Blind Leading the Blind, Research Paper Example

Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the blind sheikh in the United States, is an Egyptian Muslim that is currently serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy based on the planning activities for the World Trade Center bombings in 1993.  His role with the planning of terrorist activities gained not only notoriety in the United States and Egypt but also brought public light to the militant Islamist guerrilla tactics globally.  Not only does Abdel-Rahman have ties in Egypt but has also made multiple ties with the Al Qaeda, in which he holds a leadership, role and the has strong ties with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.  The roles of the United States, Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and the issuance of a fatwa against the United States that resulted in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 are all key aspects of the revolutionary movement for the Islamization of the United States.

Abdel-Rahman has issued a fatwa and this includes seven distinct factors to destroy the non-believers.  The seven tenants of the plan include tearing the country apart, provoke corporate failure and destroy the economic stability, destroy the embassies, attack all interests both domestic and foreign, kill and destroy them on land, sea and air.  These aspects are accomplished both directly by the terrorist groups but also through indirect tactics and usurping authority of those in the critical positions of business, government and military operations.

The United States leads the forefront for the protection of against those that threaten the freedom of those within the democratic nations globally.  The leader of the free world is the President of the United States, President Barrack Obama.  The role and responsibility of the President includes monitoring and controlling the activities of the largest democratic nation in the world.  This amount of power and opportunity provides many opportunities to change the history of mankind and promote specific beliefs or actions without directly ordering such changes.  The manipulation and guidance a senior leader can exude on a nation is the most powerful tool a faction based on religion or other ideologies could possess.

Terrorism and the United States

The war on terror officially started on 7 October 2001 and is currently ongoing (Shah, 2013).  When the “Global War on Terror” is discussed or written about, the United States military forces are the first images that come to mind.  While the efforts of the US military are critical and are the primary driving force for the efforts there are also other players in the game.  These additional efforts come in the forms of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon and private contractors.  These efforts focus on areas of responsibility including building strategy to ensure relationships are built or renewed; information is gathered, understood and utilized as a well as taking on tasks that are necessary may not fall into the realm of the military’s objectives.

These efforts are used to not only facilitate the U.S.’s interests regarding the global war on terror but also to advance the military’s strategic intent by taking some of the tactical and operational burden’s off of the service members.  By utilizing other government agencies as well as private contractors there is a sense of increased targeting opportunities by the opposing forces.  Those that do not agree with the utilization of covert civilian operations or outsourced military activities to U.S. contractors may cross lines for other countries and could potentially provide the provocation for terrorists or other militants to take action against those that are taking action in these untraditional ways.  While utilizing the CIA and the Pentagon to ensure missions have the information readily available and the planning conducted so that the service members have the tools necessary to take on their assigned missions, the increased usage of civilian contractors blur the lines between U.S. sanctioned military actions and actions by individual groups of militia type contractors working in a war zone.  This could increase the target size on the U.S.

In order to fully understand the strategic relationship Pakistan has with Afghanistan it must first be understood how it came about and how they work in their somewhat symbiotic relationship.  In 1947 British India was separated into the Republic of India and the Republic of Pakistan (Simpson, 2011).

Pakistan shares a border with Afghanistan to the west.  There were many tumultuous times that occurred between the two countries including assassinations, coups, facilitation of government take-overs and training insurgents and refugees to fight other countries that placed their imposition of views and religion on their lands.  While there have been years of fighting amongst one another there has also been a show of support from outside entities that threaten their beliefs.  As their relationship deteriorated the overt efforts to use force against one another has not been on the forefront but subtle and impacting actions such as political statements of distrust, placing blame for critical economic decisions and a show of force by both administrations in the respective countries placed focus on their strained relationship.

The death of Osama bin Laden created a ripple effect within both countries. Shortly after is take down many of Afghanistan’s hierarchy was assassinated.  This led to increased hostility between the two countries and could potentially be the turning point for an irrevocable reconciliation.  The relationship Pakistan built with India is in direct opposition on its current global view.  Traditionally Pakistan was aligned with Afghanistan but with the events on September 11, 2001 they chose to become strategically aligned with the anti-terrorism efforts and thus trying to become the preferred ally of the United States.  The relationship and interests for Pakistan and the United States toward Afghanistan are aligning based on their continue efforts to eliminate terrorism and establish an environment for security and economic growth.

