essay about war on terror

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

war on terrorism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Middle East Policy Council - What exactly is the "War on Terror?"
• United States Institute of Peace - "Rethinking the War Terror"
• University of Hawaiʻi Pressbooks - The War on Terror
• Brookings - Nasty, Brutish and Long: America’s War on Terrorism
• Khan Academy - September 11th
• Chemistry LibreTexts - The War on Terror
• Council of Europe - War and terrorism

war on terrorism , term used to describe the American-led global counterterrorism campaign launched in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . In its scope, expenditure, and impact on international relations , the war on terrorism was comparable to the Cold War ; it was intended to represent a new phase in global political relations and has had important consequences for security, human rights , international law , cooperation, and governance .

The war on terrorism was a multidimensional campaign of almost limitless scope. Its military dimension involved major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , covert operations in Yemen and elsewhere, large-scale military-assistance programs for cooperative regimes, and major increases in military spending. Its intelligence dimension comprised institutional reorganization and considerable increases in the funding of America’s intelligence -gathering capabilities, a global program of capturing terrorist suspects and interning them at Guantánamo Bay , expanded cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, and the tracking and interception of terrorist financing. Its diplomatic dimension included continuing efforts to construct and maintain a global coalition of partner states and organizations and an extensive public diplomacy campaign to counter anti-Americanism in the Middle East . The domestic dimension of the U.S. war on terrorism entailed new antiterrorism legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act ; new security institutions, such as the Department of Homeland Security ; the preventive detainment of thousands of suspects; surveillance and intelligence-gathering programs by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and local authorities; the strengthening of emergency-response procedures; and increased security measures for airports, borders, and public events.

The successes of the first years of the war on terrorism included the arrest of hundreds of terrorist suspects around the world, the prevention of further large-scale terrorist attacks on the American mainland, the toppling of the Taliban regime and subsequent closure of terrorist-training camps in Afghanistan , the capture or elimination of many of al-Qaeda ’s senior members, and increased levels of international cooperation in global counterterrorism efforts.

However, critics argued that the failures of America’s counterterrorism campaign outweighed its successes. They contended that the war in Afghanistan had effectively scattered the al-Qaeda network, thereby making it even harder to counteract, and that the attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq had increased anti-Americanism among the world’s Muslims, thereby amplifying the message of militant Islam and uniting disparate groups in a common cause. Other critics alleged that the war on terrorism was a contrived smokescreen for the pursuit of a larger U.S. geopolitical agenda that included controlling global oil reserves, increasing defense spending, expanding the country’s international military presence, and countering the strategic challenge posed by various regional powers.

By the time of U.S. Pres. George W. Bush ’s reelection in 2004, the drawbacks of the war on terrorism were becoming apparent. In Iraq , U.S. forces had overthrown the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, and U.S. war planners had underestimated the difficulties of building a functioning government from scratch and neglected to consider how this effort could be complicated by Iraq’s sectarian tensions, which had been held in check by Saddam’s repressive regime but were unleashed by his removal. By late 2004 it was clear that Iraq was sinking into chaos and civil war; estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the period of maximum violence—roughly 2004 to 2007—vary widely but generally exceed 200,000. U.S. casualties during this period far outnumbered those suffered during the initial 2003 invasion. Afghanistan, which for several years had seemed to be under control, soon followed a similar trajectory, and by 2006 the U.S. was facing a full-blown insurgency there led by a reconstituted Taliban.

The Bush administration faced domestic and international criticism for actions that it deemed necessary to fight terrorism but which critics considered to be immoral, illegal, or both. These included the detention of accused enemy combatants without trial at Guantánamo Bay and at several secret prisons outside the United States, the use of torture against these detainees in an effort to extract intelligence, and the use of unmanned combat drones to kill suspected enemies in countries far beyond the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the last years of Bush’s presidency, public opinion had turned strongly negative concerning his handling of the Iraq War and other national security matters. This discontent helped Barack Obama , an outspoken critic of Bush’s foreign policy , win the presidency in 2008. Under the new administration, the expression war on terrorism —still closely associated with Bush policies—quickly disappeared from official communications. Obama made the rejection explicit in a 2013 speech in which he stated that the United States would eschew a boundless, vaguely defined “global war on terrorism” in favour of more focused actions against specific hostile groups. Under Obama, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were gradually wound down, although at the end of Obama’s presidency in 2016 there were still U.S. troops in both countries.

It is worth noting that beneath Obama’s rejection of the war on terrorism as a rhetorical device and as a conceptual framework for national security there were important continuities with the policies of his predecessor. The Obama administration, for example, greatly expanded the campaign of targeted killings carried out with drones, even eliminating several U.S. citizens abroad whom it deemed threatening. Special operations forces were greatly expanded and increasingly deployed to conduct low-profile military interventions in countries outside of acknowledged war zones. And U.S. security agencies continued to exercise the wide-ranging surveillance powers that they had accumulated during the Bush administration despite protests from civil liberties groups.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

A Timeline of the U.S.‑Led War on Terror

By: History.com Editors

Updated: May 5, 2020 | Original: February 1, 2019

As much of the nation was just starting the day on the morning of September 11, 2001 , 19 terrorists hijacked four East Coast flights, crashing three of the airplanes into targets in New York and Washington, D.C., with the fourth plane slamming into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back. 

In the end, 2,977 people died, making it the deadliest attack on U.S. soil in history.

The al Qaeda -led attacks prompted President George W. Bush to announce a global “War on Terror” military campaign, in which he called on world leaders to join the U.S. in its response.

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,” he said in a national address. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

Below is a timeline of notable events.

America Responds to 9/11

•  Sept. 11, 2001 : Terrorists hijack four U.S. planes, crashing two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, while a third hits the U.S. Pentagon minutes later. The fourth plane, targeted to hit the White House, crashes in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attacked the terrorists. The death toll, not including the `9 hijackers, was 2,977.

•  Sept. 12, 2001 : Bush addresses the nation, announcing war and stating : “The United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy. We will rally the world. We will be patient. We’ll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. This battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.”

•  Sept. 20, 2001 : In a speech addressing Congress and the nation, Bush announces the War on Terror , saying, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

•  Sept. 25, 2001 : Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announces the anti-terror campaign as “Operation Enduring Freedom,” which he says will take years to fight. The following day, Saudi Arabia ends diplomatic ties with Afghanistan’s Taliban government.

War in Afghanistan Begins

•  Oct. 7, 2001 : Airstrikes by the United States and Great Britain are launched in Afghanistan at Taliban and al Qaeda training camps and targets. “What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted,” al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden says in a video statement released the same day. “Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed, and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated.”

•  Oct. 19-20, 2001 : The ground war begins, with special forces striking in Kandahar. In the coming weeks, Britain, Turkey, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, France and Poland all announce they will deploy troops to Afghanistan.

•  Nov. 9, 2001 : The Afghan Northern Alliance captures Mazar-e-Sharif, a Taliban stronghold. 

• Nov. 13, 2001 : Kabul falls following airstrikes and ground attacks by the United States and Afghan Northern Alliance.

• Dec. 6-17, 2001: The Battle of Tora Bora rages in a cave complex in Eastern Afghanistan’s White Mountains. U.S.-led coalition forces attempt to capture al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but he escapes.

• Dec. 7, 2001: Kandahar, the last major stronghold of the Taliban, falls.

•  Feb. 21, 2002 : A video confirms the execution -style death of Wall Street Journal reporter  Daniel Pearl  by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

•  June 13, 2002 : Hamid Karzai, a favored candidate of the U.S., is elected by a traditional Afghan Loya Jirga council to a two-year term as Afghanistan’s transitional head of state. In 2004, he becomes Afghanistan’s first democratically elected president.

Iraq War Begins

•  March 19, 2003 : U.S. and coalition forces invade Iraq following intelligence that the country and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, possessed or were developing weapons of mass destruction.

• May 1, 2003 : Bush delivers a speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln proclaiming, “ Mission Accomplished ,” saying that major combat efforts for the war in Iraq will end. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on,” he says.

•  Aug. 19, 2003 : Twenty-three people, including a top United Nations official, are killed and 100 wounded after a suicide bomber drives a truck into UN headquarters in Baghdad.

• Dec 13, 2003: Saddam Hussein is captured by U.S. soldiers in ad-Dawr, Iraq.

•  March 11, 2004 : A coordinated bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid kills 191 people and injures more than 2000. Islamic militants, based in Spain but inspired by al Qaeda, are later considered the prime suspects.

•  July 7, 2005 : Terrorist bombings on the London Underground and atop a double-decker bus kill 52 people and injure more than 700. Documents recovered in 2012 will reveal the attacks were planned by a British citizen working for al Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden Killed

•  Dec. 30, 2006 : After being sentenced to death by hanging for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein is executed in Baghdad.

•  June 30, 2009 : Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl walks away from his post in Afghanistan and is kidnapped by the Taliban. Released in 2014, he is later dishonorably discharged.

•  Aug. 30, 2010 : In an Oval Office address, President Barack Obama declares an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq.

•  May 2, 2011 : Osama bin Laden is killed by U.S. special operations forces during a raid at an Abbottabad, Pakistan compound.

•  June 22, 2011 : In a televised address, Obama announces a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a hand-over of power to Afghani security by 2014.

•  August 2011 : Thirty-eight service members are killed when the helicopter they are aboard comes under fire. This month becomes the deadliest ever for U.S. forces in Afghanistan with 66 fatalities.

•  Dec. 28, 2014 : The War in Afghanistan officially ends , though Obama states 10,800 U.S. troops will remain.

•  Jan. 28, 2019 : The U.S. and Taliban leaders work toward an agreement for the withdrawal of the 14,000 U.S. troops who remain in Afghanistan. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11

Table of contents, a devastating emotional toll, a lasting historical legacy, 9/11 transformed u.s. public opinion, but many of its impacts were short-lived, u.s. military response: afghanistan and iraq, the ‘new normal’: the threat of terrorism after 9/11, addressing the threat of terrorism at home and abroad, views of muslims, islam grew more partisan in years after 9/11.

Americans watched in horror as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left nearly 3,000 people dead in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Nearly 20 years later, they watched in sorrow as the nation’s military mission in Afghanistan – which began less than a month after 9/11 – came to a bloody and chaotic conclusion.

The enduring power of the Sept. 11 attacks is clear: An overwhelming share of Americans who are old enough to recall the day remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. Yet an ever-growing number of Americans have no personal memory of that day, either because they were too young or not yet born.

A review of U.S. public opinion in the two decades since 9/11 reveals how a badly shaken nation came together, briefly, in a spirit of sadness and patriotism; how the public initially rallied behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, though support waned over time; and how Americans viewed the threat of terrorism at home and the steps the government took to combat it.

