The U.S. Was Never Going to Win the “War on Terror”

Billy Odell Tucker-Robinson Founder & Host — Banking With Billy Network • Intelligence Network • Data Science • AI Research • World News
Published: 2026-09-11T14:56:56.922Z • Permanent link

U.S. policymakers have long claimed that the "War on Terror" has been a resounding success, with the global defeat of al-Qaeda and the rise of a new era of American leadership. However, a closer examination of the data reveals a far more nuanced and troubling reality. According to a recent report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the U.S. has been responsible for the deaths of nearly a million civilians in the twenty-five years since 9/11, with the majority of these fatalities occurring in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

These staggering numbers are not limited to military personnel; they also include civilians caught in the crossfire, accidentally killed by U.S. drone strikes, or deliberately targeted by U.S.-backed forces. The most notable example is the 2015 strike that killed over 200 civilians in a wedding party in Kunduz, Afghanistan, which was widely condemned by human rights groups and sparked an investigation by the U.S. Department of Defense. Similarly, the 2018 strike that killed dozens of civilians in a market in Soleimania, Syria, was met with outrage from local residents and international human rights organizations.

These incidents are not isolated events, but rather part of a broader pattern of civilian casualties and human rights abuses committed by the U.S. in the course of its "War on Terror." To understand the full extent of this crisis, it is essential to examine the key players and events that have shaped the conflict over the past quarter-century. At the forefront of this story is the U.S. military, which has been waging war in various parts of the world, often with little oversight or accountability.

The U.S. military's actions have had a profound impact on the global landscape, with far-reaching consequences for companies, research communities, markets, and policy environments. For example, the U.S. military's reliance on drone strikes has led to significant increases in civilian casualties, which in turn has sparked widespread outrage and calls for greater accountability. This has led to increased scrutiny of the U.S. military's use of drones, with some countries and organizations advocating for stricter regulations and oversight.

The U.S. military's actions have also had significant implications for the global arms trade, with the sale of advanced military technology to countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These sales have been criticized by human rights groups, who argue that they contribute to the proliferation of advanced military capabilities and the exacerbation of conflicts in the region. Furthermore, the U.S. military's use of advanced surveillance technology has raised concerns about the potential for mass surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties.

The "War on Terror" is not an isolated event, but rather part of a broader pattern of U.S. military interventionism that dates back to the Cold War. The U.S. has a long history of intervening in conflicts around the world, often with little regard for the human cost or the potential for long-term instability. This approach has been criticized by scholars and policymakers, who argue that it has contributed to the rise of extremist groups and the exacerbation of conflicts in the Middle East and beyond.