Guillen 1

David Guillen

Professor Rex

Introduction to Political Science

9 November 2021

The Disastrous War on Terror

This paper will demonstrate the War on Terror was a failure because despite America’s

military force, the War on Terror could not contain the spread of terrorism. Second, America’s

military endeavors only worsened social instability in the Middle East, and lastly, the United

States and the Middle East lost economic opportunity as a result of the war.

To commence, the war’s use of military power did not effectively deal with terrorism. In

the article, “Measuring the Effectiveness of America’s War on Terror”, the article assesses the

efforts made by the U.S. military in the war. The author argues military power was more of a

disadvantage when dealing with rooting out terrorism. “Statistical modeling indicates for every

additional billion dollars spent and 1,000 American troops sent to fight the war on terror, the

number of terror attacks worldwide increased by 19 … Furthermore, the model finds up to 80

percent of the variation in the number of worldwide terror attacks can be explained by those two

variables” (Goepner, 5). As a result of funding more chaos than finding diplomatic solutions, the

United States seemed to only make their problem worse. To further add on, U.S. military

endeavors such as invasions and drone campaigns also increased the quantity of terrorist attacks

committed. “The data show countries the US invaded had 143 more terror attacks per year than

countries the US did not invade. Similarly, countries in which the US conducted drone strikes

were home to 395 more terror attacks per year than those where the US did not” (Goepner, 5). To

add further analysis, the reason why these military endeavors may have made terrorism worse
 Guillen 2

was because it amped up extremist thought. In the research article, “Anti-Americanism and Anti-

Interventionism in Arabic Twitter Discourses”, the article analyzed Arabic Twitter discourse

after the U.S. said it would get involved in Syria after alleged gas attacks from President Al-

Assad. It found that about 4% of users tweeted in support of pro U.S., anti-regime efforts, while

about 87% tweeted negatively of the U.S., with support of the regime fluctuating from negative

to positive (Anti-Americanism). While the situation of Syria is independent to the War on Terror,

this data gives a deeper insight into the social aspects of terrorism and Anti-Americanism. While

radical fundamentalist groups like the Taliban are in no way favored by Middle Eastern citizens,

the constant death and destruction caused by the U.S. only seems to feed the ideology as a result

of citizens wanting freedom from American interventionism.

To further substantiate the negative impact of military efforts in the war, the conflict has

had severe social impacts. According to the “Costs of War” project, the U.S. military efforts in

the Middle East have violated basic human rights, specifically in Iraq detention systems. “In

Iraq, over 100,000 prisoners passed through the American-run detention system, most with no

effective way to challenge their imprisonment.” (Costs of War). Although the project lightly

touches on Iraqi prisoners being stripped of their rights to fair trials, the realities of the

American-ran prison system is far worse. According to the article, “Torture at Abu Ghraib”,

conditions were arguably worse under American rule than they were under former control.

“Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; beating detainees with

a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape … and using military working

dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack” (Hersh, para. 6). Overall, the

U.S. military occupation of the Middle East has completely voided any values America holds of

freedom and peace. As seen through statistics and reports, many Iraqis were subjected to cruel
 Guillen 3

and unusual punishment, and an overall strip of human rights as a result of American

interventionism, further proving the point that the war failed in protecting the innocent lives

being harmed by terrorism. Another social effect the war had was the lack of protection and

progression of women’s rights. Much of the war was built on the fight for women’s rights,

however, not much has changed for women since these claims have been made. Of course, the

military does not have legislation power to pave the way for women’s liberation, however, the

United States does have the aid to fund Afghanistan’s government with the resources to do so.

Yet, according to the article, “Afghanistan’s Gender Gap by Numbers”, there has not been much

social change for women during the 20-year occupation. “In Afghanistan, the income of an

average woman is less than 16% than of that of an average man … Afghanistan comes bottom of

156 countries when it comes to measuring what economic opportunity is open to women against

the options offered to men … In 2015, researchers found that 46.1% of women aged 15-49 said

they had been subject to physical or sexual violence by a current or former intimate partner

within the previous year” (Lavietes, pars. 5-13). In summary, the U.S. occupation has done far

more in using women’s right for war purposes, but less in doing more for the freedom and

expansion of rights for women.