Misguided Efforts

Operation Enduring Freedom kicked off following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  Several nations took part in the collaborative efforts to rise against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan which include the United States and Afghanistan nations.  Afghanistan’s role in the war on terror and their facilitation to U.S. troops have provided invaluable in the acclimation and overall success of U.S. troops in the region.  The insurgency of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have established themselves in the region for multiple decades allowing a home field advantage as well as a well-established underground logistical network which participants in Enduring Freedom would not have enjoyed had it not been for the alliance and cooperation of the Afghani regime.

The operations against Al-Qaeda are playing into the competitive advantages of the terroristic operational and tactical war efforts.  The United States is fighting a war without identifiable targets, no clear objectives and only measurable losses as opposed to measureable wins.  The fatwa against the United States has issued the creed to destroy ships, planes people and assets.  The utilization of the United States’ assets in war degrade their capability, risk equipment and lives and physically as well as emotionally strain the human element of the military forces.  This extended effort has extended the capabilities of the armed forces and depleted the capability to sustain the war.

The future of the United States and its presence in the Middle East is also at stake.  The United States has more at stake than a political and economic alliance with Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is a foothold and peephole into the Eastern world which in some cases is prime areas for the breeding of terror cells which could potentially bring harm to the American people or their allies.  The relationship is currently symbiotic in nature in which the United States invests billions of dollars into the infrastructure of Afghanistan as well as training and equipment for Afghan military police and in return the United States receives presence in in the Afghan region (Ryan 2010).

Afghanistan provides a strategic presence and unabated insight into Southwest Asia.  The alliance between the United States and Afghanistan should not only maintain their current status but work on strengthening the ties between the people of the U.S. and that of Afghanistan.  The occupancy of U.S. diplomats and officials in Afghanistan enable greater insight, touch and feel for the surrounding countries such as Pakistan, Iran and China which are points of interest militarily, economically as well as important to current operations concerning the Global War on Terror.

United States and Afghanistan’s Relationship

The historical relationship between the United States and the Afghani people is a crucial piece of the historical inference between the current regime in the United States and the increase in terroristic power Al-Q     aeda possesses.  The Blind Sheik’s long-standing support of military operators during and after the Afghanistan war with the Soviet Union ties directly with the fatwa which occurs in the United States today.  The relationship between the United States and Afghanistan dates back to 1921 when the Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed between the colonial British India and Afghanistan (The British Library Board 2012).  This provided the stepping stone needed for the Afghan mission to reach out and establish a touch point with the United States in order to build the diplomatic relationship.  This work took over a decade to come to fruition mostly because the United States took on a U.S. policy to help developing nations to raise their standard of living.  The relationship built between the two countries allowed Afghanistan’s needs in terms of quality of life and U.S. support to raise the forefront among other developing nations.

Over the course of the next couple of decades multiple advisors and foreign relations officers were appointed in which many U.S. diplomats were permanently stationed in Afghanistan to increase their awareness and show that the U.S. was extending their diplomatic handshake.  During the 1950’s, the world was recovering from World War II and although Afghanistan did not enter into the war after it was over, Afghanistan requested assistance from the United States regarding national defense.  Although the request for cooperation was declined an extension in the form of economic assistance for roads, dams, power generation and other forms for the country’s infrastructure was provided.

Afghanistan benefited greatly from the neutral position it held during WWII and later its position during the Cold War in which it did not align with either the United States or Soviet Union.  As the United States and the Soviet Union proceeded to compete in the arms race, scientific breakthroughs, the space race and any other possible measurable aspect of humanity, Afghanistan was not left out of the equations.  Both the United States and the Soviet Union competed by building more infrastructure and providing funding for technical assistance development in order to build the skills necessary for a modern economy.

This dual competition between the United States and the Soviet Union did not last the entire Cold War.  The war between Afghanistan and Russia did not initially start over boarders or religion as many wars are based but in essence was a battle between the Soviets and their potential control of Afghanistan and the United States and their battle against communism and its spread throughout the world.  Initially, Afghanistan had a treaty with the Soviets regarding military assistance in times of need.  This time of need arose when the Mujahedeen rebels continued attacks against Afghani high impact targets (Giustozzi, 2000).