As the country comes to grips with the tumultuous exit of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, the departure has raised long-term questions about U.S. foreign policy and America’s place in the world. Yet the public’s initial judgments on that mission are clear: A majority endorses the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, even as it criticizes the Biden administration’s handling of the situation. And after a war that cost thousands of lives – including more than 2,000 American service members – and trillions of dollars in military spending, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that 69% of U.S. adults say the United States has mostly failed to achieve its goals in Afghanistan.

This examination of how the United States changed in the two decades following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is based on an analysis of past public opinion survey data from Pew Research Center, news reports and other sources.

Current data is from a Pew Research Center survey of 10,348 U.S. adults conducted Aug. 23-29, 2021. Most of the interviewing was conducted before the Aug. 26 suicide bombing at Kabul airport, and all of it was conducted before the completion of the evacuation. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used  for the report, along with responses, and  its methodology .

Shock, sadness, fear, anger: The 9/11 attacks inflicted a devastating emotional toll on Americans. But as horrible as the events of that day were, a 63% majority of Americans said they couldn’t stop watching news coverage of the attacks.

Our first survey following the attacks went into the field just days after 9/11, from Sept. 13-17, 2001. A sizable majority of adults (71%) said they felt depressed, nearly half (49%) had difficulty concentrating and a third said they had trouble sleeping.

It was an era in which television was still the public’s dominant news source – 90% said they got most of their news about the attacks from television, compared with just 5% who got news online – and the televised images of death and destruction had a powerful impact. Around nine-in-ten Americans (92%) agreed with the statement, “I feel sad when watching TV coverage of the terrorist attacks.” A sizable majority (77%) also found it frightening to watch – but most did so anyway.

Americans were enraged by the attacks, too. Three weeks after 9/11 , even as the psychological stress began to ease somewhat, 87% said they felt angry about the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Fear was widespread, not just in the days immediately after the attacks, but throughout the fall of 2001. Most Americans said they were very (28%) or somewhat (45%) worried about another attack . When asked a year later to describe how their lives changed in a major way, about half of adults said they felt more afraid, more careful, more distrustful or more vulnerable as a result of the attacks.

Even after the immediate shock of 9/11 had subsided, concerns over terrorism remained at higher levels in major cities – especially New York and Washington – than in small towns and rural areas. The personal impact of the attacks also was felt more keenly in the cities directly targeted: Nearly a year after 9/11, about six-in-ten adults in the New York (61%) and Washington (63%) areas said the attacks had changed their lives at least a little, compared with 49% nationwide. This sentiment was shared by residents of other large cities. A quarter of people who lived in large cities nationwide said their lives had changed in a major way – twice the rate found in small towns and rural areas.

The impacts of the Sept. 11 attacks were deeply felt and slow to dissipate. By the following August, half of U.S. adults said the country “had changed in a major way” – a number that actually increased , to 61%, 10 years after the event .

A year after the attacks, in an open-ended question, most Americans – 80% – cited 9/11 as the most important event that had occurred in the country during the previous year. Strikingly, a larger share also volunteered it as the most important thing that happened to them personally in the prior year (38%) than mentioned other typical life events, such as births or deaths. Again, the personal impact was much greater in New York and Washington, where 51% and 44%, respectively, pointed to the attacks as the most significant personal event over the prior year.

Just as memories of 9/11 are firmly embedded in the minds of most Americans old enough to recall the attacks, their historical importance far surpasses other events in people’s lifetimes. In a survey conducted by Pew Research Center in association with A+E Networks’ HISTORY in 2016 – 15 years after 9/11 – 76% of adults named the Sept. 11 attacks as one of the 10 historical events of their lifetime that had the greatest impact on the country. The election of Barack Obama as the first Black president was a distant second, at 40%.

The importance of 9/11 transcended age, gender, geographic and even political differences. The 2016 study noted that while partisans agreed on little else that election cycle, more than seven-in-ten Republicans and Democrats named the attacks as one of their top 10 historic events.

It is difficult to think of an event that so profoundly transformed U.S. public opinion across so many dimensions as the 9/11 attacks. While Americans had a shared sense of anguish after Sept. 11, the months that followed also were marked by rare spirit of public unity.

Patriotic sentiment surged in the aftermath of 9/11. After the U.S. and its allies launched airstrikes against Taliban and al-Qaida forces in early October 2001, 79% of adults said they had displayed an American flag. A year later, a 62% majority said they had often felt patriotic as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

Moreover, the public largely set aside political differences and rallied in support of the nation’s major institutions, as well as its political leadership. In October 2001, 60% of adults expressed trust in the federal government – a level not reached in the previous three decades, nor approached in the two decades since then.

George W. Bush, who had become president nine months earlier after a fiercely contested election, saw his job approval rise 35 percentage points in the space of three weeks. In late September 2001, 86% of adults – including nearly all Republicans (96%) and a sizable majority of Democrats (78%) – approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president.

Americans also turned to religion and faith in large numbers. In the days and weeks after 9/11, most Americans said they were praying more often. In November 2001, 78% said religion’s influence in American life was increasing, more than double the share who said that eight months earlier and – like public trust in the federal government – the highest level in four decades .

Public esteem rose even for some institutions that usually are not that popular with Americans. For example, in November 2001, news organizations received record-high ratings for professionalism. Around seven-in-ten adults (69%) said they “stand up for America,” while 60% said they protected democracy.

Yet in many ways, the “9/11 effect” on public opinion was short-lived. Public trust in government, as well as confidence in other institutions, declined throughout the 2000s. By 2005, following another major national tragedy – the government’s mishandling of the relief effort for victims of Hurricane Katrina – just 31% said they trusted the federal government, half the share who said so in the months after 9/11. Trust has remained relatively low for the past two decades: In April of this year, only 24% said they trusted the government just about always or most of the time.

Bush’s approval ratings, meanwhile, never again reached the lofty heights they did shortly after 9/11. By the end of his presidency, in December 2008, just 24% approved of his job performance.

With the U.S. now formally out of Afghanistan – and with the Taliban firmly in control of the country – most Americans (69%) say the U.S. failed in achieving its goals in Afghanistan.

But 20 years ago, in the days and weeks following 9/11, Americans overwhelmingly supported military action against those responsible for the attacks. In mid-September 2001, 77% favored U.S. military action, including the deployment of ground forces, “to retaliate against whoever is responsible for the terrorist attacks, even if that means U.S. armed forces might suffer thousands of casualties.”

Many Americans were impatient for the Bush administration to give the go-ahead for military action. In a late September 2001 survey, nearly half the public (49%) said their larger concern was that the Bush administration would not strike quickly enough against the terrorists; just 34% said they worried the administration would move too quickly.

Even in the early stages of the U.S. military response, few adults expected a military operation to produce quick results: 69% said it would take months or years to dismantle terrorist networks, including 38% who said it would take years and 31% who said it would take several months. Just 18% said it would take days or weeks.

The public’s support for military intervention was evident in other ways as well. Throughout the fall of 2001, more Americans said the best way to prevent future terrorism was to take military action abroad rather than build up defenses at home. In early October 2001, 45% prioritized military action to destroy terrorist networks around the world, while 36% said the priority should be to build terrorism defenses at home.

Initially, the public was confident that the U.S. military effort to destroy terrorist networks would succeed. A sizable majority (76%) was confident in the success of this mission, with 39% saying they were very confident.

Support for the war in Afghanistan continued at a high level for several years to come. In a survey conducted in early 2002, a few months after the start of the war, 83% of Americans said they approved of the U.S.-led military campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. In 2006, several years after the United States began combat operations in Afghanistan, 69% of adults said the U.S. made the right decision in using military force in Afghanistan. Only two-in-ten said it was the wrong decision.

But as the conflict dragged on, first through Bush’s presidency and then through Obama’s administration, support wavered and a growing share of Americans favored the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. In June 2009, during Obama’s first year in office, 38% of Americans said U.S. troops should be removed from Afghanistan as soon as possible. The share favoring a speedy troop withdrawal increased over the next few years. A turning point came in May 2011, when U.S. Navy SEALs launched a risky operation against Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan and killed the al-Qaida leader.

The public reacted to bin Laden’s death with more of a sense of relief than jubilation . A month later, for the first time , a majority of Americans (56%) said that U.S. forces should be brought home as soon as possible, while 39% favored U.S. forces in the country until the situation had stabilized.

Over the next decade, U.S. forces in Afghanistan were gradually drawn down, in fits and starts, over the administrations of three presidents – Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Meanwhile, public support for the decision to use force in Afghanistan, which had been widespread at the start of the conflict, declined . Today, after the tumultuous exit of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a slim majority of adults (54%) say the decision to withdraw troops from the country was the right decision; 42% say it was the wrong decision. 

There was a similar trajectory in public attitudes toward a much more expansive conflict that was part of what Bush termed the “war on terror”: the U.S. war in Iraq. Throughout the contentious, yearlong debate before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Americans widely supported the use of military force to end Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq.

Importantly, most Americans thought – erroneously, as it turned out – there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In October 2002, 66% said that Saddam helped the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In April 2003, during the first month of the Iraq War, 71% said the U.S. made the right decision to go to war in Iraq. On the 15th anniversary of the war in 2018, just 43% said it was the right decision. As with the case with U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, more Americans said that the U.S. had failed (53%) than succeeded (39%) in achieving its goals in Iraq.

There have been no terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 in two decades, but from the public’s perspective, the threat has never fully gone away. Defending the country from future terrorist attacks has been at or near the top of Pew Research Center’s annual survey on policy priorities since 2002.

In January 2002, just months after the 2001 attacks, 83% of Americans said “defending the country from future terrorist attacks” was a top priority for the president and Congress, the highest for any issue. Since then, sizable majorities have continued to cite that as a top policy priority.

Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats have consistently ranked terrorism as a top priority over the past two decades, with some exceptions. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have remained more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say defending the country from future attacks should be a top priority. In recent years, the partisan gap has grown larger as Democrats began to rank the issue lower relative to other domestic concerns. The public’s concerns about another attack also remained fairly steady in the years after 9/11, through near-misses and the federal government’s numerous “Orange Alerts” – the second-most serious threat level on its color-coded terrorism warning system.

A 2010 analysis of the public’s terrorism concerns found that the share of Americans who said they were very concerned about another attack had ranged from about 15% to roughly 25% since 2002. The only time when concerns were elevated was in February 2003, shortly before the start of the U.S. war in Iraq.

In recent years, the share of Americans who point to terrorism as a major national problem has declined sharply as issues such as the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic and racism have emerged as more pressing problems in the public’s eyes.

