Skip to main content

War on Terror doing badly

We are constantly being reminded that there is a war on terror out there. If this or that measure isn't introduced or we pull out of Iraq or don't stop "them" from their terrible ways and aims all hell will break out we are told.

In an item of news which doesn't appear to have gained much traction anywhere, the SMH reports on the US State Department's assessment on the 'war on terror". It's not a good scorecard it seems.

"The US State Department yesterday urged that "non-military" strategies be used to fight terrorism as it admitted that more than 20,000 people died in terrorist attacks last year, up 40 per cent on 2005.

The big rise in deaths, injuries and terrorist incidents was almost entirely due to deteriorating security in Iraq and Afghanistan where the US is engaged in a conventional military response to the threat of Islamic extremism.

Incidents of terrorism in Iraq almost doubled to 6630 in 2006, resulting in more than 38,000 deaths, injuries or kidnappings. In Afghanistan the number rose from 491 to 749, accounting for almost 3000 deaths, injuries or abductions.

The dismal figures, which related only o terrorist acts targeting civilians - those on US or allied forces were not included - masked a modest decline of 3 per cent in terrorist attacks outside the two war zones but highlighted that the war on terrorism, 5½ years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US was proceeding poorly.

The State Department said progress since 2001 was "mixed".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more