As the increased support from the Soviet Union flooded into the Afghan region the United States took notice and saw this as a spread of communistic ideas and a threat to democracy which at the time had a direct impact on the goals and objectives of the United States (Giustozzi, 2000).  Securing democracy and not allowing the spread of communism drove the United States into a mode of action.  The United States then went on to perform multiple covert and obvious measures to show their support for their efforts against the Soviets and their spread of communism.  Afghanistan’s history as a central point for escalated wars was no different now between the United States and the Soviet Union as it was for the proceeding conflicts ranging back to the pre-Islamic periods before 3000 BCE. Afghanistan was used as a medium and vessel for the United States and the Soviet Union to have a political and physical war with each other without escalating the entire process into World War III.

Afghanistan is a country with a population of almost 30 million people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of $30 Billion (IMF 2011).  One of the main focuses of the United States and why they would benefit from a strong relationship with Afghanistan revolves around Afghanistan’s religious composition.  Over 99% of the people in Afghanistan are Muslim which 85% are Sunni and 15% are Shi’a sects (Library of Congress 2008).  The Islamization of the United States would be successful in the eyes of Abdel-Rahman if all non-believers were dealt with by death or expulsion.  Afghanistan is landlocked and very mountainous which inhibits free travel especially among those not familiar with the terrain.  Although Afghanistan is still developing there is a potential for tremendous natural resources in their region.  According to a study in 2007 there is an estimate of $3 trillion worth of untapped resources and mineral deposits under Afghanistan’s purview.

Although the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan has not been free of pitfalls or issues it is still a strategically significant country even more so in today’s geo-political make-up than it was in the 1950’s to 1980’s. Afghanistan has a long history of trials and tribulations but with the signing of the Bonn agreement in 2001 an interim government was established and Hamid Karzai was selected as president.  The goals of the newly formed Afghani government were to protect human rights, develop economic security, establish citizen’s safety and fight against corruption and trafficking (Library of Congress 2008).  All of this hinged on the support efforts of the United States and other coalition countries.  As the Global War on Terror intensified and the resurgence of the Taliban in the region the government lost their grips on the efforts and requested assistance from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

The United States is a main factor in the success of Afghanistan an in order to remain present in the Southwest Asia the United States must continue their efforts to remain in alliance with Afghanistan and help mold and align their countries objectives to that of the greater good which includes shared economic prosperity amount countries, reduced or eliminated terroristic threats both originating from and occurring in the region as well as the safety and freedom of the people in both countries.

The United States and Afghanistan both enjoy the relationship for different reasons but both benefit nonetheless.  Common goals between the countries are what make the difference between the alliance between the United States and Afghanistan of today as opposed to the neutrality and ambivalence to the overall strategic plan of the U.S. in the mid-part of the last century.  Afghanistan gains financial backing to establish and build the tools they need to become a prosperous and self-sustaining country free from the perils of harboring and creating terrorist functions as well as moving away from the trafficking of drugs to maintain their economic health.  The United States builds a relationship that allows a bridge between religions, politics and regions that will facilitate the goals and objectives of the American people.

The president of the United States is the leader of the free world but with the democratic people supporting his visions and goals there is an inherent risk of those activities leading the destruction and degradation of the United States.  With leadership comes great responsibility.  The area of concern regarding the paradigm shift in leadership is transforming the leadership styles from taking an objective to commanding and controlling the actions of others through all available resources and not just force.  There is a significant shift from rapid dominance by showing the overwhelming power to dominate the opposing force to strategic and technically sound battlefield operations that hinder ability of the opposing force for not just that battle but also with up and down stream impacts to the opposing forces readiness and ability. On September 11, 2001, the United States entered into a new realm of sacrifice and opportunities for the leaders of the free world.  The terrorist attacks on the home front of America awoke the lion.  Not since the attacks on Pearl Harbor did an attack on the United States spark such a visceral and pungent attack against an enemy.

The motive, whether in revenge or justification, military force and economic backing was in place to right the wrongs to those that were harmed against the enemy which brought tragedy and sorrow to America’s own backyard.  The problem with garnering the exacting restitution to the harm and pain felt by the American citizens was that there was not a single point of contention, no country to invade or dictator to force out of power.  The war to bring justice did not have a singular nor distinctive entity to oppose.  The strategic minds on the U.S. government knew that terroristic attacks both foreign and domestic were not going to be handled lightly nor without ramifications.  The global war on terror initiated the international military campaign to end terrorism at its core and bring safety to the citizens.

