Without much fanfare, the Global War on Terror has ended. The new name for these military interventions is the Overseas Contingency Operation. Press Q&A. Some Republican representatives discuss. (SPOILER: They are not pleased.) Military blogs discuss. Similarly, the War on Drugs also looks to be on the way out, though no new name for the project has been announced at this time.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim on May 14, 2009 - 53 comments

Transcript of the most recent Osama bin Laden tape. [pdf] [more inside]
posted by ND¢ on Sep 7, 2007 - 175 comments

'The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Jay Rockefeller, vice-president of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after the committee quashed a broad inquiry into the legality of the NSA spying on Americans -- despite an increasing number of legal scholars coming forward and declaring that the program is "blatantly illegal," in the words of Yale Law School dean Harold Koh. Meanwhile, the GOP proposes giving spying on Americans the "force of law" while subjecting it to "rigorous oversight."
posted by digaman on Mar 8, 2006 - 175 comments

What is the cost of the war on Iraq? [more inside]
posted by edverb on Jan 8, 2006 - 48 comments

Arlington West. Photos: 1, 2, 3.
posted by loquacious on Jul 4, 2005 - 3 comments

To be successful, an occupation such as that contemplated after any hostilities in Iraq requires much detailed interagency planning, many forces, multi-year military commitment, and a national commitment to nation-building... To conduct their share of the essential tasks that must be accomplished to reconstruct an Iraqi state, military forces will be severely taxed in military police, civil affairs, engineer, and transportation units, in addition to possible severe security difficulties. The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be complicated by deep religious, ethnic, and tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society. U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend. An exit strategy will require the establishment of political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given Iraq's fragmented population, weak political institutions, and propensity for rule by violence.

From the US Army War College in February 2003: Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario  (PDF). From June 2005, Anthony Cordesman's analysis of factual misstatements in the President's recent address: Truth and spin on Iraq. Foresight is 20/20. Irresponsibility and mendacity are timeless.
posted by y2karl on Jun 30, 2005 - 44 comments

Saladin (Salah-ad-Din) is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the latest less than great Hollywood historical epic. A leader who seems to have viewed war as the means to a more perfect peace, his namesake now belongs to the Iraqi provence containing Tikrit, his birthplace and a city now all too familiar to us. The modern context of his story is important and obvious.
posted by fatllama on May 7, 2005 - 27 comments

While the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, the internal government memos collected in this publication demonstrate that the path to the purgatory that is Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, has been paved with decidedly bad intentions. The policies that resulted in rampant abuse of detainees first in Afghanistan, then at Guantanamo Bay, and later in Iraq, were product of three pernicious purposes designed to facilitate the unilateral and unfettered detention, interrogation, abuse, judgment, and punishment of prisoners: (1) the desire to place the detainees beyond the reach of any court or law; (2) the desire to abrogate the Geneva Convention with respect to the treatment of persons seized in the context of armed hostilities; and (3) the desire to absolve those implementing the policies of any liability for war crimes under U.S. and international law.

Regarding the Torture Papers, which detail Torture's Paper Trail, and, then there's Hungry for Air: Learning The Language Of Torture, and, of course, there's ( more inside)
posted by y2karl on Mar 14, 2005 - 97 comments

‘Staying the Course’ Isn’t an Option "If Bush is re-elected, there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq:

Four years from now, America will have 5,000 dead servicemen and women and an untold number of dead Iraqis at a cost of about $1 trillion, yet still be no closer to success than we are right now, or The U.S. will be gone, and we will witness the birth of a violent breeding ground for Shiite terrorists posing a far greater threat to Americans than a contained Saddam."
posted by specialk420 on Sep 26, 2004 - 50 comments

An interesting assessment of the war on terrorism. I love it when blogs seem to be filling a void in media coverage. This one is taking a critical look at the war on terrorism and seems to be finding some holes. If you go past the partisan talk (and it seems like that blog is slanted, even though it claims to be centrist), there's a lot of interesting links in there.
posted by TNLNYC on Sep 16, 2004 - 9 comments

World War IV

• 1914-1918: World War I
• 1939-1945: World War II
• 1945-1990: World War III (Cold War)
• 2001 ongoing: World War IV

