|  | 
 | Troops Oveseas
Photo: Corbis
|
As the U.S. embarks on year two of its War on Terrorism, President Bush and his team are beating the drums of war louder than ever against Iraq. As a result, talk of invading that country has consumed Washington for weeks. But so far, other western nations have shown little enthusiasm for such an attack.
In the post-9/11 world, the US and its allies face a variety of potential security threats from various corners of the globe. Below is a brief look back and forward at several of the world's outstanding hot spots, including Iraq.
Afghanistan
U.S.-led troops had relatively little trouble toppling the rogue Taliban regime and dismantling al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan last fall. Bringing Osama bin Laden himself to justice, however, has proven more difficult. The U.S. Department of Defense's official position is that it does not know if America's most wanted terrorist remains alive, but U.S. Special Forces troops have been actively hunting bin Laden in the mountains along the Afghan-Pakistani border in recent weeks, according to a report in The New York Times.
Despite the presence of 16,000 mostly American and western European troops, Afghanistan is hardly a model of stability. Local warlords continue to hold influence over large portions of the country. Acts of terror, such as the bombing of a United Nations facility in Kabul on August 25, appear to be increasing in frequency. The country's president has an around-the-clock security detail provided by the U.S. State Department. And American officials now openly acknowledge that allied forces will have to assist with nation-building in Afghanistan for years to come.
Nevertheless, thanks to military strikes, Afghanistan is no longer a haven for the world's most lethal terror group. Recently discovered evidence suggests that al Qaeda was indeed using its bases there to develop biological or chemical weapons. (A videotape broadcast by CNN depicted bin Laden followers testing an apparently lethal chemical gas on helpless dogs.)
While a number of successful and thwarted terrorist acts in the last 12 months have been carried out by apparent bin Laden-inspired radicals, only one attack can directly be attributed to al Qaeda itself, according to intelligence officials. On April 11, a 24-year-old man parked a truck full of explosives next to an historic synagogue in Tunisia and detonated it, killing 21 people, mostly tourists. The suicide bomber was a 24 year-old Tunisian national who allegedly received $20,000 in support from al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.
Time will tell if other incidents, such as an alleged planned hijacking attempt of an airliner in Sweden on August 22, can be directly tied to the al Qaeda network as well. Recent arrests of alleged al Qaeda operatives in the Netherlands, Germany, and the U.S. suggest that bin Laden's terrorist network is still operational, and potentially lethal.
Iraq
President Bush first branded Iraq part of an "Axis of Evil" during his State of the Union speech last January and he took a hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the months that followed. In the weeks immediately preceding the September 11 anniversary, the White House cranked the heat up even further on Hussein. Administration officials now say U.S. forces may need to be deployed into the heart of Iraq to overthrow Hussein.
There is scant evidence of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda but the administration argues that the Middle Eastern nation poses a severe security threat all its own. Speaking to a gathering of veterans on August 26, Vice President Dick Cheney argued that Hussein is on the verge of having weapons of mass destruction. "What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources and invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons," he said.
Making the case for military strikes against Iraq has hardly proved to be easy for the White House, at least so far. In published articles and in public comments, a slew of foreign policy experts with strong ties to the first president Bush have expressed strong reservations. These gray hairs, which include former Secretary of State James Baker and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, worry that an invasion would destabilize the entire Middle East region and turn world public opinion against the U.S. Moreover, they remain unconvinced that Hussein is on the verge of possessing nuclear arms. They suggest the U.S. should push for the return of United Nations inspectors to Iraq before undertaking war, a view that has been echoed by current Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Members of Congress from both parties have also been reluctant to support the president, claiming that the administration has yet to produce sufficient evidence of Iraq's nuclear capabilities. They argue that the legislative branch should be consulted before any moves are made.
Support from U.S. allies abroad has also been tough to find. Saudi Arabia, Iraq's neighbor to the south, says it would not allow the U.S. to launch strikes from within its borders. In Europe, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder has flaunted his disagreement with Bush over Iraq to score points in his re-election campaign.
Finally, there is the American public, which appears to support military action against Iraq, but by a relatively small margin. According to a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll published on August 29, 53% of Americans favor sending American ground troops to Iraq to topple Hussein and 41% are opposed.
As September 11, 2002 comes and goes, the debate over Iraq will undoubtedly continue on Capitol Hill, where at least one congressional committee plans to hold hearings. Though it has sent mixed messages on the matter, the White House now says it will consult with legislators before making any significant moves against Hussein.
For its part, Iraq is once again saying that it will allow United Nations inspectors inside the country, but will only do so if very specific stipulations are met. The White House says that it will only support inspections if they can take place completely unconditionally.
Iran
Another of the nations in President Bush's "axis," Iran remains somewhat of a shadowy player on the world's stage. Despite attempts at reform from secular leaders, hard line Islamic fundamentalists continue to enjoy the lion's share of power within the country.
The U.S. has accused Iran of harboring and sponsoring terrorism for years and last January presented evidence that it exported 50 tons of heavy weapons to Palestinian militants (Israeli commandos intercepted the shipment). The U.S. also contends that Iran is destabilizing the newly installed government in Afghanistan by arming rogue Afghan warlords, and that Iran continues to try to develop weapons of mass destruction. According to a recent Washington Post report, dozens of al Qaeda fighters are currently hiding in a town in eastern Iran. Among them are two of bin Laden's top aides.
Still, despite all of the above, military strikes against Iran are not considered likely. Diplomats in the State Department appear to favor a strategy of encouraging moderate Iranian elements, rather than confrontation.
Saudi Arabia
Though a U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia belongs on any logical list of nations which pose security risks to the U.S. and its allies. A majority of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, as is Osama bin Laden. The country's state-run television station held a live telethon in April to raise funds for Palestinians living in the West Bank during which average Saudis vented their anger against U.S. and praised "martyrs" who launched suicide bombing attacks on targets in Israel, according to an Associated Press report. Some have argued that the gulf state has been secretly funneling funds to terrorist groups for years.
America's relationship with Saudi Arabia is delicate and crucial to both nations. The Saudis are, in essence, the world's largest gas station and the U.S. its biggest, most important customer. Such economic co-dependence encourages both sides to sweep differences under the rug.
Maintaining that fragile relationship appears to be of little interest to a group of families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack. Together, they filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against the Saudi government which claims, among other things, that the ruling Saudi family paid Osama bin Laden $300 million in 1996 not to attack targets within the country. The suit further alleges that members of the ruling family have donated to bogus charities that serve as fronts for al Qaeda.
A report recently prepared by the Rand Corporation, which has longstanding ties to the Department of Defense, claimed that, "the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."
American authorities have played down both the families' accusations and the Rand report. On August 27, President Bush praised the two countries' "eternal friendship" during a call from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to Saudi leader Crown Prince Abdullah. Going forward, the importance of the economic relationship between the two nations is likely to continue to trump diplomatic differences even if the Saudis remain uncooperative over Iraq.
The Philippines
1,200 U.S. troops recently completed a six-month stay in the Philippine islands, where they trained Filipino forces for anti-terrorist activities and conducted strikes against a local terrorist group with reported ties to al Qaeda. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has since pledged an additional $25-$30 million in funds for further training and supplies next year.
Share your thoughts in You Tell Us.
 Looking Forward & Back Main |
|