Global War on Terror

The Global War on Terror’s foundation is based on bringing together the entities across to globe to show once force against terrorist and those who support terrorists.  Leadership ranging from the president of the United States to the 2^nd lieutenant leading is expeditionary force into the homeland of the terrorist cells have been focused on defeating the terrorists through military might and through the physical offensive destruction of key military objectives.  The military doctrine that has proven elegant and impacting in the traditional wars of the past does not meet the demand and alternative tactics needed for the war on terror.  National security is at risk every waking moment of the day and night against those who want to bring harm and devastation to our land and our people.

The offensive strategy by the Bush administration focused heavily on an offensive campaign against the al Qaeda abroad but neglected to focus on the other three areas needed to remain successful in the war on terror (Van Evera 2011). In a traditional war the battle was best taken to the opposing force which meant that the casualties and damage hit home destroying more than just infrastructure and troops it also won the battle of the minds and hearts of the opposing forces by forcing the inhabitants to “live” the war while back on the U.S. home front the civilians were going about their daily lives and supporting from the rear with encouragement and heart.  There are three other areas that were needed to be addressed by leadership. This includes fortifying homeland security and defense, command and control of weapons of mass destruction and continual improvement of our leadership on the field and the tools to win the war.  Although this is not a critique of the leadership decisions made during the Bush administration it is imperative to understand the transition between the traditional wars fought in years past to the non-traditional or guerrilla combat fought abroad in conjunction with shoring up the foundation at home to secure the safety and freedom of the U.S. citizens. To win the war on terrorism leadership must understand the tools that are available to the enemy. Crashing airliners into buildings and mailing anthrax laced boxes to federal buildings are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to readily available tools for the opposing forces.

The leadership’s mindset needs to change from matching weapons, tanks, air dominance and troop size to understanding how to mitigate the root cause of the issues.  When forces are moved to overseas locations monetary funds are flowing out of the budgets of defense and security into logistics and support functions.  The battles in Afghanistan and Iraq had many positive aspects but also provided battles won in the war for the terrorist.  Every dollar misappropriated to the non-support of the global war on terror provides a little more wiggle room for a terrorist to attack.  This in itself is a victory based on the fatwa to tear apart the government of the United States.  The in-fighting between multiple sectors of the government cause tension and provides opportunities for external threats to strike.

In 2001 and into 2002 the United States provided the necessary support and forces to oust the Taliban government in hopes to separate the head of the serpent from the body.  Al Qaeda had its leadership removed from its operational force and this victory was perceived as a great success in the United States view (Van Evera 2011). The problem associated with this perception is that although there was a separation and decentralization of leadership the forces attached to the prior leadership were still potent and able to cause great destruction and harm through terroristic methods.  Separating the leadership from the troops following him or her would bring down traditional governments or crumble countries but the leadership of the United States would need to change their direction and utilize a different leadership style that includes an agile approach.

Preventing an attack against our homeland or the citizens abroad is easier said than done.  Great destruction and harm to any potential target are the objectives of terrorists.  The one-dimensional war waged against these terroristic threats falls short of providing the necessary prevention or debilitating affects necessary to render the terrorist threats inoperable.  For example, throughout history al Qaeda has lived in the perils of burden and oppression with only the means of terrorism to use as their primary weapon unless another country comes to their aid to fight a traditional war.  The challenges faced in fighting the war on terrorism are that there is not a centralized focus for resources and there is an element of unpredictability around the actions the terrorists take.

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.  Osama bin Laden was a terrorist.  The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. The attempt to destroy the English parliament in 1605 was a terroristic act.  John Brown was an abolitionist which led multiple terrorist attacks against the armory at Harpers Ferry which at the time was called treason.  All of these people and acts are viewed in different ways depending on which side of history the person reading about these events fall.  The main focus is on the leadership interpretation and how a reactionary action needs to translate into a proactive act.

With these outlined people and activities as examples of terrorism, are all the activities that have directly or indirectly supported the fatwa issued by Abdel-Rahman supported by the President of the United States.  The examples have shown clear and present examples of the relationships built across nations, extenuating circumstances of effort, support and direct intervention of political, social and militaristic action supported by Barack Obama.  Spreading the resources of the United States so thin that we cannot protect ourselves, setting up economical hurdles so that businesses cannot operate freely in the open market and limited the ability to maintain a sustainable operation of food production and oil transport are all directly related to the leadership of Obama.