In 2016, about half of the public (53%) said terrorism was a very big national problem in the country. This declined to about four-in-ten from 2017 to 2019. Last year, only a quarter of Americans said that terrorism was a very big problem.

This year, prior to the U.S. withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and the subsequent Taliban takeover of the country, a somewhat larger share of adults said domestic terrorism was a very big national problem (35%) than said the same about international terrorism . But much larger shares cited concerns such as the affordability of health care (56%) and the federal budget deficit (49%) as major problems than said that about either domestic or international terrorism.

Still, recent events in Afghanistan raise the possibility that opinion could be changing, at least in the short term. In a late August survey, 89% of Americans said the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was a threat to the security of the U.S., including 46% who said it was a major threat.

Just as Americans largely endorsed the use of U.S. military force as a response to the 9/11 attacks, they were initially open to a variety of other far-reaching measures to combat terrorism at home and abroad. In the days following the attack, for example, majorities favored a requirement that all citizens carry national ID cards, allowing the CIA to contract with criminals in pursuing suspected terrorists and permitting the CIA to conduct assassinations overseas when pursuing suspected terrorists.

However, most people drew the line against allowing the government to monitor their own emails and phone calls (77% opposed this). And while 29% supported the establishment of internment camps for legal immigrants from unfriendly countries during times of tension or crisis – along the lines of those in which thousands of Japanese American citizens were confined during World War II – 57% opposed such a measure.

It was clear that from the public’s perspective, the balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting the country from terrorism had shifted. In September 2001 and January 2002, 55% majorities said that, in order to curb terrorism in the U.S., it was necessary for the average citizen to give up some civil liberties. In 1997, just 29% said this would be necessary while 62% said it would not.

For most of the next two decades, more Americans said their bigger concern was that the government had not gone far enough in protecting the country from terrorism than said it went too far in restricting civil liberties.

The public also did not rule out the use of torture to extract information from terrorist suspects. In a 2015 survey of 40 nations, the U.S. was one of only 12 where a majority of the public said the use of torture against terrorists could be justified to gain information about a possible attack.

Concerned about a possible backlash against Muslims in the U.S. in the days after 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave a speech to the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in which he declared: “Islam is peace.” For a brief period, a large segment of Americans agreed. In November 2001, 59% of U.S. adults had a favorable view of Muslim Americans, up from 45% in March 2001, with comparable majorities of Democrats and Republicans expressing a favorable opinion.

This spirit of unity and comity was not to last. In a September 2001 survey, 28% of adults said they had grown more suspicious of people of Middle Eastern descent; that grew to 36% less than a year later.

Republicans, in particular, increasingly came to associate Muslims and Islam with violence. In 2002, just a quarter of Americans – including 32% of Republicans and 23% of Democrats – said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. About twice as many (51%) said it was not.

But within the next few years, most Republicans and GOP leaners said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence. Today, 72% of Republicans express this view, according to an August 2021 survey.

Democrats consistently have been far less likely than Republicans to associate Islam with violence. In the Center’s latest survey, 32% of Democrats say this. Still, Democrats are somewhat more likely to say this today than they have been in recent years: In 2019, 28% of Democrats said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers than other religions.

The partisan gap in views of Muslims and Islam in the U.S. is evident in other meaningful ways. For example, a 2017 survey found that half of U.S. adults said that “Islam is not part of mainstream American society” – a view held by nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (68%) but only 37% of Democrats. In a separate survey conducted in 2017, 56% of Republicans said there was a great deal or fair amount of extremism among U.S. Muslims, with fewer than half as many Democrats (22%) saying the same.

The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in the aftermath of 9/11 has had a profound effect on the growing number of Muslims living in the United States. Surveys of U.S. Muslims from 2007-2017 found increasing shares saying they have personally experienced discrimination and received public expression of support.

It has now been two decades since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the crash of Flight 93 – where only the courage of passengers and crew possibly prevented an even deadlier terror attack.

For most who are old enough to remember, it is a day that is impossible to forget. In many ways, 9/11 reshaped how Americans think of war and peace, their own personal safety and their fellow citizens. And today, the violence and chaos in a country half a world away brings with it the opening of an uncertain new chapter in the post-9/11 era.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Arab-Israeli Relations
• Proliferation
• Palestinians
• Gulf States

Regions & Countries

• Middle East
• North Africa
• Arab & Islamic Politics
• Democracy & Reform
• Energy & Economics
• Great Power Competition
• Gulf & Energy Policy
• Military & Security
• Peace Process
• U.S. Policy
• Policy Analysis

The Battle of Ideas in the War on Terror: Essays on U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East

Robert Satloff is the Segal Executive Director of The Washington Institute, a post he assumed in January 1993.

Introduction

Even before the flames raging within the twisted steel of the fallen World Trade Center towers were extinguished, a debate began to flare up regarding the motivations of the perpetrators. How could Arab Muslim society produce young, well-educated men filled with such hatred toward America that they would kill more than 3,000 innocents -- as well as themselves -- to prove a point? Some argued that the killers were representative of a strain of Muslim revulsion at "who we are" -- that is, a profound hatred of American values, culture, and society. Others argued that disgust over "what we do" -- U.S. policy regarding Israel, oil, Arab autocrats, and Islam itself -- was the main source of the animus. Advocates of each position had their policy prescriptions readily at hand. The latter argued that we should change our policy to reduce the level of disgust among Arabs and Muslims. The former suggested nothing but staying the course, arguing that military victory alone would alter the calculus of hatred. This collection of essays owes its origin to my dissatisfaction with both sets of recommendations for U.S. policy.

A relatively small but still sizable, intensely ambitious, and disproportionately powerful subgroup of Muslims do indeed hate "who we are." For the most part, these are Islamists -- Muslims who reject modern notions of state, citizen, and individual rights and instead seek to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on peoples and nations around the globe. Within this subgroup are those who seek power through revolutionary or violent means and others who seek it through evolutionary or nonviolent means. While the former are unabashed terrorists, it is equally true that the latter can never be democrats.

There are also many Muslims who, while not Islamists, are genuinely angered by certain U.S. policies abroad. U.S. policy analysts would be doing their country a disservice by not recognizing this fact. While the outrage expressed by these Muslims may be episodic and almost surely lacks the operational significance often ascribed to it, it is nonetheless real and cannot merely be wished away by changing the topic.

And, lest we forget, there is a large percentage of Muslims whose daily lives are not animated by any of these issues. These are the tens of millions whose energies are completely sapped by the uphill struggle to eke out a living. They might have some passing knowledge of goings-on in faraway Baghdad or Gaza and may, if asked, express an opinion on them. But their interests and concerns are consumed by more urgent demands.

Regarding the various stripes of Islamists, the United States can do nothing to soften their hearts or change their minds. The goal of U.S. policy should instead be to seek their defeat -- through military means for those who use violence to gain power, and through political means for those whose tactics take a more circuitous path to the same objective. There is no benefit to be gained from targeting public diplomacy toward the Islamists.

Regarding other Muslims who actively critique U.S. policy, there is much the United States can do apart from the obviously self-defeating approach of changing policies to appease the critics. Given the structural biases, shoddy journalism, and intellectual drivel that passes for political discourse in many corners of the Middle East, America's top priority vis-a-vis these Muslims should be to make sure that their opinions are at least based on accurate, dispassionate information. In this regard, public diplomacy can help to create a "level playing field" so that U.S. policies (and the people advocating them) receive a fair hearing in the court of public opinion. Numerous tactical options flow from this strategy.

And regarding the millions of poor and struggling Muslims, the goal of U.S. policy should be to help provide them with the economic, educational, social, and other tools required to leave poverty behind and become constructive and contributing members of their societies. A wide range of policy instruments are available to achieve this goal, complemented by public diplomacy that underscores America's concern and commitment on a personal level.

The story does not end there, however. The key ingredient missing from most analyses of the "why do they hate us?" problem is a recognition that the first two groups of Muslims -- those whose hatred arises from "who we are" and those whose critique is based on "what we do" -- are also battling each other over the fate and direction of their societies. On rare occasions -- Algeria in the 1990s, for example -- this battle has devolved into a shooting war. More commonly, it is a battle of ideas over how to organize societies. The fact that this battle rages in most countries without too many bombs going off or too many dead bodies piling up neither renders it any less momentous nor makes the imperative of victory any less urgent.

The United States has a vital stake in the outcome of this battle, both for the sake of Muslims themselves and for the security of Americans and U.S. interests in Arab and Muslim countries. Without reservation or apology, America's strategy should be to help non- and anti-Islamist Muslims beat back the Islamist challenge. This strategy must be pursued even if many of these putative Muslim allies express bitter dislike for certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

In the post-September 11 era, public diplomacy should be focused on fighting the battle of ideas in Muslim societies. This is a battle that can be won, though it will take more time, money, commitment, and ingenuity than the U.S. government has so far been willing to dedicate to the task.

This set of essays discusses the many problems plaguing public diplomacy in the post-September 11 era and proposes how the United States should pursue what many regard as a mission impossible. Collectively, the essays span the three years since September 11. Four of them were written expressly for this collection, while the balance appeared previously in various publications and are reprinted here as originally published.

There are distinct advantages to using this format. A series of brief essays on discrete subtopics, written and developed over time, both makes the subjects discussed more accessible and provides a chronological context to evolving debates over public diplomacy. This approach may mean that some issues appear fresher and seem to merit more detailed discussion than others. Hopefully, that problem is outweighed by the benefits of following the intellectual odyssey that I undertook as I focused on the public diplomacy challenges facing America since September 11.

Seven months after the al-Qaeda attacks in the United States, my family and I moved from Washington to Rabat, Morocco, capital of a populous Arab Muslim country located at a strategic point between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, just nine miles from Europe. We lived in Rabat for more than two years, during a time of great challenge and turbulence. We traveled to every corner of the country and met Moroccans from all walks of life. I traveled to many corners of the Middle East as well. My wife and I learned much through our children and their experiences; one of our sons attended an outstanding local Moroccan school, while another attended the Rabat American School, an institution that provides the finest of American-style education to a student body that is overwhelmingly non-American. And, not being American officials ourselves, we were free to explore certain places at certain times when our diplomat friends did not have this license, such as when the entire family drove to downtown Rabat to witness one of the largest anti-Iraq war protests in the Middle East.

My summary assessment -- that the battle of ideas can be won if the United States is willing to commit itself to helping its current and potential Muslim allies "fight the fight" -- emerges in large part from my experience abroad. While this theme is present in several of the early essays in this collection, it is expounded with increasing confidence and buoyancy over time. Without minimizing the daunting obstacles that lie ahead, I am convinced that a public diplomacy infused with hope, optimism, candor, creativity, resources, and an entrepreneurial approach to building and supporting allies is the right strategy for America in the Middle East.

