Hmm, methinks the fire sale will have some far reaching effects.
Does NATO join in on operations against Pakistan?
What's going on with North Korea?
Been Winning So Long, I've Lost It - The Long War TL
- Thread starter Blochead
- Start date
Hmm, methinks the fire sale will have some far reaching effects.
Does NATO join in on operations against Pakistan?
What's going on with North Korea?
They certainly will. But it might take until the second term until it becomes really big.
NATO "recognizes the necessity" of transnational operations, but so far no other country has sent ground troops. They're filling in for areas the US troops are leaving from, though.
Subject of a future update... Some of the stuff in this TL is going to come together in interesting ways...
PART XVII: January-April 2002
“Politics is not an exact science.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Otto von Bismarck
“The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Reinhold Niebuhr
---
While the US busied itself in Central Asia, the easterly half of the continent was experiencing some of the blowback of the American war efforts. Though it would be months before the CIA would find out, AQ Khan (involved in the DPRK nuclear program since 1997) provided Pakistan’s latest nuclear advances to Kim Jong-Il’s increasingly paranoid government. Japan’s return to international power politics was viewed as a grave threat to the North Korean government, and acquiring a nuclear weapon became a major priority. DPRK efforts redoubled in March, and were greatly aided by a similar spurt of activity in AQ Khan’s nuclear black market.
“China remains one of the major challenges of the McCain administration’s foreign policy. While their acceptance in the WTO supports the idea that this rising power can play a peaceful role as a stakeholder in the international system, the Chinese government itself observes new developments in Asia with growing concern… The collapse of Pakistan, from a Chinese perspective, is extremely troubling. It denies China a critical partner in South Asia… [and] a naval base in Lahore… China’s Xinjiang region, populated by Muslim Uighurs, has been the front of the country’s own war on terror, against the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. With a lawless Pakistan, these militants may find a safe haven… Regional instability seems poised to dash China’s hopes of developing the region… China’s plans for a possible fuel pipeline through Pakistan are also out of the question… Where will China turn to next to address these concerns?... Iran is a distinct possibility.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]“The New Great Game,” from Foreign Affairs, April/May 2002
“What we are risking is conflating local conflicts with global ones… We should be wary of abetting major domestic crackdowns in Russia or China as elements of this ‘war on terror’ – in reality, these are primarily regional, not global or ideological movements… By investing ourselves too heavily in these types of conflicts, we risk radicalizing these conflicts and expanding al Qaeda’s recruitment base…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 13th, 2002
“INDONESIA: The Next Front in the War on Terror?
… Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population, and numerous separatist movements... The bombings of the US consulate and other targets in Kuta and Denapar (on the Indonesian Island of Bali), which killed over 300 on April 2nd, seem to have been a sign of things to come… Meanwhile, many fear the radicalization of the Free Aceh Movement, which continues to battle over 35,000 Indonesian troops… Many of these conflicts have deep ethnic roots. But the potent ideology of radical Islam compels the world to look into Indonesia’s so-called internal disputes…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Opinion piece, New York Times, April 5th, 2002
“Politics is not an exact science.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Otto von Bismarck
“The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Reinhold Niebuhr
---
While the US busied itself in Central Asia, the easterly half of the continent was experiencing some of the blowback of the American war efforts. Though it would be months before the CIA would find out, AQ Khan (involved in the DPRK nuclear program since 1997) provided Pakistan’s latest nuclear advances to Kim Jong-Il’s increasingly paranoid government. Japan’s return to international power politics was viewed as a grave threat to the North Korean government, and acquiring a nuclear weapon became a major priority. DPRK efforts redoubled in March, and were greatly aided by a similar spurt of activity in AQ Khan’s nuclear black market.