Along with social consequences as a result of the war, many economic consequences

were recorded as a result of the war. According to the article, “Over Two Decades, U.S.’s Global

War on Terror”, U.S. investment on the war brought “direct expenditures from the war on terror

at home and abroad to an astronomical $5.8 trillion” (Hussain, para. 9). While it can be argued

that this hefty investment was needed to halt terrorism in its tracks, it did more to weaken the

U.S. economically than help with the actual war. To elucidate, the excessive military

interventions could not prepare the United States for an influx of dependents on government
 Guillen 4

assistance. “The cost of providing disability and medical care for these veterans is likely to

exceed $2.2 trillion by 2050 from its current post-9/11 total of $465 billion, bringing the total

economic bill of the wars to $8 trillion” (Hussain, para. 10). Despite, the hefty military costs

however, there was economic wins, yet these wins only went towards capitalists who

benefited from the war. In the article, “The War on Terror Was Corrupt from the Start”, much

of the money that was supposed to go towards infrastructure projects and economic

opportunity zones in Afghanistan was all a ploy for capitalist enterprises to enrich themselves.

“Only 12 percent of U.S. reconstruction assistance given to Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021

actually went to Afghan government. Much of the rest went to companies like the Louis Berger

Group. Even after it got caught bribing officials and systematically overbilling taxpayers, the

bribes kept coming” (Stockman, para. 8). Overall, the war proved that despite its intentions to

systematically solve and root out extremism in the Middle East, it only shrunk future economic

opportunities and growth for the U.S; money that could’ve been used to solve a variety of

domestic issues. At the same time, it proved war isn’t just built on blood, it’s built on the desire

to extract as much profit as possible while making things worse for the affected.

One argument politicians are making in favor of the war is they claim America is a safer

and securer nation as a result of war policies. However, policies such as the Patriot Act, which

was passed in accordance with the war’s objectives, has given Americans a bigger threat to

worry about, their government. According to the article, “Surveillance Under the USA/Patriot

Act”, by the ACLU, the Patriot Act violated several human rights and constitutional laws. “The

government doesn’t have to show evidence that subjects of search orders are "agent of a foreign

power," much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment

… Judicial oversight of these new powers is non-existent. Surveillance orders can be based in

 Guillen 5

part on a person's First Amendment activities, subjects of surveillance never even find out that

their personal records have been examined by the government” (Surveillance Under Patriot Act).

As explained through this quote, this policy violates numerous constitutional amendments,

including the 1st Amendment’s right to free speech and the 4th Amendment’s right to privacy.

Adding on, the policy also violated intellectual property rights of companies who saved

American’s private data. “The FBI could demand that phone companies, internet service

providers, banks, insurance companies, and a laundry list of businesses that deal in cash, without

any court order or independent review” (Costs of War). Overall, the claim that America is safer

as a result of policies such as the Patriot Act is disingenuous. As a result of the expansion of

espionage tactics by the government, Americans must live in fear or uncomfortableness as their

constitutional rights of free speech and privacy are violated for the sake of a pointless war.

In closing, while the War on Terror had the correct intentions in trying to root out

fundamentalist ideologies and preserve peace and democracy, it became clear that military

strength was not the way to go. This brings up a bigger theme in American foreign policy; is it

time America abandons its message of military prowess and stick to more critical and diplomatic

solutions? Unless changes are made within society and government to shift to a different

approach to international affairs, the U.S. will surely make the same mistakes again in the future.

1550 Words
 Guillen 6

Selected Bibliography

“Costs of War.” The Costs of War, Brown University, 2010, watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/.

Goepner, Erik W. Measuring the Effectiveness of America's War on Terror. Army War College,
2016, publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/3323.pdf.

Hersh, Seymour M., et al. “Torture at Abu Ghraib.” The New Yorker, Condé Nast, 30 Apr. 2004,
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib.

Hussain, Murtaza. “Over Two Decades, U.S.'s Global War on Terror Has Taken Nearly 1
Million Lives and Cost $8 Trillion.” The Intercept, 1 Sept. 2021,
theintercept.com/2021/09/01/war-on-terror-deaths-cost/.

Jamal, Amaney A., et al. “Anti-Americanism and Anti-Interventionism in Arabic Twitter

Discourses.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 55–73.,
doi:10.1017/s1537592714003132.

Lavietes, Matthew. “Afghanistan's Gender Gap By Numbers.” News.trust.org, Reuters , 16 Aug.

2021, news.trust.org/item/20210816183731-9ircb/.

Stockman, Farah. “The War on Terror Was Corrupt from the Start.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/opinion/afghanistan-war-
economy.html.

“Surveillance under the USA/Patriot Act.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2021,
www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act.