Recommended

• Ben Fishman
• Hanin Ghaddar
• Assaf Orion
• Dennis Ross

• Noam Raydan

Stay up to date

 SEARCH -->  CONNECT  FACEBOOK  TWITTER  LINKED IN

Publications - Study Papers

How the war on terror contributed to more violence and inadvertently facilitated global terrorist groups, introduction.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the United States launched a worldwide ‘War on Terror’, the objectives of which evolved over time as the nature and scale of the anticipated threats changed. George W. Bush’s infamous words “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated“ (Bush, 2001, n.p.), signified the framing of the concept of ‘forever wars’, which implies the continuing and perpetual state of fear and conflict. And while with the US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Washington formally put an end to its 20-yearlong warfare in the country, the devastating and lasting repercussions for the people of Afghanistan put into question its success, but also motivations.

This paper will first discuss the concept of ‘War on Terror’ from a theoretical perspective, arguing that it presented numerous definitional challenges, which ultimately lead to inconsistent, ineffective and discrepant counter-terrorism policies. It will further demonstrate how the phrase has been used as a carte blanche for US military intervention in sovereign States. Here, a discussion on the legal aspects and principles of proportionality of the war on terror will take place and the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq will be used. Subsequently, the paper will highlight how the military gains that America’s war on terror have produced pale in comparison to the damage they have inflicted, including financial costs, human casualties and long-lasting humanitarian disasters. Importantly, the failure of the war on terror has given oxygen and space to the proliferation of more extremist groups, further destabilizing these regions and prompting more violence. The paper will also discuss how the US’ war on terror has not only led to the deaths of millions of innocent lives and destruction of several countries, but also set a precedent for other countries to use this dangerous rhetoric in justifying their actions against a perceived threat.

Definitional Challenges

The late French President, Georges Clemenceau, has infamously stated that war is a “series of catastrophes that results in a victory” (Brands and O’Hanlon, p.1). However, the argument for victory in America's ‘War on Terror’ is more challenging to make. While the US finally withdrew its troops from Afghanistan, after 20 years of fighting with the Taliban as the group gave protection to Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden, responsible for the 9/11 attacks, many argue that the situation is back to square one, with a Taliban government in power and a growing humanitarian crisis (O’Donnell, 2021). Moreover, the recent killing of Al-Zawahiri, the successor of Osama Bin Laden, highlighted that the Taliban, and most particularly its partner organization, the Haqqani Network, have not ceased their relations with Al-Qaeda (Qandil, 2022). The longevity of the war in Afghanistan is explained by Walldorf (2022) through the concept of strategic narratives. He argues that US involvement in Afghanistan came to an end not because of ‘winning’ the war on terror, but because the public support for the anti-terrorist narrative declined. Walldorf (2022) explains how in the years following 9/11, events such as Al-Qaeda attacks conducted globally as well as the rise of Islamic State, justified the war in Afghanistan, generating space for the supporters of war. This narrative has been reinforcing the collective trauma bonding of the American population, by reminding people of the ‘horrors’ of the original event (ibid). Similar subsequent occurrences strengthen the narrative and help it remain relevant as a guide for foreign policy by re-traumatizing the nation (ibid). Yet, in recent years the severity/frequency of attacks against America declined, which diminished the potency of the narrative (ibid). Curiously, Wallford (2022) highlights that the anti-terrorist narrative works only when violence is taking place against the US or its democratic allies, disregarding the terrorist attacks happening locally in those countries.

McIntosh (2022) uses a different approach to discuss the US’ war on terror. Looking through a temporal framework, he discusses the definitional challenges of the term. On one hand, a war is a temporal gap in normal political times, which interrupts the course of peace and thus tolerates warfare for the purposes of achieving victory, hence restoring the peace (ibid). At the same time, the way American statesmen and policy makers have defined terrorism is as a continuing, imminent threat, implying it has no end (ibid). Thus, efforts to overcome terrorists become indefinite, since extremist groups might come and go, yet the idea of ‘terrorism’ is always present (ibid). As a result, a ‘war on terrorism’, becomes a contradiction in itself (ibid). Due to their opposing characteristics, a finite temporal frame (war) and one that seeks sustained and indefinite counter endeavours (terrorism) cannot readily coexist (ibid). This further explains the inconsistencies in America’s counter-terrorism policies in the last two decades. Having an ambivalent goal, inevitably leads to strategic overreach and unachievable aims.

Principle of Proportionality

The ambiguity and immense definition of the term has further served to justify America’s involvement in other sovereign countries. For example, Moody (2021) explains how in the case of the war in Iraq, the US utilised the ‘War on Terror’ for its illegal invasion and presence. Qureshi (2019) relies on the principle of proportionality, encoded in the just war theory, and discusses its applicability on America’s war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.  As per the jus ad bellum doctrine, a war must only be commenced as a last option, with a declaration of war by a legitimate body, with a realistic expectation of victory, and with good intentions in mind (Thürer, 2011). On the other hand, the jus in bello doctrine evaluates whether war activities are within the scope of international humanitarian laws (ibid). In order to do that, jus in bello relies on the principles of necessity, distinction and proportionality (ibid). Necessity mandates that military action should only be used as a last option, ensuring that it is not employed prematurely and without exhausting all peaceful measures (ibid). The concept of distinction states that wartime military action should only target combatants and not civilians or civilian property (ibid). And, according to the principle of proportionality, military action must not inflict more harm than the good it tries to accomplish (ibid).

When it comes to the last principle, Qureshi (2019) argues that the damage inflicted by the war on terror, greatly exceeds the positive effects brought about, thus violating the principles of proportionality. It has become visible how the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, lead to the mass-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, the lack of access to basic human needs like food, water, electricity, education, and healthcare, the loss of millions of lives, the destabilization of regions, and the plight of millions of refugees and displaced people (ibid).

According to the Brown University-run Costs of War Project (2021), the estimated total cost of the US’ global war on terror stands at $8 trillion in expenditures, nearly 930,000 in lost lives and 37 million in displaced people. 85 countries in total have been affected by being involved in US counter-terrorism operations (ibid). In the case of Afghanistan, while pre-2001, 62% of Afghans were facing food insecurity, in 2021, the number is 92% (ibid). In the case of children under five, pre-2001, only 9% were facing acute malnutrition, while in 2021, the number is 50% (ibid). In Syria, absence of water supplies and electricity has further contributed to the development of deadly diseases (UNICEF, 2015).

Particularly, when it comes to the increase of terrorism, terror-related fatalities in 2015 were 4500% higher than they had been at the beginning of the War (Hasan, 2015). The number of Salafi-Jihadi terrorist outfits has increased at least four times since 9/11 (Jones et al., 2018), while the number of suicide bombings solely in Iraq increased from zero in 2003 to 1,892 in 2015 (Hasan, 2015).

Moreover, although Bin Laden is no longer alive, his legacy has lived on, and Al-Qaeda, while certainly weakened, is still active (Hoffman, 2021). Not only that, in Iraq the support of rebels to change the regime in the country, by providing them with weapons and training, only led to the genesis of Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) (Qureshi, 2019). The latter point demonstrates how the US administration hinders the State's capacity to effectively fight terrorism by assisting rebels in their battle to overthrow the government, resulting in increased internal division and, as a consequence, the breeding of more terrorism (ibid). The case of Afghanistan, where the opposition forces during the Soviet-Afghan war, the Mujahideen , were funded by America and later became the Taliban, is an infamous one (Rubin, 2002).

In the context of the war on terror, most analysts agree that ISIS emerged out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq as a response to the 2003 US invasion (Hassan, 2018). The failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction, which was the main justification to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, further dealt a heavy blow to America’s international image, exposing the illegality of the war and the violation of the jus ad bellum doctrine (Hoffman, 2021; Qureshi, 2019). On the other hand, the cases of torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, conveniently phrased as ‘enhanced interrogation’, additionally put to question US’ integrity vis-à-vis the jus in bello principle (ibid). The latter case is particularly important to discuss given that it introduced the world to the violent infrastructure of torture in the war on terror (Hilal, 2017).

Torture under the War on Terror

“America is the friend of all Iraqi people” . These chilling words were placed in the Abu Ghraib prison, replacing the image of Saddam Hussein (ibid). Nothing could have been further from the truth. The International Committee of the Red Cross released a Report in 2004, which documented in detail the extensive torture prisoners were subjected to, ranging from physical assaults such as beatings with heavy objects, suffocation, waterboarding, prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures; psychological torture such as solitary confinement, sleep and food/water deprivation, threats of death or reprisal to family members; to acts of humiliation such as being held on leashes, being piled atop other prisoners naked in a pyramid structure, standing in crucifixion like postures and being forced to parade in female underwear, while being photographed. The number of examples is overwhelming. What is even more distressing is that the Report assesses that around 70-90% of the prisoners were mistakenly detained and were innocent.

As Hilal (2017) explains, while Bush’s administration initially came forward as ‘shocked’ to the revelations of what was happening in Abu Ghraib, this ‘shock’ actually serves to underline the false American narrative of the protection of human rights and America’s values, when one considers the lack of accountability and justice in handling the cases. Only 11 US military personnel were prosecuted for committing crimes, with few others only being reprimanded (CNN, 2022). Even those 11 were simply seen as ‘bad apples’ and not representative of a system-wide policy of sanctioned abuse under the war on terror (Hilal, 2017). Apel (2005, p.89) summarizes that well by arguing that “the exercise of such sadism and humiliation is a fundamentally political act. The viewer is meant to identify with the proud torturers in the context of the defense of a political and cultural hierarchy”. As she further explains this system-wide policy, “the torture and abuse of prisoners was mandated and justified at the top, and those who gave vent to even the most gratuitous sadistic impulses felt safe in a carefully circumscribed culture of community sanction” (p. 100). Another evidence for this is the fact that while few military officers were court-martialed for their misconduct, the private contractors, in this case CACI, walked away with large payments, and they continue to be awarded millions of dollars in government contracts (Hilal, 2017). Hence, as Christopher Hitchens somewhat cynically concludes, “the only accident at Abu Ghraib was the release of the pictures to the world” (as cited in Abel, 2005, p.100). According to Hilal (2017), the pervasive Islamophobia in America following 9/11 played a huge role in this.

In a similar vein, the US’ Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which assassinated bin Laden and Al-Awlaki, has extrajudicially killed a large number of innocent individuals in Afghanistan, Yemen and other countries, on suspicion of having ties to terrorism (Hill, 2013). No repercussions have been faced by those responsible.