“China remains one of the major challenges of the McCain administration’s foreign policy. While their acceptance in the WTO supports the idea that this rising power can play a peaceful role as a stakeholder in the international system, the Chinese government itself observes new developments in Asia with growing concern… The collapse of Pakistan, from a Chinese perspective, is extremely troubling. It denies China a critical partner in South Asia… [and] a naval base in Lahore… China’s Xinjiang region, populated by Muslim Uighurs, has been the front of the country’s own war on terror, against the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. With a lawless Pakistan, these militants may find a safe haven… Regional instability seems poised to dash China’s hopes of developing the region… China’s plans for a possible fuel pipeline through Pakistan are also out of the question… Where will China turn to next to address these concerns?... Iran is a distinct possibility.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]“The New Great Game,” from Foreign Affairs, April/May 2002
“What we are risking is conflating local conflicts with global ones… We should be wary of abetting major domestic crackdowns in Russia or China as elements of this ‘war on terror’ – in reality, these are primarily regional, not global or ideological movements… By investing ourselves too heavily in these types of conflicts, we risk radicalizing these conflicts and expanding al Qaeda’s recruitment base…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 13th, 2002
“INDONESIA: The Next Front in the War on Terror?
… Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population, and numerous separatist movements... The bombings of the US consulate and other targets in Kuta and Denapar (on the Indonesian Island of Bali), which killed over 300 on April 2nd, seem to have been a sign of things to come… Meanwhile, many fear the radicalization of the Free Aceh Movement, which continues to battle over 35,000 Indonesian troops… Many of these conflicts have deep ethnic roots. But the potent ideology of radical Islam compels the world to look into Indonesia’s so-called internal disputes…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Opinion piece, New York Times, April 5th, 2002
Don't worry... if there is a US deployment in Indonesia, it'll be limited to specific areas, as I do not really see any remotely plausible scenario where the country is taken over by those guys who have the Caliphate conference.
However, there is a lot of potential for the Indonesian government itself to respond more harshly than it did. This was a country once known for brutal torture by its security forces and dictatorship, but in OTL their response has been much less militarized or authoritarian.
So no, don't worry about Americans fighting the nearly 200 million Muslims of the spontaneously-formed Boat People Caliphate...
Hmm...Iran and China with stronger ties in TTL?, wow this really could be intriguing on how the US will handel that situation in the coming years. Indonesia should be fun, and also does Operation-Enduring Freedom still take place in the Phillipines? Or does the US leave wiping out the Abu Sayaf Group and the Jemaah Islamiyah groups to the Militarily Activated Japan or Nato?
Also you really havent touched on the PATRIOT ACT or an ATL version of it. Im a right in guessing that the provisions of TTL Act will be alot harsher? And how is the US Economy being affected by so much money being poured into a more grandiose war on Terror? Do we still have an Recession take place btw 2001 and 2003? Is it worse and possibly longer lasting in TTL?
Also you really havent touched on the PATRIOT ACT or an ATL version of it. Im a right in guessing that the provisions of TTL Act will be alot harsher? And how is the US Economy being affected by so much money being poured into a more grandiose war on Terror? Do we still have an Recession take place btw 2001 and 2003? Is it worse and possibly longer lasting in TTL?
In Pakistan? Probably a draft, and a guerilla war on a massive scale. Nothing pretty.
There's still Operation Overwhelming Resolve in the Philippines, yes.
Economic recovery is going about the same as per OTL, the really noticeable differences will take awhile to show up. In any case, the increased war spending is unlikely to cause a recession, more likely inflation.
As for domestic security measures, I'm gonna have a larger post about that later.
PART XVIII: September 2001-April 2002
“War is the health of the state.”
-Randolph Bourne
“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
-Gideon J. Tucker
---
“President McCain today signed the Uniting and Strengthening America Act, which grants sweeping new powers to the Federal government in its efforts to fight terrorism… It is the first legislation to be introduced, debated, amended and passed from Mount Weather…”
-CNN, October 15th, 2001
“Domestic air travel will resume tomorrow, although fliers should expect extensive new security measures… State police departments and National Guard personnel will be present at virtually all American airports... Expect longer wait times due to new checks and searches.”
-USA Today, September 13th, 2001
The United States was not the only country clamping down. Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada all began taking similar security measures, though the USA Act was doubtlessly the most far-reaching in its scope. The expansion of national security letters and other measures passed quickly and overwhelmingly in the embattled Congress, but it did not take long for the American populace to see the clouds in this silver lining.
The airline industry, which was operating at perhaps only 80% of its pre-9/11 levels, faced major financial troubles. Not long after the USA Act passed, Congress passed a massive bailout package for the beleaguered industry.
