How 'War on Terror' changed US allegiances

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, former president George W Bush repeatedly declared "you're either with us or against us" in the ensuing "War on Terror".

This led to a major change in US foreign policy. Bush changed how US aid was spent, and focused on using it to recruit allies to his cause.
Countries that had previously seen very little US support were now receiving a massive influx of cash in the aftermath of 9/11.

Leaders the US had previously refused to talk to because of their human rights abuses were now suddenly friends of the country.

One example was Pakistan. Prior to 9/11, it was almost completely blocked from getting US money because of its nuclear programme, as well as the military coup that put Pervez Musharraf into power.

In the three years leading up to 9/11, it received about $9m from Washington, yet in the three years following 9/11, it received over $4bn.

According to Tom Carothers, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "There is a central contradiction in the War on Terror.

"You can call it a crusade for freedom or its really about democracy, but the reality was that it pushed the US into closer co-operation with security forces intelligence agencies and governments in a number of autocratic places."

Yet Bush supporters argue that while much of the money went to prop up regimes, the US also spent money on democracy programmes in those countries.

"Most of the regimes in the world are run by bad guys," said Cliff May, president of the Foundation For Defence of Democracies.

"Some of those bad guys are more open to American assistance and American influence than others."

But even with millions of dollars going to keep their people in power, the people on the streets were able to bring some of them down.

Those still there however, are still getting paid for their help.

Al Jazeera's correspondent Patty Culhane reports from Washington.