It is now evident that while supposed to address the problem of terrorism, those supporting and waging the war on terror have actually been responsible for numerous human rights violations. Thus, the war on terror appears to have failed at that point. This becomes even more visible when one considers the objectives of Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda’s Victory

Both Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have stated their intention to drive the US out of Muslim-majority nations and replace them with Islamic Caliphates governed by Islamic law (Gordon, 2007). They have argued that to “provoke and bait” the US into these “bleeding wars” on Muslim territories, is the only way to achieve this (ibid, p.57). As we have witnessed in August 2021, that is what happened in Afghanistan (O’Donnell, 2021). Concerningly, the failure of the US led war on terror has created a scenario where the international community is now distinguishing between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists (Qureshi, 2022). This means that with the Taliban’s victory, terrorist leaders, with UN and US sanctions on their heads have been mainstreamed in international politics (ibid). Yet, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State still remain threats (ibid). The argument that the Taliban 2.0 is more moderate is mainly a pretext for justifying to the general audience that those who were originally foes are now allies (ibid). It only takes an observation of the terrorist group’s conduct one year after it took control over Afghanistan, to conclude that this is not the case (Watkins, 2022). Such a situation is a dangerous precedent, given that it could open a Pandora box of previously inconceivable problems.

For example, recognizing Taliban diplomats, which China, Pakistan, Russia and Turkmenistan already have (van Dongen and Farrell-Molloy, 2022), means that the Taliban could promulgate their ideas at international fora. In addition, the group’s success has emboldened other regional Jihadist actors to pursue their cause (Mehra and Wentworth, 2021). As Pantucci and Basit (2021) argue, both pro-Al Qaeda and pro-ISKP groups have been inspired to proliferate, when it comes to the region of South Asia. Al-Qaeda for example, has managed to establish itself well in the region, by assisting in the creation of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), as well as its own branch, Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). They further have a network of followers such as Ansarullah Bangla Team and Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh in Bangladesh, and Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind in Indian Administered Jammu & Kashmir (ibid). In return, they have been pledging allegiance to the Taliban, which is currently paying off, validating the Jihadist doctrine of strategic patience (ibid). As Pantucci and Basit (2021) continue, Al-Qaeda linked groups might like to exploit the security dynamics between Pakistan and India by deploying efforts in the contested region of Jammu & Kashmir. Importantly to mention, it might be difficult to distinguish between State-sponsored militant activity and that of terrorist groups with ties to Al-Qaeda, making it harder to determine how events in Afghanistan are connected (ibid).

Following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the AQIS and ISKP factions may shift their attention to India in their hunt for a more formidable adversary or an enemy State (Basit, 2022). Earlier, it was first the Soviet invasion and afterwards the American presence which attracted Jihadists from different parts of the world (ibid). Thus, a powerful opponent such as India is again necessary to attract recruitment and funding, as well as justify violence (ibid).

The Taliban's success has also energised right-wing Hindu extremists in India, who are now advancing anti-Islamic narratives in reaction to their sense of being surrounded by Muslim governments that are harbouring an increasing number of extremists (Pantucci and Basit, 2021). By radicalising the extremist elements of the Indian Muslim community, which up to now has shown to be reasonably robust to recruitment efforts, the escalation of communal fault lines may further assist Al-Qaeda (ibid). In the case of ISKP, the group provides a more hardline and violent alternative to disenfranchised Jihadis, who do not agree with the agenda of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (ibid).

In other regions of the world, the success of the Taliban is also visible. For instance, in Indonesia, a radical Islamist group, Jamaah Muslimin Hizbullah, has suggested the establishment of a Taliban-styled government, whereas Malaysia’s largest Islamist political party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), congratulated on its social media the Taliban on their victory (ibid). Other Southeast Asian militant groups have also been euphoric (ibid). Pantucci and Basit (2021) continue to provide examples from other regions where the Taliban’s victory has been praised. In the Middle East, for example, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) argued that Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan marked “the beginning of a pivotal transformation worldwide” (ibid, p.4). In similar manner, the Syrian extremist group, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham has called the Taliban’s victory “a model to follow” (ibid, p.4). Owing, to the Taliban takeover, Al-Qaeda is provided with a chance to refocus on the region of the Middle East (ibid).

Thus, as Reinares (2021) argues, with the Afghan Taliban back in power and ties to the Pakistani Taliban maintained, Al-Qaeda's command will find a much more permissive space in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to strengthen itself organizationally and plan attacks outside the region, either alone or with its allies. He particularly discusses the possibilities of renewed Al-Qaeda inspired Jihadism in Western Europe (ibid).

While the West was hopeful that international organisations such as the World Bank would have some leverage over the Taliban, as they would be dependent on humanitarian aid and economic assistance contingent on human rights compliance, the terrorist group has been able to establish trade and business relations with countries such as China and Russia that do not impose such conditions (van Dongen and Farrell-Molloy, 2022) as of course, Beijing and Moscow have their own interests at play (ibid). Yet, even the financial flow that is coming from international aid agencies like the UN is managed through entities that the Taliban themselves have approved, showcasing their grip over the decision-making process in this realm (Chowdhury, 2022).

China’s “War on Terror”

Apart from inadvertently facilitating global terrorist groups, the war on terror further generated a setting where separatist or anti-government sentiments could be attributed to ‘terrorism’ and dealt with repressive measures justified under anti-terrorist rhetoric (Brophy, 2019). That is very much the case of countries such as Turkey and China (FreedomHouse, 2021; Petersen, 2021). When it comes to the latter, Uyghur separatist movements in the Muslim-majority state of Xinjiang in China, after 9/11 have been conveniently re-labelled as terrorist (Petersen, 2021). As a result, every manifestation of Islam, even the most mundane ones, has been considered extremist and enough of a pretext to place people in so-called ‘internment camps’ (Brophy, 2019).

As explained by Kanat (2012), China uses diversion tactics, such as the ‘War on Terror’, to divert attention from its persistent internal issues, and consolidate its legitimacy by uniting the people against a common perceived enemy. By "othering" a group, the State seeks to create an in-group/out-group dynamic. These diversionary methods seek to blame a specific group, in this instance the Uygur minority, for the country's present difficulties. In actuality, the Chinese government seeks to strengthen its own "imagined community" by forging a "suspect community" (ibid). As he continues to explain, it was not a random choice on the part of the government to target the Uyghur minority. Uyghurs are Muslims, therefore this campaign has been able to more easily link them to Al-Qaeda and worldwide Islamic networks, and the region's proximity to Afghanistan bolsters those Chinese claim (ibid). Thus, while Tibetans have been also “othered” in China, it would have been more difficult to scapegoat them in this particular context. This demonstrates China's strategic analysis of the geopolitical environment, demonstrating how they have purposefully reshaped their discourse to fit with the current global focus on Islamist-inspired extremism in order to attempt to gain international recognition for their 'struggle' against the Uyghurs (Clarke, 2010).

The timing of the War on Terror was also very convenient for China. In early 2000s, the Chinese government was worried about probable ‘Balkanization’ due to ongoing ethnic turmoils in the country. As a result, Beijing received a golden opportunity to crush any dissent under the banner of the War on Terror (Kanat, 2012). However, while China's use of the War on Terror was first meant to silence foreign criticism of the country's harsh tactics against the Uyghur people, it has now evolved into a full-scale domestic oppression campaign, where any manifestation of religion or ethnic identity is labelled as ‘terrorism’ (ibid). It is important to mention that Beijing has extended this banner of extremism to any form of non-violent opposition or criticism too (ibid). As argued by Human Righst Watch (2005):

“Chinese authorities are trying to erase the distinctions among cultural and minority rights activists, pro-independence activists, and those who use violence. This suggests an historical shift: while before September 11, 2001, not all minority rights or cultural rights activists or those on the "ideological front" (which presumably covers all critics of CCP policy) were considered to be terrorists, after September 11 they are, or should be, assumed to be terrorists. 

In effect, China is claiming that terrorists have now become secret peaceful activists, presumably waiting for the right moment to revert to their former methods. This is a very dangerous set of assumptions that can be acted upon by the Chinese or Xinjiang security services at any time to justify arrests, heavy sentences, and the death penalty“.

Kanat (2012) therefore illustrates how authoritarian regimes' use of political and media power influence social discourse and politics and could lead to the mobilisation of people against imagined foes.

As Petersen (2021) explains, this is somewhat an outcome of Bush's speech in 2001 that established a binary mindset in which nations are either on the side of America or the terrorists, excluding any opportunity in between and branding any country that would disagree with US stance as an enemy. Kellner (2007) in Orwellian fashion calls this phenomenon ‘Bushspeak’, using as an example the invasion of Iraq, where Bush notoriously uses Manichean dualist discourse to describe a war between ‘good’ and ‘evil’, where ‘we’ are ‘good’ and ‘others’ are ‘bad’. Bush's rhetoric included all the hallmarks of Orwellian Doublespeak: killing thousands of Iraqis and destroying their country in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq as "liberation," rationalising the destruction of their food and water supplies as "humanitarian" action, and so on (ibid).

Although it was positively concluded that there was no legitimate justification for the invasion of Iraq, Bush and his supporters continued for years to repeat lies when confronted with the truth (ibid). Similarly, unable to acknowledge defeat, after the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul, Biden stated that the war in Afghanistan was an “extraordinary success“ (Biden, 2021, n.p.).

Unfortunately, the future of Afghanistan, Iraq and all the other playgrounds of the ‘War on Terror’ remains bleak. The fight against terrorism will be only won when the ideology that drives it, loses its appeal. Yet, that does will not happen through only military action. The Cold War came to an end not when American troops occupied the Kremlin but rather when the Kremlin's rulers gave up the struggle because the populace they ruled no longer adhered to the ideology they were meant to be fighting for (Gordon, 2007). Victory will come not when all terrorists are killed – certainly such a strategy would lead to more terrorism – but when the pursuit of terrorism is no longer something that occupies people’s minds, and they discover more viable routes to the respect, opportunity, and dignity they long for (ibid). This takes place through investing in various development and educational initiatives, which is a slow, yet sustainable process.

Still, not all is lost in Afghanistan. And the breaking point for the Taliban, might actually come from within (Felbab-Brown, 2021). The group's success was founded on its power to act as an insurgency against the legitimate government and Western powers (ibid), however now it is in the shoes of the State and must deliver; something the Taliban are inexperienced with (van Dongen and Farrell-Molloy, 2022). As the first year of their rule has showcased, the Taliban are very fragmented and lack the capacity to manage the economy (ibid).