The chain of command, in which Obama is the Command-in-Chief and must follow his directives precisely, become a, monetary expenditure, resource waste and human demise.  Team leadership, in the context of the United States military, is broken down into tactical forces that are carrying out the operations on a day to day basis and flows up the chain of command in an alignment of those objectives to the strategic vision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President of the United States.  This flow of information and representation of the team’s dynamics paints a particular picture ranging from the newest recruit carrying out the orders of his or her commanding officer to the President’s tenured decisions leading the United States toward the country’s vision (Kotnour 2000).  These actions, dynamics and leadership structures are all built on an alignment of a common understanding within the goals and objectives of the country.

The global war on terror’s history is complex in nature due to the historical significance of leadership within the United States, the dynamics of political forces that played key roles in the vision and goals of the country as well as the alignment of key resources throughout the world and within the hierarchy of the military. In 2001 and into 2002 the United States provided the necessary support and forces to oust the Taliban government in hopes to separate the head of the serpent from the body.  Al Qaeda had its leadership removed from its operational force and this victory was perceived as a great success in the United States view (Van Evera 2011).  The problem associated with this perception is that although there was a separation and decentralization of leadership the forces attached to the prior leadership were still potent and able to cause great destruction and harm through terroristic methods.

Separating the leadership from the troops following him or her would bring down traditional governments or crumble the country’s infrastructure.  The United States would need to change their direction and utilize a different leadership style that includes an agile approach. The global war on terrorism is a war fought with unconventional methods in an asymmetrical battle. The military strengths of both sides differ greatly in size, technology, resources and training but their differences produce vastly different strategies and tactics to accomplish their respective goals and objectives.  In the views from both perspectives the communication of whether the forces are terrorists or part of a non-traditional military force are varied.  Regarding asymmetrical warfare and terrorism there are traditionally two views on how they relate. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of fourth generation warfare. When practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters (Corbin 2001).  The larger side of the asymmetrical battle will propagate the smaller side as terrorist cells and try to use the negative connotation of the term as a motivator for support while the smaller side will voice the oppression of the larger side and spin the propaganda in favor of the resistance of the larger group.

Prior to the attacks on the World Trade Centers in the United States the al Qaeda operational lineage can be traced back to the war with the Soviet Union beginning in 1979 (Giustozzi 2000). The relationship between the United States and Afghanistan dates back to 1921 when the Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed between the colonial British India and Afghanistan (The British Library Board 2012). This was the first bridge between the U.S. and Afghanistan that allowed the foundation to be built for a diplomatic relationship. The foundation was in place but a proactive approach to furthering the relationship did not take start to take hold until policy makers in congress took on a new view on helping developing nations increase their standard of living. The prior relationship between Afghanistan and the U.S. helped raise the awareness of their socio-economical needs which put Afghanistan’s needs to the forefront of other deserving nations.  Although progress was slow multiple steps were taken to advance the relationship such as multiple advisors and foreign relations officers were appointed in which many U.S. diplomats were permanently stationed in Afghanistan to increase their presence and awareness that the U.S. was taking interest in the nation.

The world was recovering from World War II in the 1950’s and although Afghanistan did take sides during the war it did request assistance from the United States regarding national defense.  The initial request was denied due to the fact that the country did not support the war efforts and providing defense to a country that was not fully committed to the United States objectives did not seem like a politically friendly road to take.  In lieu of the defense support, an extension in the form of economic assistance for roads, dams, power generation and other forms for the country’s infrastructure was provided (Giustozzi, 2000).

In terms of a leadership perspective it was a good step forward in providing assistance to a flailing country. Through hindsight the United States provided just enough assistance to bring the standard of living up to a livable status but did not become fully committed to the country in terms of regulatory imposition, increased presence to deter activities not in coordination with U.S. policies or objective or receive anything in return to hold Afghanistan accountable for their actions. Afghanistan benefited greatly from the neutral position it held during WWII and later its position during the Cold War in which it did not align with either the United States or Soviet Union. As the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union escalated in the arms race, scientific breakthroughs, the space race and any other possible measurable aspect of humanity, Afghanistan was not left out of the equations.  The needs of Afghanistan remained the same but the support provided was negated by the needs of Cold War.  The Afghans were taking a strategic stance that would become their core tenant of survival by not aligning themselves with any singular entity but by vying support from whoever would provide it. For both the United States and the Soviet Union competed by building more infrastructure and providing funding for technical assistance development in order to build the skills necessary for a modern economy. Through self-satisfying methods Afghanistan played both sides of the field and benefited from the influx of funding and effort provided by the opposing countries.

