US-led Invasion Of Afghanistan Research Articles

Structural Violence and Terrorism in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan

ABSTRACTThe Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan came under the international spotlight following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.Mainly due to being a semi-autonomous region where British-colonial-era laws were practised until May 2018, FATA remains one of the most marginalised and insecure areas of Pakistan. Based on Galtung’s structural violence theory, this paper examines the nexus between the region’s socio-economic and political realities and terrorism. Through primary and secondary data, this paper argues that economic marginalisation and the lack of political and individual freedom of the tribal people are root causes of the instability in FATA.

Afghanistan: What Went Wrong?

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, which deposed the Taliban regime, was followed by a major international effort to stabilize that country. More than a decade later, this effort has yielded neither security nor political stability in Afghanistan. After having been ousted from power, the Taliban reestablished itself in the borderlands of Pakistan and began fighting an effective guerrilla war against international and Afghan government forces. Despite heavy losses in recent years, the insurgency shows no sign of giving up. Meanwhile, attempts to establish a credible and legitimate Afghan government have been similarly disappointing. President Hamid Karzai, once hailed as the country's democratic savior, came to be seen instead as the leader of one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet, a perception that has damaged his government's legitimacy both at home and abroad. Afghanistan's development and human rights indicators have improved, but it remains to be seen if these gains can be sustained as the international effort is scaled back. Finally, although the United States and its partners succeeded in weakening Al Qaeda in the region, both Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan appear to have become considerably less stable over the course of the mission, with untold consequences for the future.

The Cost of Clarity: The Case for a Strict Approach to the Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

In August 2012, the United States Congress directed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to determine whether the Haqqani organization, a militant faction loosely associated with the Taliban and based in the tribal region of Pakistan, met criteria for designation as a terrorist organization.The Haqqani organization has grown to be the predominate force attacking United States military and Afghan civilians in the years since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban regime. The issue now forced by Congress has drawn a line in the sand between two distinct camps in United States foreign policy. Proponents of the designation of the Haqqani network as a foreign terrorist organization argue that this designation is necessary to force Pakistani compliance with targeting the group, and also to achieve secondary effects such as isolating and attacking the economic capabilities and alliances available to the organization. Opponents to the designation cite the risk that the United States runs in alienating powerful opposition elements that have the capability and growing desire to negotiate a lasting peace in the region, expediting to an eventual withdrawal of United States forces. This article, then, argues that a hard line approach to organizations under scrutiny as foreign terrorist entities will best achieve the objective of maintaining international peace and security. In contrast, a softer approach, hedged on aspirations of reconciliation, yields results directly counter, with organizations dedicated to the targeting of United States interests to continue violence free of consequences.Specifically, application of this hard line approach to designation of foreign terrorist organizations will provide a clear line of demarcation for groups targeting United States interests. It will add clarity to the twilight zone that currently exists between when the United States will and will not entertain negotiations with elements seeking concessions adverse to stated United States policy. Part I of this article describes the situation that currently exists in which extremist organizations are able to exploit the gap in US designations of groups as foreign terrorist organizations. In Part II, the article explains how a hard line approach would yield beneficial results when dealing with organizations adverse to US foreign policy goals, exploring the trade in consequences of designating a terrorist organization early and consistently versus later and without fidelity. Finally, Part III, the article demonstrates why early and consistent designation of terrorist organizations furthers international peace and security objectives by eliminating the ability of these organizations to mature into threats of international significance.

Implications of NATO Presence in Afghanistan: The Internal Dimensions

There is a common consensus about the argument that the events of September 11, 2001 changed the world completely. However, there is a wide disparity of views when it comes to initiations of the event, its analysis and the chain of consequences of this event. Somehow or the other, the greatest impact of what we usually refer to as 9/11 was and is on Afghanistan. A lot has been written about the global and regional implications of 9/11, but there is very little work available that revolves around the event on Afghanistan itself. Therefore, in this paper we will try to seek out the effects of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan on its internal dynamics.The study will start off with the events that led to 9/11 seeking out if it was unexpected or inevitable. The study will try to find if the NATO attack on Afghanistan would have gone ahead even if the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon had not taken place. It will then analyze the perceptions that were spontaneous and that were manipulated to justify the presence of international forces in Afghanistan. The paper will discern the reasons for a widespread participation of different countries in the US-led invasion, and also the reasons of why some other countries opted to stay out of this attack.The major part of the paper will focus on the impact that NATO presence had on the internal affairs and conditions of Afghanistan. It will try to search the political impacts, including the coming of Karzai government, the level of acceptance, the opposition within and without of Afghan parliament, the legitimacy and the strength of current political structure. The paper will try to find out all the pros and cons of the presence of economically supreme forces inside Afghanistan; for example the effect on poppy cultivation, imports and exports, smuggling and economic infrastructure. The changes that the presence of NATO forces has brought in the Afghan social structure and fabric are also an important field of our interest. The changes in social norms that have been a direct orindirect result of foreign presence will also be studied. It will also try to and look for the challenges and opportunities for the law and order situation and Afghanistan's national army, as foreign forces can have assisting and modernizing as well marginalizing and destructive effects on local army because of their high technological superiority. The final part of the paper will search for the future possibilities that the situation in Afghanistan offers. However, the focus will be limited to only three factors: The possibilities that lie ahead for the foreign forces, the possible alliances that may emerge, and the perils that a possible Civil War may lead to. In conclusion the paper will sum up the findings and spell out possible answers of theresearch questions in the light of its findings.

REVIEW: A revelation about human rights and the ‘war on terror’

Review of The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, by Robert Fisk
 Since 9/11 and the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, British journalist Robert Fisk has built a huge following as a staunch critic of George W. Bush’s ‘war on terror’. But Fisk’s cogent—often controversial—analysis of American foreign policy and Western meddling and mendacity in the Middle East is nothing new: based in Beirut, he has reported for 30 years on conflicts from Algeria to Afghanistan.