Another inevitable consequence of the attacks was paranoia about Muslims, or anyone who the average citizen might confuse for one. While McCain urged Americans to be respectful of their fellow citizens, it was nevertheless a worrying time to be a Muslim (or a Sikh, or anyone with vaguely west or south Asian features) in the United States. Homegrown terrorism, though it would result in a few arrests and media-circus trials in the States, was not a real problem in those months.
In Britain, however, things changed once reports came out that the SAS was operating in Pakistan. Major demonstrations, beginning around April 5th, wracked British cities. Though many were peaceful, it only took a few hundred people at provocative rallies (out of thousands at peaceful, moderate protests) to capture Britain’s – indeed, the world’s – attention. The invasion of a longtime colony prompted renewed complaints of “colonialism” on one side and fear of the foreign on the other.
On April 12th, three car bombs were simultaneously detonated around 8:55 AM in London – one in Haymarket, one in Fleet Street and one in Kensington, killing over sixty in total. The attack was certainly nothing exceptional in scale, compared to what the UK had endured from the IRA, but it exacerbated cultural tensions. The Daily Mail, which actually lost staff to the bomb in Kensington, cited the bombs in Fleet Street as evidence of “Radical Islam’s hatred for our liberties,” a line many right wing newspapers and columnists would adopt in the days following. The perpetrators of the attack were Pakistanis, and soon many Britons and MPs were demanding investigations and measures against the “radicalisation of British Muslims.” The attacks touched a nerve in an increasingly multicultural Europe – what NATO members were next? The governments of Western Europe, of course, pledged commitment to tolerance and restraint. Acting on it, however, would be a more difficult order.
“War is the health of the state.”
-Randolph Bourne
“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
-Gideon J. Tucker
---
“President McCain today signed the Uniting and Strengthening America Act, which grants sweeping new powers to the Federal government in its efforts to fight terrorism… It is the first legislation to be introduced, debated, amended and passed from Mount Weather…”
-CNN, October 15th, 2001
“Domestic air travel will resume tomorrow, although fliers should expect extensive new security measures… State police departments and National Guard personnel will be present at virtually all American airports... Expect longer wait times due to new checks and searches.”
-USA Today, September 13th, 2001
The United States was not the only country clamping down. Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada all began taking similar security measures, though the USA Act was doubtlessly the most far-reaching in its scope. The expansion of national security letters and other measures passed quickly and overwhelmingly in the embattled Congress, but it did not take long for the American populace to see the clouds in this silver lining.
The airline industry, which was operating at perhaps only 80% of its pre-9/11 levels, faced major financial troubles. Not long after the USA Act passed, Congress passed a massive bailout package for the beleaguered industry.
Another inevitable consequence of the attacks was paranoia about Muslims, or anyone who the average citizen might confuse for one. While McCain urged Americans to be respectful of their fellow citizens, it was nevertheless a worrying time to be a Muslim (or a Sikh, or anyone with vaguely west or south Asian features) in the United States. Homegrown terrorism, though it would result in a few arrests and media-circus trials in the States, was not a real problem in those months.
In Britain, however, things changed once reports came out that the SAS was operating in Pakistan. Major demonstrations, beginning around April 5th, wracked British cities. Though many were peaceful, it only took a few hundred people at provocative rallies (out of thousands at peaceful, moderate protests) to capture Britain’s – indeed, the world’s – attention. The invasion of a longtime colony prompted renewed complaints of “colonialism” on one side and fear of the foreign on the other.
On April 12th, three car bombs were simultaneously detonated around 8:55 AM in London – one in Haymarket, one in Fleet Street and one in Kensington, killing over sixty in total. The attack was certainly nothing exceptional in scale, compared to what the UK had endured from the IRA, but it exacerbated cultural tensions. The Daily Mail, which actually lost staff to the bomb in Kensington, cited the bombs in Fleet Street as evidence of “Radical Islam’s hatred for our liberties,” a line many right wing newspapers and columnists would adopt in the days following. The perpetrators of the attack were Pakistanis, and soon many Britons and MPs were demanding investigations and measures against the “radicalisation of British Muslims.” The attacks touched a nerve in an increasingly multicultural Europe – what NATO members were next? The governments of Western Europe, of course, pledged commitment to tolerance and restraint. Acting on it, however, would be a more difficult order.
