"You're either with us, or you're against us.". Those very words sparked the largest, and possibly, the most deadliest war this world has ever
witnessed. Fifty years from now, we will look back at those words and wonder why we all sheepishly went along with the grand War on Terror.
The war isn't only being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly soon Iran), but it's also being fought in ravaged lands that have been riddled
with war since the early nineties. Throughout our history, civil wars and conflicts have ravaged Earth for as long as man has recorded history.
Nothing has changed today. In the year 2000, a total of 1,500 armed conflicts were simultaneously going on throughout our world. The only difference
now, is the United States is picking and choosing who they want to win.. anyone but the"terrorists".
At the beginning of the War on Terror, the United States boosted their assistance exponentially to countries vowing to assist the coalition. The
increase in military assistance to some of the worst ravaged countries of the world, but the boost also came to any country, regardless of history,
regardless of genocide, regardless of massacres, willing to assist in the war.
The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away high technology weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the
global war on terror, regardless of past behavior or current status. In some cases, these recipients of U.S. military goods and services are weak,
failing, and failed states. Moreover, the Bush administration has expressed a willingness to provide weapons to countries that in the past have
been criticized for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and even support of terrorism, even though it is a standing tenet of U.S. policy
that weapon exports should not undermine long-term security and stability, weaken democratic movements, support military coups, escalate arms races,
exacerbate ongoing conflicts, cause arms build-ups in unstable regions, or be used to commit human rights abuses.
Among some of our newfound allies in the War on Terror, are countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia (To
name a few). These countries currently have inter- and intra-state conflicts, a few of them have evolving nuclear ambitions. And one should note
that sanctions on these nations were also lifted soon after 9/11.
Pakistan's military government attained power as a result of a coup, Azerbaijan has been embroiled in disputes with Armenia, the stability of
Tajikistan remains questionable, and Yugoslavia remains unstable and a possible "hot spot" for future conflict.
Now let's take a look at a few of these countries that gained considerably from the War on Terror
Since 2001 - Present:
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
International Military Education and Training (IMET)
The Freedom Support Act (FSA)
Armenia - $1,725,000 (IMET), $9,500,000 in (FMF), $209,700,000 (FSA)
Azerbaijan - $2,027,000 (IMET), $9,500,000 (FMF), $,131,010,000 (FSA)
Georgia - $5,054,000 (IMET), $62,390,000 (FMF)
Kazakhstan - $3,676,000 (IMET), $12,646,000 (FMF), $122,315,000 (FSA)
Kenya - $23,000,000 (FMF)
Kyrgyzstan - $3,180,000 (IMET), $22,846,000 (FMF), $147,989,000 (FSA)
Nepal - $27,000,000 (FMF), $15,000,000 (FSA)
Oman - $70,000,000 (FMF)
Pakistan - $5,814,000 (IMET), $858,429,000 (FMF)
Tajikistan - $1,009,000(IMET), $4,400,000 (FMF), $113,872,000 (FSA)
Uzbekistan - $56,657,000 (FMF), $191,690,000 (FSA)
Yemen - $37,000,000 (FMF)
Now, it wouldn't be fair to tell you the totals of these countries without a contrast to the type of funding they were recieving beforehand, so in
contrast, I'll state the funding from 1990 to 2001..
Armenia - $0
Azerbaijan - $0
Georgia - $1,978,000 (IMET), $17,000,000 (FMF)
Kazakhstan - $7,050,000 (FMF), $0 (FSA)
Kenya - $379,000 (FMF)
Kyrgyzstan - $1,815,000 (IMET), $4,700,000 (FMF), $0 (FSA)
Nepal - $1,300,000 (FMF)
Oman - $4,500,000 (FMF)
Pakistan - $750,000 (IMET), $0 (FMF)
Tajikistan - $0
Uzbekistan - $5,950,000 (FMF), $0 (FSA)
Yemen - $0
Other countries such as Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Philippines, Thailand, and Turkmenistan
are also profiting for joining on the War on Terror, but most of these countries have been profiting off the United States for quite some time, and a
noticable change wasnt indicated.
So why are certain countries obtaining these huge increases in military financial aid? Let's take a look..
Is it any wonder that 6 of the countries lay on China's border? Or that Iran is all but surrounded? Are we paying off these countries, building
their militaries, for a bigger purpose? Are we paying the governments of some of these countries to extract the "terrorists", or to silence the
While the dollar value of the increased support for some of these countries is minimal (especially when you compare it to the billions of
dollars in military assistance to countries like Israel and Egypt), the shift from virtually nothing to something is significant.
These sales represent only the beginning of U.S. military and defense industry ties. Under the guise of the "war on terrorism," these normally
undesirable bedfellows have gotten their feet in the door and will maintain a long-term relationship with the United States.
The United States remains the world's largest exporter of arms to developing nations and leads all countries in both arms transfer agreements
and arms deliveries in 2004, including $6.9 billion of transfer agreements with developing nations, up from the 2003 total of $6.5 billion. Russia
was the second largest arms exporter to the developing world in 2004, making $5.9 billion in arms transfer agreements, which correlates to a 27.1
percent share. The United States and Russia together accounted for nearly 60 percent of all agreements with the developing world.