on preparing public opinion for military action against the country. (Guardian)MPs Warn Blair Over Iraq (March 5, 2002)
Labour members of the UK House of Commons urged Prime Minister Tony Blair not to support military action against Iraq as a second phase in the US-lead war on terror, and to consider a more peaceful way of resuming weapons inspections. (Guardian)US Broadens Terror Fight, Readying Troops for Yemen (March 4, 2002)
The military campaign appears to be expanding. US President George Bush has approved plans to send troops to Yemen to help train the Yemeni military in their fight with Al Qaeda members allegedly hiding there.
(New York Times)Iraq In The Crossfires (February 28, 2002)
The "bomb Iraq" fanatics in Washington are calling for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by whatever means available to the US military. “Drawing an absurd analogy to the war in Afghanistan, some of Bush’s confidents are urging that the ‘Afghan model’ be applied to Iraq.” (ZNet)A New Terror-War Front: the Caucasus (February 26, 2002)
The next military target in the “war against terrorism” may be the Pankisi Gorge on the Georgia-Chechnya border. US military officials in Georgia claim that Arab terrorists "connected with bin Laden" are hiding among Chechen refugees in the Gorge. (Christian Science Monitor)US Says it Will Act to Overthrow Saddam (February 7, 2002)
Charles Duelfer, a former deputy chairman of the UN weapons inspectors, sums up US policy on Iraq: “they've taken the decision that the Iraq problem has to be solved, not managed, and there's certainly an inclination to do this militarily.” (Independent)New US Military Bases: Side Effects or Causes of War? (February 2, 2002)
This CounterPunch article argues that setting up military bases “may in the long run be more critical to US war planners than the wars themselves.” While many believe that bases are “side effects” of war, the author claims that the US uses war as an opportunity to set up bases. He argues that the bases the US established after interventions including the Gulf War, Somalia, the Balkans War, and Afghanistan maintain the US’s status as a dominant military power.US Takes Terror War to Philippines (January 31, 2002)
The US expands its "war on international terrorism" with joint military exercises in the Philippines. The Pentagon claims, without much evidence, that the Abu Sayyaf insurgent group has ties to Osama bin Laden. (BBC News)Iraq: The Phantom Threat (January 23, 2002)
Scott Ritter, former chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit for the UN Special Commission on Iraq, criticizes US intentions to target Iraq. US attempts to find a link between Iraq and those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks are based on fallacious information. (Christian Science Monitor)The Long and Hidden History of the US in Somalia (January 21, 2002)
Somalia is being mentioned as the next possible target in the US war against international terrorism. ZNet considers earlier US interventions in the impoverished country and what might result if the US does go to war.Should the War on Terrorism Target Iraq? (January 2002)
A policy brief by the Brookings Institute argues against using military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration ought to take advantage of the recent success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to “isolate Saddam’s regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way.”War on Terror Loses Its Way (January 17, 2002)
As US President George Bush's anti-terrorism campaign expands, the war’s new potential targets are obscuring the original quest for justice. (Guardian)US Takes Antiterrorism War to the Philippines (January 15, 2002)
The Pentagon’s decision to extend the war on terrorism to the Philippines may undermine legitimate struggles for effective political self-determination on the part of other Muslim Filipino political groups. (Foreign Policy in Focus)UN Official Says Somalia Vulnerable (January 10, 2002)
Randolph Kent, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Somalia, warned that US military action in the country could reverse hard-won gains made in recent years. The fragile Transitional National Government represents the first prospect of stability in the country in a decade, which has been riven by warlords and factions since the ousting of Siad Barre in 1991. (Reuters)US-led "Anti-Terror War" Should Not Be Taken to East Africa, Sudan Urges (January 9, 2002)
Foreign ministers of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development demand the International Community not to extend the US led-war against terrorism to East Africa. Development problems cannot be solved without peace and stability. (Agence France Presse)Somalia Is No Hideout for Bin Laden (January 9, 2002)
Nurridin Farah, a Somali author, asserts that the neither Somalia nor the US would benefit from a military campaign in the war-torn country. What Somalia needs is broad-based international support for the government's attempt to regain sovereignty over the country, not an anti-terror war. (New York Times)Somalis Wary of Growing US Scrutiny (January 8, 2002)
The US looks at several areas in Somalia as possible terrorist training camps with links to Al Qaeda. Inhabitants pray, unaware of their supposed terrorist connections. (Christian Science Monitor)After Afghanistan, US likely to focus on Indonesia, Philippines: Wolfowitz (January 8, 2002)
The war against terrorism continues as US Deputy Secretary of Defense gives a list of countries likely to be the next targets. (Agence France Presse)Warships Heading Towards Somalia (January 4, 2002)
The net is tightening around Somalia, as German navy ships are heading towards Yemen, Sudan and Somalia to participate in the fight against terrorism. (Afrol News)Top Secret Memo (January 2, 2002)
This fictitious memo between two transitional Somali officials comments on the causes and potential consequences of the expansion of the US-led war to Somalia. Ironically, as the author states, "the only way for one of the poorest, most fragile countries in the world to get international help is for it to be linked to terrorism and then bombed."
