There are many regional and local conflicts that are linked to the “War on Terror.” As argued in the thirteenth article in this series, resolving these conflicts would help reduce the scope and intensity of that war, but doing so has proven extremely difficult up to now.
At center stage in the twentieth century and among the world’s most heavily debated issues, U.S. foreign policy has been explored by a multitude of writers from sociology, politics and history. But what of economics?
Whatever popular support they may have enjoyed before coming to power or just afterward, radical Islamic revolutionaries have quickly proven themselves to be harsh authoritarian rulers wherever they have had the chance: in Iran (1979), in Sudan (1989), in most of Afghanistan (1996 - 2001), in par
Many fear (and many others hope) that American withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to a takeover of these two countries by radical Islamic forces, who will then be in a stronger position to spread to neighboring countries. The U.S.
Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama strategy toward the “War on Terror,” one aspect of it is now clear: the President is determined to withdraw American forces both from Iraq and from Afghanistan. American combat forces have already left Iraq.
When he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama argued that the manner in which the Bush administration had prosecuted the “War on Terror” had done America more harm than good.
As in Iraq, the United States and its allies did achieve some important successes in Afghanistan. Not only was the Taliban regime driven from power after just a couple of months from the launch of the U.S.-led intervention in October 2001, but this was done with fewer than 3,000 U.S. troops.
Absent the 9/11 attacks and the George W. Bush administration’s reaction to them, the War on Terror may not have come into existence in the way that it has. There certainly would have been Islamic radicalism as well as clashes between it and Western governments.