|
|
|
From the moment the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center crumpled on September 11, 2001, it was clear that geopolitics would change dramatically, as governments around the world became fully aware of the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Known chiefly for past attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Ladin had just accomplished the single most deadly attack on U.S. soil since 1941 and the deadliest terrorist attack ever. Within a little over two months, U.S.-led forces had captured the Afghan capital Kabul and toppled the Taliban regime that had hosted Al-Qaeda.
Within a year and a half, the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein too had been removed. But, with that invasion, had the United States and its allies taken the war on terror too far? Was there really any connection between Al-Qaeda and the secular regime of Saddam Hussein? Had the Western democracies extended the war on terror beyond terrorism to include a campaign against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to impose democracy? Or, rather than protecting national values such as democracy, were the Western powers chiefly interested in their national interests, such as securing strategic supplies of oil? How far should the rolling war on terror be allowed to roll?
This special report by RFE/RL follows two basic lines: one, the practical struggle against Al-Qaeda and other militant groups; and the other, the debate within both the Islamic and Western worlds about the limits of the war on terror and how that war should be waged.
|
|