2001
Back to Current Articles | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 The War in Afghanistan (December 30, 2001)
In a thorough piece excerpted from a Lakdawala lecture in New Delhi, Noam Chomsky makes a compelling argument that the war in Afghanistan is not a "just" one. His comments center on the many injustices committed in the name of the "war against terrorism." (Znet)Military Action Against Terror Begins (December 27, 2001)
US military officials are making it clear publicly that Afghanistan isn't the only country where American forces are fighting -- or planning to fight -- terrorist networks. Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and the Chechnya region of Russia are other areas allegedly known as hide-outs for terrorist Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. (Associated Press)Old Strategy on Iraq Sparks New Debate (December 27, 2001)
The Downing Plan, a three-year-old US plot to topple Saddam Hussein, is revived as supporters claim several elements of the plan have proven successful in Afghanistan. The plan calls for a combination of US backed insurgents massive enemy defections, elite special operations units and US air power. There is no evidence, however, that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (Washington Post)War is Good Business (December 25, 2001)
The Pentagon is drawing up plans to attack Somalia, Sudan and Iraq without establishing the basis of its suspicion to any independent authority. A reason for widening the war against terrorism could be "war is good business.'' (The Statesman)House Passes Resolution on Iraq's Weapons Program (December 20, 2001)
The House of Representatives passed a resolution that warns of the dangers posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UN inspectors back into the country. Is this a move to justify Iraq as the next target on the US hit-list? (US Department of State)Somalia High on US List of Terror Targets (December 20, 2001)
Following a meeting with the US Defense Secretary, a senior German official revealed that US action against Somalia was not a question of "if" but "how and when". He added: "Anyone who rules out Somalia would be a fool." (Guardian)The Iraq Hawks (December 20, 2001)
Senior US officials have little faith in the viability of a new weapons inspection regime in Iraq. The Pentagon is therefore revising long existing plans to support the Iraqi National Congress, an opposition group devoted to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. (New Yorker)UN Chief Warns Against Iraq Attack (December 10, 2001)
Secretary General Kofi Annan warns the US not to take military action against Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. The Bush administration expresses concern that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein seeks new weapons of mass destruction. (BBC News)Lots of Wars on Terror (December 10, 2001)
The Bush doctrine is now a template for conflicts worldwide: to every action a disproportionate response. (Guardian)Bin Laden's Next Hiding Place (November 15, 2001)
Who would dare harbor Osama Bin Laden if he decides to leave Afghanistan? Countries like Somalia and Sudan fear being targets for US action in the anti-terrorism drive. (Guardian)America's 'With or Against Us' War Irks Many U.N. Nations (November 14, 2001)
The US line of conduct imposed on the world after September 11 displeases many countries. The tensions increase as President Bush informs the UN General Assembly of his plans to extend the war on terrorism beyond Afghanistan. (Christian Science Monitor)"How the War Against Terrorism Could Escalate" (September 2001)
Michael T. Klare predicts the evolution of the US military campaign against terrorism, saying that he expects it to widen to many countries. This may create widespread instability and produce dangerous outcomes that cannot be known. (Foreign Policy In Focus)US Imperialism: A Century of Slaughter (Spring, 1999)
This article examines several US interventions over the past century, which it suggests is evidence of US imperialism. It includes testimony from leading US military figures, including General Smedley Butler, in support of its claims. (International Socialist Review)Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 – 1993 (October 7, 1993)
This report by the Congressional Research Service details over 234 instances of US military actions abroad from 1798 to 1993. While comprehensive, it leaves out key reasons for US interventions and cites only official rationales.