Every generation has their war to end all wars. Welcome to ours. World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win. [via GlobalSecurity.org]
posted by Meridian on Sep 3, 2004 - 111 comments

Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died in the War on Terror. As of today, 872 soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 129 in Operation Enduring Freedom. Time for a moment of silence, perhaps, before sharing your reflections on the subject.
posted by insomnia_lj on Jul 7, 2004 - 51 comments

Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror. The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference. Who are you and what have you done with Rumsfeld? And Can you do it some more? via the illustrious oliver willis.
posted by jonmc on Jun 7, 2004 - 60 comments

Remarks by President Bush Long, but worth it.
posted by David Dark on Jun 3, 2004 - 139 comments

Not in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but right here at home. The forgotten front in the War on Terror™? Agents found an underground bunker, thousands of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of pounds of gunpowder and manuals on guerrilla warfare, "booby traps" and explosives....
posted by amberglow on Oct 18, 2003 - 30 comments

Who are these neo-conservatives? Pat Buchanan tells all.
posted by Voyageman on Mar 30, 2003 - 20 comments

Does America Torture? "The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive...died from 'blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease' while another ...from [a] blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a 'blunt force injury'." What steps are we taking in our "war on terror"? What if other countries decide to treat our civilians as "enemy combatants"? Is the Pax Americana so important that we must resort to torture, or, as is most often the case, giving up prisoners to countries that are known torturers?
posted by taumeson on Mar 7, 2003 - 113 comments

Ten days ago in Yemen, a car carrying several men, including an American citizen, was blown up. They were deliberately killed by a missile fired from a CIA drone aircraft. The American is from Lackawanna, New York, about nine miles away from my house. When I first heard about this bombing, I thought of Orlando Letelier. Where are the lines now separating law enforcement and war, targeted strikes and murder?
posted by skoosh on Nov 13, 2002 - 38 comments

A "spiritual perspective frappé" for the war weary. Some things are perfect, just as they are. Go now and refresh your weary soul with wisdom and a wry smile or two.
posted by Tiger_Lily on Oct 18, 2002 - 23 comments

The eXile's Gary Brecher, as offensive and amusing as usual, pondering the future of war: "The only enjoyable wars will be the mismatches, when the machine armies are unleashed on the savages. We've seen some of them lately: the NATO air forces working out on Serbia, the US and British planes playing with the Iraqis like a couple of kittens with a half-dead mouse. They're the wars people will enjoy, because the targets are so easy, so undefended, that there are lots of good gun-camera shots. But these wars have a little weakness: they never solve the problem."
posted by GriffX on Oct 3, 2002 - 16 comments

"They were acting like bin Laden was hiding behind every door. That just wasn’t the way to be acting with civilians." According to this Newsweek article, some members of U.S. Special Forces seem to think the military's recent operations to track down Al Qaeda went a bit awry.
posted by moonbiter on Sep 30, 2002 - 13 comments

Is Preemption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan? The greatest and most difficult task facing a statesman in international affairs is reconciling the natural tension between the constructive nature of a nation's grand strategy with the destructive character of its military strategy. The emerging doctrine of preemption should be examined in the context of this challenge. With this in mind, the author continues with a "Dr. Strangelove" type warning. Are our leaders "doing themselves in" (and us with them) in the current 'war' on terrorism?
posted by tgrundke on Aug 21, 2002 - 12 comments

A bit of a sea change at CNN.com: the "War on Terror" news heading, which has been part of the right column of CNN's home page since late September 2001, is gone, and not coincidentally, the massive non-news of the arrest of actor Robert Blake is the lead story. Not the growing world outrage over the Israel action in Jenin, nor the death of four Canadian soldiers by an errant US bomb.
posted by tranquileye on Apr 19, 2002 - 41 comments

Nine US soldiers killed, forty wounded in this mountain debacle battle.
Surprise, surprise. Our enemies can still shoot up convoys and shoot down helicopters. (Many of them did the same thing to the Soviets.) Why are we sending our troops to the front in rented pickup trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles? What ever happened to the Bradley? Don't they know that helicopters make great targets... especially when your enemy has Stingers? Why rush back into ground combat against a larger-than-expected enemy force anyways?
o/` "All we are saying... is give bombs a chance!"
posted by insomnia_lj on Mar 4, 2002 - 58 comments