Last edited:
PART XIX: September 2001-June 2002
“The people who control America today make decisions like drunkards. They do not understand what they are doing at all.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Ayatollah Khamenei
“It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Robert Oppenheimer
---
“Killing Osama bin Laden did not end the war on terror, nor should we expect it to… Nor can we understate the complexity of the threat we face. It is not just al Qaeda we must fight, but their allies in Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Nor can we ignore state-sponsored terror, such as the Shi’a extremists backed by Iran…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]John McCain, in the 2002 State of the Union address, January 29, at Mount Weather
One of the many great misfortunes Iran faced in the years leading up to 2004 and 2005 was the ill-timed re-election of its most powerful reformer, Mohammad Khatami, in June 2001. Khatami, who had declared 2001 the year of “dialogue between civilizations” found his efforts spoiled in September. Khatami’s desires of rapprochement with the United States were at odds with the conservatives in the Council of Guardians and the Revolutionary Guards. Thus, in the same year Iranians voted in reformists in the majlis, the Iranian government reached out to Osama bin Laden on cooperation in terrorist activities [1]. The next year, many Iranians mourned in the streets at the 9/11 attacks – before hardline thugs broke up their rallies.
Accordingly, then, it should surprise nobody that Khatami’s peaceful rhetoric came at odds with an escalation in Iran’s nuclear program – in part aided by the outflow of nuclear technology from Pakistan’s turmoil. In March-April 2002, the Revolutionary Guards took advantage of corrupt Pakistani soldiers to get the damage assessments of bombed Pakistani nuclear sites falsified – large amounts of nuclear equipment and documentation entered the black market without knowledge of either the American CIA or the Pakistani government. Quietly, in June, a NIE pointed out that Iran’s nuclear program, “left unchecked” might achieve nuclear capability before the end of the decade and the North Koreans might give it the means to deliver such a device anywhere in the region.
Meanwhile, the civil strife in Pakistan coincided with a series of major arms contracts with China, especially in areas relating to naval weaponry. By the reckoning of Western analysts, China was looking to ensure energy would flow uninterrupted if the USA ever tried to close the Persian Gulf to China, and Iran might also provide, in exchange, a replacement for the prospective Chinese naval base in Pakistan. It was a worrying development for the US, but one still overshadowed by the situation in Pakistan, just as Iran’s nuclear ambitions took second seating in the international community to the Iraqi disarmament crisis. Saddam Hussein was a man of fierce rhetoric, trying to hide weakness rather than a weapons program. Iran, on the other hand, was quietly pursuing a nuclear program with far more potential than its neighbor.
If there was one country that was pursuing an equal mix of rogue exhibitionism and actual weapons development, it was North Korea. As Japan’s parliament approved major expenditures on its military, North Korea laid the groundwork for the resumption of its nuclear program, while embarking on joint programs of missile development with Iran. Once again, the collapse of Pakistan created a vacuum North Korea wanted to fill. Japan, America’s “comrade in suffering” on 9/11, lobbied the United States to address this issue more aggressively – after all, North Korea was a “state sponsor of terror” by American reckoning. McCain promised to bring the North Korean issue to world attention as soon as “wholly convincing” evidence could be found, hoping for a “slam dunk” case.
[1] An OTL event. OBL rejected the offer because he feared losing Saudi support. Iran still reportedly let al Qaeda operatives pass through its borders unfettered before 9/11, but it is doubtful Iran’s government was aware or involved in any way with the planning of the attack itself. The same holds true for this timeline.
“The people who control America today make decisions like drunkards. They do not understand what they are doing at all.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Ayatollah Khamenei
“It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]Robert Oppenheimer
---
“Killing Osama bin Laden did not end the war on terror, nor should we expect it to… Nor can we understate the complexity of the threat we face. It is not just al Qaeda we must fight, but their allies in Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Nor can we ignore state-sponsored terror, such as the Shi’a extremists backed by Iran…”
-[FONT="] [/FONT]John McCain, in the 2002 State of the Union address, January 29, at Mount Weather
One of the many great misfortunes Iran faced in the years leading up to 2004 and 2005 was the ill-timed re-election of its most powerful reformer, Mohammad Khatami, in June 2001. Khatami, who had declared 2001 the year of “dialogue between civilizations” found his efforts spoiled in September. Khatami’s desires of rapprochement with the United States were at odds with the conservatives in the Council of Guardians and the Revolutionary Guards. Thus, in the same year Iranians voted in reformists in the majlis, the Iranian government reached out to Osama bin Laden on cooperation in terrorist activities [1]. The next year, many Iranians mourned in the streets at the 9/11 attacks – before hardline thugs broke up their rallies.