With no major enemy to fight yet, it remains to be seen whether the Taliban will defeat themselves. 

January 2023. © European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS), Amsterdam

The European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS): Committed to providing excellent, genuine & authentic research and advice on South Asia.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Terms of use copyright 2016-2024, The European Foundation for South Asian Studies. All rights reserved

Design: Scriptus Design

War and Terrorism in the Modern World Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Relatively recently, the discussions about war and peace have drastically changed. After September 11, 2001, the new problem of terrorism became one of the most controversial topics around the world. Therefore, the correlation between such terms and concepts as terrorism and war has long attracted attention from various scholars and experts. At first glance, it may seem that terrorism and war have several factors in common. For example, sometimes terrorist groups and the military are equipped similarly, and the participants are trained in combat. In addition, both war and terrorism are associated with the use of violent acts. They are used to frighten the public and pursue political goals, for example, to change the government in the country. As a result, they lead to human casualties and destruction of objects and cause tremendous harm to the environment and humanity.

However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the objectives of terrorism and war have differences. For instance, acts of terrorism are meant to inflict fear and intimidation to put pressure on the authorities, society, or the entire world. Over the past years, ISIS has made its way into northeast Syria and also has posted several propaganda materials on the internet. The final goal of this organization is to convert the entire world, even the Western countries, to their twisted version of Islamic law. To achieve that objective, they impose disturbance by suicide bombing and killing people in other countries. By those actions, ISIS implements their ideals and how everyone who is not converted to their fate should die. On the other hand, the Afghan war began due to an attempt by the Soviet army to overthrow the current government and take the land under control. From this fact, one can conclude that the purpose of war is to either seize the territory of another country or to change the government on the opposing side. Therefore, even though war and terrorism may seem similar and equally horrible, their concepts and goals are completely different. While acts of terrorism are short-lived and are conducted to convey a message, war is mostly a prolonged campaign to achieve political goals.

• Agro-Terrorism: Definition and Impacts
• Islam and Islamic Extremism
• Windshield Survey: Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Causes of Rise
• Islamic State's Online Propaganda to Men and Women
• The Boston Marathon Bombings: Review
• War on Terror: The Battle Continues
• How Terrorism Affects Airline Security
• What Makes Terrorism Different From Other Forms of Violence
• The Key 9-11 Conspiracy Theory
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 25). War and Terrorism in the Modern World. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-terrorism-in-the-modern-world/

"War and Terrorism in the Modern World." IvyPanda , 25 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-terrorism-in-the-modern-world/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'War and Terrorism in the Modern World'. 25 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "War and Terrorism in the Modern World." February 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-terrorism-in-the-modern-world/.

1. IvyPanda . "War and Terrorism in the Modern World." February 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-terrorism-in-the-modern-world/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "War and Terrorism in the Modern World." February 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-and-terrorism-in-the-modern-world/.

Terrorism Essay for Students and Teacher

500+ words essay on terrorism essay.

Terrorism is an act, which aims to create fear among ordinary people by illegal means. It is a threat to humanity. It includes person or group spreading violence, riots, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, fighting, bombings, etc. Terrorism is an act of cowardice. Also, terrorism has nothing to do with religion. A terrorist is only a terrorist, not a Hindu or a Muslim.

Types of Terrorism

Terrorism is of two kinds, one is political terrorism which creates panic on a large scale and another one is criminal terrorism which deals in kidnapping to take ransom money. Political terrorism is much more crucial than criminal terrorism because it is done by well-trained persons. It thus becomes difficult for law enforcing agencies to arrest them in time.

Terrorism spread at the national level as well as at international level.  Regional terrorism is the most violent among all. Because the terrorists think that dying as a terrorist is sacred and holy, and thus they are willing to do anything. All these terrorist groups are made with different purposes.

Causes of Terrorism

There are some main causes of terrorism development  or production of large quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. rapid population growth,  Politics, Social, Economic  problems, dissatisfaction of people with the country’s system, lack of education, corruption, racism, economic inequality, linguistic differences, all these are the major  elements of terrorism, and terrorism flourishes after them. People use terrorism as a weapon to prove and justify their point of view.  The riots among Hindus and Muslims are the most famous but there is a difference between caste and terrorism.

The Effects Of Terrorism

Terrorism spreads fear in people, people living in the country feel insecure because of terrorism. Due to terrorist attacks, millions of goods are destroyed, the lives of thousands of innocent people are lost, animals are also killed. Disbelief in humanity raises after seeing a terrorist activity, this gives birth to another terrorist. There exist different types of terrorism in different parts of the country and abroad.

Today, terrorism is not only the problem of India, but in our neighboring country also, and governments across the world are making a lot of effort to deal with it. Attack on world trade center on September 11, 2001, is considered the largest terrorist attack in the world. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and death of thousands of people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Terrorist Attacks in India

India has suffered several terrorist attacks which created fear among the public and caused huge destruction. Here are some of the major terrorist attacks that hit India in the last few years: 1991 – Punjab Killings, 1993 – Bombay Bomb Blasts, RSS Bombing in Chennai, 2000 – Church Bombing, Red Fort Terrorist Attack,2001- Indian Parliament Attack, 2002 – Mumbai Bus Bombing, Attack on Akshardham Temple, 2003 – Mumbai Bombing, 2004 – Dhemaji School Bombing in Assam,2005 – Delhi Bombings, Indian Institute of Science Shooting, 2006 – Varanasi Bombings, Mumbai Train Bombings, Malegaon Bombings, 2007 – Samjhauta Express Bombings, Mecca Masjid Bombing, Hyderabad Bombing, Ajmer Dargah Bombing, 2008 – Jaipur Bombings, Bangalore Serial Blasts, Ahmedabad Bombings, Delhi Bombings, Mumbai Attacks, 2010 – Pune Bombing, Varanasi Bombing.

The recent ones include 2011 – Mumbai Bombing, Delhi Bombing, 2012 – Pune Bombing, 2013 – Hyderabad Blasts, Srinagar Attack, Bodh Gaya Bombings, Patna Bombings, 2014 – Chhattisgarh Attack, Jharkhand Blast, Chennai Train Bombing, Assam Violence, Church Street Bomb Blast, Bangalore, 2015 –  Jammu Attack, Gurdaspur Attack, Pathankot Attack, 2016 – Uri Attack, Baramulla Attack, 2017 – Bhopal Ujjain Passenger Train Bombing, Amarnath Yatra Attack, 2018 Sukma Attack, 2019- Pulwama attack.

Agencies fighting Terrorism in India

Many police, intelligence and military organizations in India have formed special agencies to fight terrorism in the country. Major agencies which fight against terrorism in India are Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Terrorism has become a global threat which needs to be controlled from the initial level. Terrorism cannot be controlled by the law enforcing agencies alone. The people in the world will also have to unite in order to face this growing threat of terrorism.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Terrorism & Political Violence — War on Terror

Essays on War on Terror

Terrorism and modern society, targeting of suspected terrorists in the usa, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Sri Lanka: Activity of The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (ltte)

Terrorism on american soil, apocalyptic beliefs and terroristic ideologies of isis, the creation of a terrorist, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Concept and History of Islamist Terrorism

Analysis of the causes of the isis epidemic spreading across the globe, the dangers caused by terrorism on society all over the world, martial law: burden or boon, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Evolution of ISIS to Become One of The World’s Most Feared Terrorist Groups

An analysis of the use of biological weapons in terrorism, how hostage negotiation works, discussion on whether torture is an acceptable method to obtain intelligence data, a report on terrorism: history, types, and effects, an analysis of jean baudrillard’s the gulf war, the link between terrorism and drug trafficking, the financing of terrorism, al-qaeda: islamic radical terrorist organization, terrorism and just war theory, civilian centric terrorism as a political instrument: analysis of the palestinian liberation organisation (plo), the features of contemporary terrorism, the history of terrorism, the war on terror and islamophobia in united states, the conflicts that created the war on terror, 9/11: a day never forgotten, the role of america in the global war on terror, hostilities chasing in san jacinto, masbate, terrorism as a world-wide problem, the need for new effective ways to handle isis in the united states, relevant topics.

• Osama Bin Laden
• Weapons Of Mass Destruction
• State Sponsored Terrorism
• Suicide Bombing
• Bioterrorism
• Abraham Lincoln
• Electoral College

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

War On Terror Essays

War on terror, the question of justice, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The War on Terror, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 419

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The War on Terror: Enriching the Military-Industrial Complex since 2001!

There are many Americans – usually after a long session of watching Fox News with a glazed look in their eyes and a slipstream of drool coming out the side of their mouths — who probably lay awake at night, worrying about whether the largest standing army in the world is quite big enough??  After all, the Cold War has been over for decades and the fight against the creeping tentacles of Communism and the specter of the Red Menace has long since subsided, and in that lull, there was every danger that the American military, voracious eater of more than half of our national budget, might have to tighten its belt and go on the economic equivalent of the Atkins diet.

But never fear, stalwart Americans!  The Bush administration, taking political advantage of the ghastly tragedies of September 11 th (‘cause when life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade!), has found a new way to keep the coffers of our Department of the Defense nice and fat! Enter: the War on Terror, or the Next Best Thing since the Bay of Pigs!  The War on Terror has kept Americans nice and scared, just as its big brother, the Cold War, did before it, and the great thing about scared people is that they will pay up the nose in order to feel safe again!  As an advertising campaign, the War on Terror has been eminently successful: its customers (the American public), are flocking in to pay for (through their taxes) the product that the government is now offering us (the perception of security).

The best part about this is that, unlike the Cold War, the War on Terror never has to end! The problem with the Cold War is that once the USSR had fallen, there was no need to fight anymore.  But with the War on Terror, when we are done with one country –Iraq, for instance — we can simply go on to the next!  Iran! Syria! The Ukraine!  The possibilities are virtually mind-boggled, and limited only by the scope of our paranoid imagination!

So do not worry about having to cut the military budget any time soon, or fret that we will have to waste money that could otherwise be spent on war on piddling things like education, infrastructure or healthcare.  With the War on Terror, there is no end in sight and absolutely no chance of military budget cuts! Hurray for safety, apple pie, and the American way!

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience, Essay Example

Love vs Lust, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Terrorism Essay

Essay on Terrorism

Terrorism is a blunder committed by the terrible individuals around us. To demonstrate their strength, a group of people attempts to govern a specific arena. Terrorism has a negative impact on both society and personal life. As a result of their acts, a large number of families are destroyed. Regrettably, the number of crimes in India is increasing on a daily basis. Ancient India was ruled by a monarchy, and the ruling was a source of pride for the king. However, India later accepted democracy, and everyone is treated equally under the Indian constitution. Even so, some cowards try to keep their power over the impoverished and weak.