Not to complain about the ever-expanding war on terror, but... Afganistan just might become a little stickier than our leaders had hoped. A recent raid on regrouping troops went not too well, with a combined force of Afgan and U.S. troops beating a quick retreat. Is the U.S. miring itself in not one but several Vietnam's?
posted by Gilbert on Mar 3, 2002 - 12 comments

They just wont let it lie. What posses these people to keep fighting against overwhelming odds.I can see what they are against but for the life of me I cannot see what they are for.Couple of points near the bottom of the piece are interesting.IHave I been asleep or has the killing of innocents on 23 January been underreported.Does the fact that small raids have led to arrest interrogation and subsequent release answer my own question? I am perplexed,are there any good guys?
posted by Fat Buddha on Mar 2, 2002 - 10 comments

US planes rain dollars on Afghanistan Brings a whole new dimension to the term "throwing away taxpayers' money". What kind of logic does the US govt put behind a stunt like this?
posted by ssheth on Feb 16, 2002 - 29 comments

How the U.S. Killed the Wrong Soldiers I read the original report of this attack and discounted the possiblity that it was a major screw up but it looks like it was. The same story from Knight Ridder
posted by onegoodmove on Feb 4, 2002 - 27 comments

"The Americans are angry because they had one day of war. We have had 23 years of it" human rights group Global Exchange takes WTC victim's families to meet the victims of the "War on Terror"
posted by brettski on Jan 16, 2002 - 9 comments

"We must not declare victory too soon," or the inevitable fingerpointing will begin.
posted by magullo on Jan 16, 2002 - 6 comments

"Just as the War Against Drugs would make some kind of sense if they honestly called it a War Against Some Drugs, I regard Dubya's current Kampf as a War Against Some Terrorists. I may remain wed to that horrid heresy until he bombs CIA headquarters in Langtry." Recent thoughts from Futurist, author, and stand-up comic Robert Anton Wilson.
posted by tranquileye on Dec 5, 2001 - 29 comments

"It's not propaganda, it's the truth" Rumsfeld declared. OK, but leaflets with radio broadcasts, and Information Programs, is this the best we can do? How about some Daffy Goes to War, even some inspirational Soviet and Cuban communist posters, as we do battle on the psyops war front?
posted by Voyageman on Nov 29, 2001 - 5 comments

Howard Zinn speaks at a high school. Parents get upset.
posted by Ty Webb on Nov 20, 2001 - 42 comments

Designdefenseministry All out war! A call to arms for those pixelpushers out there. Sick sense of humor (like the kabul coverage) combined with really great gfx. caution: bandwidth!
posted by heimkonsole on Oct 30, 2001 - 7 comments

The New War on Terror Noam Chomsky has written a book called 9-11. He analyses the situation in a long essay published in Counterpunch. Quote: We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed. Namely stop participating in it.
posted by alex63 on Oct 26, 2001 - 62 comments

Afghan People Agree With Retaliation Against Taliban "Most Afghans support the bombardment of Afghanistan by allies because they hope that it will end the Taliban regime."
posted by Oxydude on Oct 25, 2001 - 11 comments

Will pictures like this [not graphic, but disturbing] turn popular support against the bombing in Afghanistan? Or will stories like this bolster support for military action against the Taliban? What story sways you more?
posted by gazingus on Oct 24, 2001 - 57 comments

He said the roof of the building was marked with the Red Cross symbol. Good idea. Maybe they should hire Jakob, he would tell them that the cross is ineligible and might be thought of as a target.
posted by tiaka on Oct 16, 2001 - 31 comments

"No glory in Unjust War on the Weak" Barbara Kingsolver offers a touching response to America's retaliatory acts on Afghanistan. She is famous for her best-selling novels The Posionwood Bible and The Bean Trees. Kingsolver starts off very defensive, wary that she will be ridiculed for her "idealist" or "anti-american" opinion, but she then offers some good reasons why. Very moving.
posted by alex3005 on Oct 14, 2001 - 72 comments