Accordingly, then, it should surprise nobody that Khatami’s peaceful rhetoric came at odds with an escalation in Iran’s nuclear program – in part aided by the outflow of nuclear technology from Pakistan’s turmoil. In March-April 2002, the Revolutionary Guards took advantage of corrupt Pakistani soldiers to get the damage assessments of bombed Pakistani nuclear sites falsified – large amounts of nuclear equipment and documentation entered the black market without knowledge of either the American CIA or the Pakistani government. Quietly, in June, a NIE pointed out that Iran’s nuclear program, “left unchecked” might achieve nuclear capability before the end of the decade and the North Koreans might give it the means to deliver such a device anywhere in the region.
Meanwhile, the civil strife in Pakistan coincided with a series of major arms contracts with China, especially in areas relating to naval weaponry. By the reckoning of Western analysts, China was looking to ensure energy would flow uninterrupted if the USA ever tried to close the Persian Gulf to China, and Iran might also provide, in exchange, a replacement for the prospective Chinese naval base in Pakistan. It was a worrying development for the US, but one still overshadowed by the situation in Pakistan, just as Iran’s nuclear ambitions took second seating in the international community to the Iraqi disarmament crisis. Saddam Hussein was a man of fierce rhetoric, trying to hide weakness rather than a weapons program. Iran, on the other hand, was quietly pursuing a nuclear program with far more potential than its neighbor.
If there was one country that was pursuing an equal mix of rogue exhibitionism and actual weapons development, it was North Korea. As Japan’s parliament approved major expenditures on its military, North Korea laid the groundwork for the resumption of its nuclear program, while embarking on joint programs of missile development with Iran. Once again, the collapse of Pakistan created a vacuum North Korea wanted to fill. Japan, America’s “comrade in suffering” on 9/11, lobbied the United States to address this issue more aggressively – after all, North Korea was a “state sponsor of terror” by American reckoning. McCain promised to bring the North Korean issue to world attention as soon as “wholly convincing” evidence could be found, hoping for a “slam dunk” case.
[1] An OTL event. OBL rejected the offer because he feared losing Saudi support. Iran still reportedly let al Qaeda operatives pass through its borders unfettered before 9/11, but it is doubtful Iran’s government was aware or involved in any way with the planning of the attack itself. The same holds true for this timeline.
So, a question occurred to me: the Capitol building is not a sky-scrapper. It wouldn't necessarily collapse like one of the Towers. The plane would probably hit the Captiol dome, which actually houses nothing of particularly importance (except a lot of artwork). Accordingly, have you speculated on just what might be left of the Capitol itself? The primary question in my mind is whether the impact might create a fireball and / or cause enough other structural damage to the building to really destroy it. Almost certainly the building isn't usable, but there might be a lot of it left.
It looks like you have Congress passing a version of the Patriot Act (under another of its proposed names) about two weeks sooner than OTL.
How long is Congress going to be meeting from Mt. Weather? Any movement on a Continuity of Government amendment to the Constitution?
It looks like you have Congress passing a version of the Patriot Act (under another of its proposed names) about two weeks sooner than OTL.
How long is Congress going to be meeting from Mt. Weather? Any movement on a Continuity of Government amendment to the Constitution?
I think it would be more likely to 'do a torpedo' and hit the main body of the building (similar to OTL's Pentagon strike) which I imagine could create significant damage.
True, I just can't recall how big a 757 would be relative to the Captiol. I'm wondering to what extent and how the actual House and Senate Chambers (which are on the ends of the building) would have been damanged.