Terrorism represents the foolish act done by the cruel people around us. The bunch of groups tries to rule the certain arena to show their power. Terrorism had a adverse effect on the society as well as a personal life. Their number of families gets destroyed due to their actions. In India, it's sad to say, but the number of crimes is increasing day by day. Ancient India was in Monarchy where ruling was a pride to the king, but later on India accepted democracy and everyone is treated the same under the Indian constituent. Still some cowards try to maintain their dominance over poor and helpless people.

Who could forget the date 26th November, better known as 26/11! Where 10 terrorists entered the country and attacked the economic city in India. Bringing grenades, pistols, automated rifles and other destructive weapons they almost destroyed the city and shocked the Indians in the midnight. The people are helpless, weaponless and in their own world of enjoyment at the railway station, hotels and in the drives on the roads, and suddenly a danger happens in their lives, which they did not expect. 

Osama Bin Laden was the greatest terrorist in the world! People are still afraid of hearing his name. He had destroyed a building named ‘world-trade center’ with the help of an airplane. It has also been stated in the reports that frequently Osama had been amorphous with him. Even the police themselves got confused and captured the wrong one. After his death there was lots of time still required to recognize the originality of him.

Lying in court is an offense. Frequently the needy and poor people lie in court for the sake of a certain amount of money. But, this money would be a help to criminals outside the world. Even, we purchased CDs and DVDs at an economic rate. To save a certain amount of money, we help piracy. These pirates invest this money in the armonony and indirectly we are sponsoring a bullet in every war which would be used against us only. 

The origin of terrorism starts with a little things. The first pen stolen from a friend could even lead to mortal works. Everything has a start and if left unmanaged, they can leave the astray and lose the right path. In the school, if the adverse effects of being bad are explained properly with illustrations to some real life examples, the students may get aware about all the facts and take an initiative to stop the spread of crime. Instead of making criminals with heroic roles in the television serials, the more heroic movie super cops are to be made. Instead of writing biographies of terrorism supporters, write articles about terrorism demonization. The start of this cleaning starts from home, if you have a child, teach them the ways to be a great person in good habits rather than supporting him when he starts stealing something. Terrorism has an end, if we are united the terrorism can be thrown is out of the windows! 

Various Forms Of Terrorism

Political terrorism, which raises mass concern, and criminal terrorism, which involves abduction for ransom money, are the two sorts of terrorism. Political terrorism is significantly more essential than criminal terrorism since it is carried out by well-trained personnel. As a result, apprehending them in a timely way becomes increasingly challenging for law enforcement agencies.

Terrorism has spread across the country and around the world. Regional terrorism is the most dangerous type of terrorism. Terrorists feel that dying as a terrorist is a priceless and sacred experience, and they will go to any extent to attain it. Each of these terrorist groups was founded for a different motive.

Who can forget November 26th, often known as "26/11"? Ten terrorists infiltrated the country and assaulted India's economic centre. They nearly devastated the city and astonished the Indians by bringing explosives, pistols, automatic rifles, and other lethal weapons. People are defenceless, without weapons, and engrossed in their own realms of pleasure at the railway station, motels, and on the highways when an unanticipated menace enters their life.

The Origins of Terrorism

The invention or manufacture of vast quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, and other weapons fuels terrorism. Rapid population expansion, political, social, and economic issues, public dissatisfaction with the country's system, a lack of education, corruption, racism, economic disparities, and language disparities are all key factors in the development of terrorism. Terrorism is sometimes used to establish and maintain one's stance. Despite the contrast between caste and terrorism, the most well-known riots have taken place between Hindus and Muslims.

Consequences of Terrorism

Individuals are filled with fear as a result of terrorism, and people of the country feel vulnerable as a result. Millions of goods have been destroyed, thousands of people have died, and animals have been slaughtered as a result of terrorist assaults. People lose trust in humanity after seeing a terrorist attack, which fosters more terrorists. Terrorism comes in many forms and manifests itself in different parts of the country and outside.

Terrorism is becoming a problem not just in India, but also in our neighbouring countries, and governments throughout the world are battling it. The World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, is considered the world's worst terrorist strike. Osama bin Laden launched an attack on the world's tallest tower, resulting in millions of injuries and thousands of deaths.

FAQs on Terrorism Essay

1. Who was Osama bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden was the world's greatest terrorist! Hearing his name still makes people fearful. With the help of an aeroplane, he had destroyed the 'world-trade centre.' According to the rumours, Osama had been amorphous with him on several occasions. Even the cops got mixed up and arrested the wrong person. There was still a lot of time required after his death to acknowledge his uniqueness.

2. Identify the countries that are the most impacted by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria were the countries most hit in 2014, with the highest number of terrorist incidents. This year has been dubbed "Terrorism Year." Furthermore, it has been reported that these five countries were the primary targets of 78 per cent of all attacks last year. Apart from them, there are 39 countries that endured the most attacks, and their index rating is based on the severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

3. What is the true cause of terrorism?

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence for a specific purpose. This motivation could stem from a sense of social and political injustice, or just a belief that violence can bring about change. The main cause of terrorism is usually perceived unfairness or rage against specific societal conditions. Many people join terrorist groups out of desperation or to exact personal vengeance on powerful authorities. Terrorism is also a result of strong feelings of injustice. Millions of young people aspire to make a difference by utilising violence as a tool for social upheaval. As a result, in order to combat these extremists, we must provide them with alternatives to violence that can be useful to them.

4. What is the best way to combat terrorism?

The reduction of terrorism threats and the safeguarding of the state, its interests, and citizens against all types of terrorist activity are two of the State Security Service's top priorities in the battle against terrorism. It is critical to detect and suppress operations carried out by international terrorist groups and anyone linked to them. It is necessary to conduct an active search for persons linked to terrorist organisations. Enhancing the capacity of readiness and reaction to terrorist threats should receive special focus.

5. Give an overview of the history of terrorism.

The term "terrorist" was coined by François-Nol Babeuf, a French philosopher, in 1794. As a result of his denunciation of Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship, the Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris with military punishment and complete devastation. This threat, however, only fueled the Revolution's determination to overthrow the monarchy. Tyranny, according to ancient philosophers, was the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization prior to the French Revolution. Philosophers in the Middle Ages were also preoccupied with the concept of tyranny.

6. Explain the historical background of terrorism.

The word "terrorist" was first used in 1794 by François-Noël Babeuf who was a French philosopher. He denounced Robespierre's regime as a dictatorship therefore Brunswick Manifesto threatened Paris that the city would be subjected to military punishment and total destruction. But this threat only increased the Revolution's will to abolish the monarchy.

Prior to the French Revolution, ancient philosophers wrote tyranny as the greatest political threat to Greco-Roman civilization. Medieval philosophers were similarly occupied with the concept of tyranny.

7. How to fight against terrorism?

One of the main priorities of the State Security Service in fighting against terrorism is the reduction of the risks of terrorism and the protection of the state, its interests and citizens against all forms of terrorist activities. The detection and suppression of activities carried out by international terrorist organizations and persons related to them is important. Active search of individuals connected with terrorist organizations needs to be conducted. Considerable attention should be paid in enhancing the capabilities of readiness and responses to terrorist threats.

8. What is the real reason behind terrorism?

Terrorism is the use of violence for a certain cause. This cause may be due to the perceived social and political injustice or simply a belief that violence can lead  to change.

Usually perceived injustice or anger against a certain social conditions is the main cause  that foster terrorism. Many people join terrorist groups because of poverty or to take their personal revenge from the powerful authority. Strong feelings of injustice also results in terrorism. There are millions of young people who want to create change by using fight as the tools for social upheaval. So, in order to counter these extremists we need to give them alternatives to violence which can prove beneficial for them.

9. Name the countries which are most affected by terrorism.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria are the most affected countries which suffered the largest number of terrorist attacks in 2014. This year is called the year of terrorism.

Also it has been recorded that these five countries were the major victims of 78% of all attacks that happened last year. Apart from these countries there are 39 countries which saw the greatest number of attacks, and their index ranking is calculated against severity and frequency of attacks they experienced.

The War on Terror has Contributed to the Growing Abuse of Human Rights

• Abeera Fatima
• September 21, 2023
• CSS , CSS Solved Essays
• 39302 Views

CSS 2015 Solved Essay | The War on Terror has Contributed to the Growing Abuse of Human Rights

Abeera Fatima, a Sir Syed Kazim Ali student, has attempted the CSS 2015 essay “ The War on Terror has Contributed to the Growing Abuse of Human Rights ” on the given pattern, which Sir  Syed Kazim Ali  teaches his students. Sir Syed Kazim Ali has been Pakistan’s top English writing and CSS, PMS essay and precis coach with the highest success rate of his students. The essay is uploaded to help other competitive aspirants learn and practice essay writing techniques and patterns to qualify for the essay paper.

1- Introduction

2- An Overview of the War on Terror

• ✓ How has the war on terror started?
• ✓ A glimpse of major terrorist attacks
• ✓ How has the globe responded to the ‘war on terror’?

3- Facts Highlighting the War on Terror has Contributed to the Growing Abuse of Human Rights

• Violation at the National Level
• Case in point: A report by costs of war project, 38 million people displaced
• Case in point: Rights given in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• Case in point: Killing And Evacuation Of Journalists From Afghanistan In 2021
• Violation at the Regional Level
• Case in point: 1 lakh refugees accommodated in Pakistan
• Case in point: The militarization in the Pashtoon belt of Pakistan led to the unavailability of education; the attack on Malala Yousafzai
• Case in point:   social media as a weapon or tool in the 21 st century
• Violation at the International Level
• Case in point: Burning of wells in the invasion of Iraq in 2003
• Case in point: Denial of scholarship programs for Afghan students in the us
• Case in point: A comparative analysis of Palestine and the 9/11 attacks

4- Some Devastating Impacts of Terrorism across the Globe

• ✓ Prevailing mistrust among the civil society and authorities
• ✓ Rise of sectarianism, extremism, and fanatism
• ✓ Increase in human mobility owing to shared cultural patterns
• ✓ The shift of foreign policy towards the policy of appeasement to the superpowers
• ✓ Regional economic recession
• ✓ Multiplication of psychological and emotional trauma
• ✓ A big pause in the regional developments
• ✓ Division based on social and cultural norms
• ✓ Displacement and forced migration
• ✓ Restriction on civil liberty

5- Recommendations for Countering the Menace of War Abuse in the Best Possible Way

• ✓ Implementation of laws for the provision of human rights during the war
• ✓ Empowerment of women and youth through the spread of education
• ✓ Address of grievances and cause root of the war
• ✓ Provision of the process of rehabilitation and victim support
• ✓ International cooperation and assistance in sharing information
• ✓ Provision of accountability for war crimes and human rights violations

6- Conclusion

Humanity, irrefutably, can never rise to the glory by disregarding terrorism. Amid the 21st century, the rise of terrorism shackles the world of modernization; consequently, human security becomes a matter of concern. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the war on terror has contributed to the growing abuse of human rights. A number of testimonies are quoted in the account: augmentation of people’s displacement, inaccessibility to the right to a Fair Trial, suppression of freedom of speech and expression, a large bulk of refugees in the neighbouring country impede the economic sector, mobilization of groups and their rule across the border, a rise of hybrid or 5th generation warfare, contribution to air pollution, and denial of access of students to higher education. Nevertheless, the war on terror has had significant impacts across the world. Prevailing mistrust among the civil society and authorities, a rise of sectarianism and extremism, an increase in human mobility owing to shared cultural patterns, a shift of foreign policy towards the policy of appeasement to the superpower, and regional economic recession are some of the many footprints of the war on terror. However, some viable and pragmatic measures are needed to combat war abuse in the best possible way.

