Global War on Terror (GWOT)

India has been fairly successful in firewalling the radical blowback emanating from Pakistan in the past and need not be overly worried about the impending US withdrawal.

• Harinder Singh , Sushant Sareen
• October 07, 2010
• Issue Brief

Across the globe, a crucial but largely unseen and unheard of force in the Global War on Terrorism is emerging – young, hardened, militant, radicalized recruits from Africa – a force potent enough to compel governments to revise their handbooks on how best to contend with Islamic extremism.

• Mayank Bubna
• January 14, 2010
• IDSA Comments

The most dangerous aspect of the war on terror from India’s security point of view has been the CIA’s monetary assistance to the ISI.

• Anand Kumar
• December 11, 2009
• IDSA Comments

Why are the two largest democracies – India and the United States – starkly different when it comes to tackling terrorism? The answer to this perplexing question could lie in the two countries' divergent approach to security and management of national security resources. Equally relevant is the variance in their political resoluteness in exercising suitable responses to emergent threats.

• A. Vinod Kumar
• November 2009
• Strategic Analysis

Pakistan’s counter-terrorism performance has received much attention. However, the United States’ capacity to sustain the ‘War on Terror’ needs greater attention, because Washington is the principal state leading the global fight against terrorism. Defeating and routing Al Qaeda was the core objective of the United States following the September 11 attacks, according to former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counterterrorism expert Paul Pillar. Washington was prepared to live with the extremist Taliban if its leadership snapped ties and handed over the top leadership of Al Qaeda.

• Kartik Bommakanti
• April 13, 2009
• IDSA Comments

Following the 9/11 attacks on the American homeland, India and Pakistan emerged as important states in the US-led Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The gathering momentum in the Indo-US relations during the Clinton Presidency underwent a dramatic transformation. Although increased cooperation in defence issues is understood to have 'led' the India-US relationship to its current level, it has not culminated in enhanced counter-terrorism cooperation. This perceived lack of cooperation can be located within the perceptual differences on key security issues.

• Shanthie Mariet D’Souza
• November 2008
• Strategic Analysis

The terrorist act of September 11, 2001, brought a revolutionary change in the international security paradigm. As the countries tried to adjust to the new security environment, the war against terror brought war closer to south Asia. Pakistan emerged as the frontline state in this war yet again and its foreign policy towards its two important neighbours, India and Afghanistan, underwent a strategic shift. It was quick to disown the Taliban. Its dilemmas were perceptible when it was confronted with the issue of dealing with terrorism in Kashmir.

• Smruti S. Pattanaik
• May 2008
• Strategic Analysis

While the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has worsened the political turmoil in Pakistan, it has also left in disarray the US policy of attempting to nudge this crucial ally towards a democratic and stable future. The United States underwrote the deal between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in the hope that her return to power would lend legitimacy to the former’s increasingly unpopular rule. In Bhutto and her party, the US found moderation and cosmopolitanism – a counterforce to the growing religious extremism in the country.

• Shanthie Mariet D’Souza
• January 02, 2008
• IDSA Comments

The Global War on Terror (GWOT), now into its sixth year, has become one of the most expensive wars in American history. GWOT covers three military operations: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which broadly covers Afghanistan but ranges from the Philippines to Djibouti; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), which is meant to provide better security for US military bases and enhanced homeland security; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) which began with the build-up of troops for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The cost of these operations has phenomenally increased over the years.

• Laxman Kumar Behera
• January 01, 2008
• IDSA Comments

The US-led ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan has led to the re-establishment of the warlords, and has failed to adequately address the issue of drug menace in an effective manner. As the Bonn process ended with the September 2005 elections, and the US forces are likely to partially withdraw this year, it is pertinent to evaluate the ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan and its implications for the post-election Afghanistan.

• Vishal Chandra
• January 2006
• Strategic Analysis