______________________________
Okay, now with some research:
A Boeing 757 has a wing span of 124 ft (38 m). The Capitol is about 751 ft wide. When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on OTL 9/11:
Wikipedia said:
Hence, it looks to me like it's primarily the central building and dome that would bear the brunt of the initial impact. The primary damage to the House and Senate Chambers themselves would be fire and structural damage.
Also, I imagine the aircarft impacts on the western facade, which looks out over the mall; it's also much higher than the estern facade because of Capitol Hill. When the 77 impacted the Pentagon it "torpedoed" into the first floor and cut through. A substantial variable here is where exactly the plane impacts: the base of the western facade, essentially burrowing into the building's substantial basement and substructure or the first floor of the central building itself.
Last edited:
Interesting topic on the Capital, and it's destruction...it does seem to me that more damage from the fire of the explosion would cause the most damage to the old building...Whether any of it can be salvaged, remains to be seen...Also im intrigued on how the USA ACT will turn out in TTL and see how many cases of "Enemy Combatants" actually show up...
Pakistan couldn't nuke the continental US, to my knowledge - the longest range it could achieve with an operational missile is 2,500 km. However, it could try and use its nuclear weapons against ground troops or American ships.
Yeah, now that I check its come pretty early, but I suppose a Congress that's a lot more scared might kick it through sooner without as much debate.
Months, at least. I can't imagine the Capitol will be ready for at least a year, likely more.
That's what happened. Big fireball, so the building's burnt out from the inside and many sections have collapsed.
Well, the one thing you have to keep in mind is that McCain isn't going to start things like Gitmo or mess with the Geneva Conventions in TTL. But there will probably be plenty of people taken in.
maverick
Banned
Chilling last two updates...
Imagining that in this world McCain gets the War on Terror on WWII proportions, which means lots of men and materiel that the USA did not have IOTL...not to mention Japan being a major player and NATO being far more supportive...
BTW...
Is the NATO contribution considerably bigger than IOTL? for example Germany and France, which contributed to Afghanistan and not Iraq IOTL, might they help in Pakistan ITTL? How about Japan? JSDF troops in Aceh and Jakarta would cause lots of troubles in the mainland...
That begs the question: how big is this war on terror gonna be? Pakistan collapsing into anarchy and civil war, with a US Invasion after that, is a given...but how about the rest of the world? something big is obviously gonna happen to Iran in 2005, Indonesia and the Philippines are in need of intervention...not to mention North Korea...
Imagining that in this world McCain gets the War on Terror on WWII proportions, which means lots of men and materiel that the USA did not have IOTL...not to mention Japan being a major player and NATO being far more supportive...
BTW...
Is the NATO contribution considerably bigger than IOTL? for example Germany and France, which contributed to Afghanistan and not Iraq IOTL, might they help in Pakistan ITTL? How about Japan? JSDF troops in Aceh and Jakarta would cause lots of troubles in the mainland...
That begs the question: how big is this war on terror gonna be? Pakistan collapsing into anarchy and civil war, with a US Invasion after that, is a given...but how about the rest of the world? something big is obviously gonna happen to Iran in 2005, Indonesia and the Philippines are in need of intervention...not to mention North Korea...
Yes... Unlike the actual WWII, a modern replay against terror would involve a lot more of its "global catastrophe" characteristics than the "freedom and democracy triumphs everywhere" characteristics. If you go around the world aiming for a major war, that's what you're liable to get.
NATO's contributions are about 1.5-2x their OTL size for 2002, but they're fairly limited in Pakistan. The British SAS is involved there and occasionally troops from other countries will cross the border to pursue Taliban fighters, but mostly the expanded NATO size is helping the US pick up slack in Afghanistan.
Japan hasn't deployed troops to areas of direct combat, they're all in Afghanistan so far. As for the Pacific regions, they're providing naval support and unarmed humanitarian aid so far, as well as engaging in some counter-piracy operations.
It's going to expand after 2004, for the most part. The Pakistani Civil War will be the focus of the rest of McCain's term, and it will be a genuine civil war. Iran is going to get increasingly involved, though not for strictly terror-related issues.
I think the big question mark that's going to be left up in the air is what happens with Iraq once 2003 comes and goes without an invasion, just sporadic 1998-style airstrikes. If the oil price spike still occurs (and trust me, it will in this TL), you have to wonder how it'd change Iraq...