This type of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union did not last the entire Cold War due to the increased reparations for support that each country wanted in return for their continued support.  As the Cold War progressed, the tensions between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union increased due to the increased military and strategic interest in the control of Afghanistan’s resources.  The United States did not want a communist regime to take control of Afghanistan as it was the United States core philosophy to stop the spread of communism.  In many regards the stop of communism can be equated to the stop of terrorism in today’s globalization philosophy of the United States core values.  Initially, Afghanistan had a treaty with the Soviets regarding military assistance in times of need.  This time of need arose when the Mujahedeen rebels continued attacks against Afghani high impact targets (Giustozzi, 2000).  As the increased support from the Soviet Union flooded into the Afghan region the United States took notice and saw this as a spread of communistic ideas and a threat to democracy which at the time had a direct impact on the goals and objectives of the United States (Giustozzi, 2000).

The United States has a long and tumultuous relationship with Afghanistan which relates directly to how leadership the United States relates to terrorism and the war on terrorism.  In the U.S.’s efforts to thwart the spread of communism they provided a breeding ground for guerrilla forces and asymmetrical war fighting techniques.  The leadership’s responsibility to understand the ramifications of their short term solutions in relation to long term impact is vital when facing a decentralized and multi-country opponent which does not necessarily have a single focal point or a distinguishable face to provide a force against.  This historical significance of the global war on terror and how it was first initiated plays a crucial role in how the successes and achievements are experienced by those supporting and fighting in the war.  The sustainment of surge level forces is not realistic in any war and the negative side effects of war such of waning support, protest and even troop disengagement are even greater in a war without a clear and decisive end point.  This is a challenge for leadership to fully understand the issues and remedy the situations to the best of their ability.  The war of attrition is being fought on both sides of the battlefield and when the public does not show support for the government’s effort it remains a difficult situation for the troops to maintain a positive and insatiable desire that is needed for victory.

The Global War on Terror and the relationship between team leadership is in a corollary position regarding the development of future leaders of United States.  The team leadership of more agile operational activities for those leaders managing and guiding team at the front of the confrontation will develop a different set of roles and responsibilities that will translate into how they build strategic relationships later in their leadership careers.  The Global War on Terror provides unforeseen opportunities to lead and manage group dynamics that is not only based on expertise but country of origin, sex, religion and sexual orientation.  These areas that were seen as barriers in prior generations have now lost their severity and impact for leadership activities.  Leadership has grown out of the Global War on Terror and driving results with unknown variables has become the mark of future leadership.  The Global War on Terror has provided many opportunities to vail the true intentions or misguided opportunities of those in the position to make a change and prevent the fruition of the fatwa issued by Abdel-Rahman.  The powers of those waiting for key opportunities such as uninformed leadership, weak leaders of the free world and ignorant situational awareness is greater than the myopic perspective of the government officials leading the efforts against a crisis with misguided purposes.

Works Cited

Baner, C. (1999). “Defining Aerospace Power. Air & Space Power Journal”. Web. April. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baner.html

Corbin, M. “Reshaping the military for asymmetric warfare.” (2001). Web. April. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm

Giustozzi, A. “War, politics and society in afghanistan, 1978-1992.” (2000). C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.

International Monetary Fund. Islamic republic of Afghanistan. (2011). April. Web. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2008&ey=2011&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=33&pr.y=11

Kotnour, T. “Leadership mechanisms for enabling learning within project teams.” University of Central Florida. (2000). April. Web. http://apollon1.alba.edu.gr/OKLC2002/Proceedings/pdf_files/ID340.pdf

Library of Congress “Country profile: Afghanistan.” (2008). April. Web. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Afghanistan.pdf

National Prevention Agency-NPA. “National prevention strategy.”(2011). April. Web http://www.healthcare.gov/prevention/nphpphc/strategy/index.html

Ryan, M. (2010) “Waste in Afghan aid seen at billions of dollars.” (2010). Reuters  April. Web. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/20/usa-afghanistan-reconstruction-idUSN2020577920101220

Shah, Anup. War on terror. 2013. Web. http://www.globalissues.org/issue/245/war-on-terror

Simpson, John. Karzai accuses Pakistan of ‘double game’ over militants. 2011. Web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15154497

Van Evera, S. “Assessing U.S. strategy in the war on terror.” American Academy of Political and Social Science, 66, 10-23. 2011.

The British Library Board. (2012) “Afghanistan 1919-1928: sources in the India Office Records.” April. Web. http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion/asia/afghanistan/afghanistancollection/1919to1928/sources1919to1928.html