Should the United States embark on a nation building exercise in Afghanistan a’la post-WWII Germany & Japan? (more questions inside)
posted by CRS on Oct 10, 2001 - 22 comments

Four UN aid workers killed in attacks on Afghanistan
I am surprised this hasn't posted yet. Has ennui settled in already?
posted by mapalm on Oct 9, 2001 - 86 comments

Airstrikes have begun in Afghanistan. Just heard on NBC, but no web links yet... President to address the US at 12.50p EST.
posted by warhol on Oct 7, 2001 - 261 comments

The G-Rated War: Blowing Smoke, Pipe Dream, or The Real Hashish?
I want to spin antiwar arguments a slightly different way. Previous threads have been quite dim. This Cnn chat transcript focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons, the need to separate innocents from terrorists and separate terrorist networks from Islamic states, and the interviewee is as much as suit as they come. You could cut a diamond on that crew cut. I have several questions: 1) Is the US military actually going to use non-lethal weapons, or is this the new "smart bomb?" 2) Do the 'pacificists' among us consider this to be pacificist? 3) If you do favor peace over war, do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary? More > >
posted by rschram on Oct 3, 2001 - 11 comments

On September 30th, there was a peace protest in Washington D.C. I'm surprised no one else linked to this -- about 50 students from my college attended and joined the crowd of a few thousand. I would have gone, but I'm dubious about the efficacy of public protest despite the fact that I'm an affirmed pacifist. What do you folks think? Will a totally non-military action be an appropriate response? (And is there any possiblity of the US acting in such a way?) Is the loss of a single additional human life in this new war justifiable?
posted by tweebiscuit on Oct 3, 2001 - 109 comments

Dack is back, but not in the blogging sense. Many here at MeFi thought he'd bring his blog back after it ceased in May. His front page is now a collection of links urging peaceful resolution of the Current Situation. Refresh a few times to see a variety of quotes.
posted by msacheson on Oct 1, 2001 - 9 comments

Love Bomb! Finally, a creative idea for the "New War." Granted, it wouldn't solve the whole mess, but it might be a step in the right direction. It sure wouldn't make us any new enemies. "A panel of four Williams College professors urged restraint in the so-called war on terrorism Monday, with one of them calling upon America to bomb Afghanistan not with explosives but with food and medical supplies. Anthropology professor David Edwards, speaking during a public forum at Chapin Hall, said airlifts similar to those provided to West Berlin by the United States and Britain in 1948 and 1949 could prove a public relations coup and an unexpected blow to terrorist Osama bin Ladin, in a country wracked by starvation, civil war and oppression. "Bin Laden expects us to strike with military force. It's what he's prepared for. In dealing with terrorism, you have to do the unexpected," said Edwards, an expert on Afghanistan who was joined on the panel by political science professors Marc Lynch, Gary Jacobsohn and James McAllister."
posted by martk on Sep 26, 2001 - 31 comments

Americans threatened to attack Afghanistan two months ago. Was the terrorist attack a pre-emptive strike?
posted by liam on Sep 21, 2001 - 25 comments

'AMERICA and Britain are producing secret plans to launch a ten-year “war on terrorism”..' declares this (otherwise fairly generic) article without citing its sources. Be prepared for the possible oxymoron of a line that is 'the whole focus of the long-term American approach was being driven by Richard Cheney..' Oh yeah -- hate to promote Murdoch media but also noteworthy in this mornings edition of the London Times are the revelations that whilst 200 British 'are certain to have perished', a further 800 are missing following the disaster and a piece warning of a 'nightmare scenario' in which Pakistan could lose control of its nuclear weapons to none other than THE TALIBAN.
posted by Kino on Sep 20, 2001 - 8 comments

An invasion now could be more costly than Vietnam Another article by the Independents Robert Fisk, this one showing how any infantry in Afghanistan would be a baaad idea - 10 million mines?? Thats more than 1 mine per Afghan, isn't it? The Russians got busy..
posted by Mossy on Sep 18, 2001 - 28 comments

Islamabad yet to decide on use of its soil: Cooperation areas to be defined first: official
posted by adnanbwp on Sep 13, 2001 - 3 comments