The war on terror, officially known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT), is a counter-terrorism campaign initiated by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks. The term was first used by the President of the US -George W. Bush – in his speech. The war aims to target militant groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS), which were involved in the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.  To illustrate in the historical context, four jet airlines were hijacked by nineteen men on the morning of 11 th September 2001; the hijackers crashed two jets into the Twin Towers of World Trade Center in New York City. The third jet was hit into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. According to a report, 2977 victims crashed in these hijacked jets. However, NATO invoked Article 5, which commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state to be an armed attack against all member states. Nevertheless, the global community has responded immediately against the war on terror and stood firm on one pace.

After discussing the epitome of the historical background of the war on terror, it is imperative to shed light on the growing abuse of human rights during the war on terror. To start with the violation at the national level, augmentation of people’s displacement is prioritized in the discussion. Fundamental human rights are written in International Treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; on practical grounds, unfortunately, millions of billions were forced to migrate. The cost of migration was high for the people in terms of loss of property and loss of lives. These people were subjected to torture, humiliation, and maltreatment; consequently, they were forced to leave their homeland. According to a recent report by Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 wars of the campaign have displaced 38 million people, the second largest number of forced displacements of any conflict since 1900, and caused at least 4.5 million deaths, directly or indirectly, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

Moreover, inaccessibility to the right to a Fair Trial is also a violation of human rights. In Article 6 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission grantees the right to a fair trial of any criminal charge against them. Similarly, article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated that all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals and shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing. Unfortunately, on practical grounds, these rights are jeopardized in the war on terror. Thus, many innocents were not subjected to these fundamental rights. Had these rights been exercised, the situation would not have been the worst.

Likewise, freedom of speech and expression is suppressed during the war on terror, which is again a violation of human rights. It is recognized as a fundamental human right by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Sadly, it is buried under the mountain; hence, no right was given in the war on terror. To exemplify the killing of journalists in 2021 is cited in the account. According to a United Nations report, 33 Afghan media professionals were killed between 2018 and 2021.

In the same way, a regional violation is a large bulge of refugees in the neighboring countries that impedes the economic sector of the country. For Pakistan, refugees, for instance, are a bottleneck for all the sectors of the country. To elucidate, refugees are not registered due to their great number, which means these refugees would be considered in the undocumented economy once they establish their businesses. According to reports, 70 percent of Pakistan’s economy is undocumented, which means there is no record of daily wages for workers. And in Pakistan’s stance, this is exactly what happened; after 9/11, 1 Lac refugees were accommodated in the country due to the shared borders, cultures, and languages. Pakistan, however, has had its impacts on the economic and social sectors.

Moreover, the war on terror has increased the mobilization of groups and their rule across the border, paving the way for militant insurgencies in the neighboring countries. In the Afghan-Soviet War, militant groups were formed to fight against the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR); these militant groups, such as Al- Qaeda, ISIS sabotaged the world peace order in the 9/11 attacks. These groups were mobilized in nearby areas like Swat, Bajour, South Waziristan, and such forth- known as Pashtoon Belt. Hence, these militant groups used multifaceted tactics to manipulate and exploit locals. To clarify, the unavailability of education due to the attacks on educational institutions is a violation of human rights. In addition to this, an attack conducted on Malala Yousaf Zai, as she wrote for the Dawn newspaper to raise her voice for the availability of education in these areas, is unquenchable.  

Furthermore, a rise of hybrid or 5 th -generation warfare is again a violation of human rights as it disobeys the right to privacy.  Fifth-generation warfare is conducted by non-kinetic operations such as social engineering, misinformation, and cyberattacks. Social Media is used as a weapon or tool of 5 th -generation warfare in the 21st century. It is used to manipulate the mindset of the youth. The enemy states spread misinformation and disinformation regarding the economic and security aspects of different regions. The main focus of such campaigns is ethnic communities, religious sects, and minorities. The Jaranwala attacks in Pakistan are exemplified; the sentiments of the youth bulge provoked through the medium of WhatsApp and Facebook. According to EU Disinfo Lab, 500 plus fake websites are operational to create pernicious acts in Pakistan; these fake websites are being operated from India.

Similarly, the contribution to air pollution is prioritized to be discussed in the context of international violation.  In 2003, the US invaded Iraq in response to weapons of mass destruction allegations. However, the Bush administration cast the Iraq war as a part of the War on Terror. Numerous war crimes were conducted such as the protection of civilians and violations of women’s rights. However, numerous wells were burned in the invasion which has had hazardous impacts on the environment. According to Al Jazeera, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, approximately 40 oil wells were set on fire in the Persian Gulf within Iraq.

Besides, the war on terror has violated the denial of access of students to higher education. In Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have reaffirmed the right to education; sadly, all are silent in the inaccessibility of students from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and such forth.   

Along with this, discrimination based on alliance or bloc politics has been observed during the war on terror leading to violation of human rights and civil liberty. Thus, this discrimination includes racial profiling, targeting individuals based on nationality and religion. In the context of the War on Terror, countries that aligned themselves with the United States and its coalition partners were often given preferential treatment, while those perceived as adversaries or even punitive measures. This resulted in unfair treatment and violations of human rights.

Before highlighting the effectual measures, it is high time to explore the draconian impacts of terrorism across the globe. Prevailing mistrust among the civil society and authorities is the most eminent to discuss. Civil society has paid a high cost of the war on terror: loss of life, loss of property, people’s displacement, and such forth. It paves the way to mistrust among civil society and authorities.

Additionally, sectarianism and extremism are the ramifications of terrorism in the region. When sectarianism and extremism are discussed, it will point out the Middle East and Asia regions with high rates. Yes, the war on terror, indeed, has aggravated fundamentalism and extremism in the nearby regions. It is due to open secret places known to the militant groups in the nearby countries. To illustrate, the hiding places in Pakistan, a neighbor of Afghanistan, are popularly known to the militant groups. Thus, these groups conduct such activities in the name of religion and culture and hide themselves in secret places.

Moreover, an increase in human mobility owing to shared cultural patterns is also the outcome of terrorism. Due to the war on terror, people were forced to move the nearby countries like Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, and such forth. This movement in numerous cases paves the way to heinous crimes like human trafficking and smuggling.

Similarly, the shift of foreign policy towards the policy of appeasement to the superpowers is the repercussion of the war on terror. The policy of appeasement indulges many countries to form a typical dependent foreign policy. To clarify, Pakistan, since its red letter day, adopted the policy of appeasement toward the US; consequently, it emerged that leaders having a mentality of beggars cannot be choosers. Thus, the foreign policy of Pakistan has failed to chalk independent foreign policy, which has a myriad of implications socially, economically, and above all politically.

Furthermore, terrorism has resulted in economic recession regionally. It is estimated that the US has paid the cost of 8 trillion dollars, which includes the costs of operations conducted in Pakistan and Afghanistan during the 20-year war. However, the economies of the countries are linked with each other in a globalized village: creating market uncertainty, xenophobia, loss of tourism, and increased insurance claims. Bertrand Russel aptly stated that war does not determine who is right – only who is left.

Likewise, terrorism has left scars on survivors, witnesses, and communities; in other words, psychological and emotional trauma is multiplied. Eventually, these depressed people join militant groups for the sake of self-satisfaction of taking revenge. Clerics play a vital role in adding these people to the militant groups through brain-washing. 

Despite numerous international laws and treaties for the provision of fundamental human rights, the international community has failed to provide security to humans. Thus, some pragmatic and viable measures are the need of the hour to counter the menace of war abuse in the best possible way. Firstly, laws for the provision of human rights must be implemented. Laws such as Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UNHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ought to follow in true letter and spirit. The implementation can be possible through the help of Europol and Interpol as surveillance and monitoring.

Secondly, women and youth through the spread of education must be empowered. Marginalization, mainstreaming of women, community engagement programs, educational initiatives, and interfaith dialogue can help. Education programs that promote critical thinking, tolerance, and peacebuilding can empower individuals to reject violence and extremism.

Thirdly, grievances and root causes of the war need to be addressed. The use of kinetic means such as diplomatic and negotiation talks with the militant groups will find a better solution to the issue. Track II diplomacy can be used to materialize peace in the region.

Next to it, the provision of the process of rehabilitation and victim support must prioritize. It is possible through a large bulge of psychiatrists in the region across the globe to help the victims for recovery. The United Nations Programs of Rehabilitation can be helpful in the account.

Last but not least, international cooperation and assistance in sharing information is done in the context. Governments can work together to share intelligence, exchange best practices, and coordinate efforts in areas such as prevention, law enforcement, and countering the financing of terrorism.

Lastly, accountability for war crimes and human rights violations must be provisioned. States should establish effective mechanisms to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes, including acts of torture, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sexual violence, and other serious human rights abuses. This includes cooperating with international tribunals and supporting the work of national and international accountability mechanisms.

In a nutshell, terrorism is a multifaceted evil having big and sharp spikes around it. It pricks not only the socio-economic paradigm but also the political saga. However, the war on terror has sponsored the growing abuse of human rights depriving the bright future of billions of people. A myriad of deleterious impacts is impeding across the globe. Nevertheless, some meticulous and scrupulous measures are planned to devise so that it must curb the menace in the best possible way. Implementation of laws for the provision of human rights during the war, empowerment of women and youth through the spread of education, address of grievances and cause root of the war, a provision of the process of rehabilitation and victim support, international cooperation and assistance in sharing information, and provision of accountability for war crimes and human rights violations are some of the many baby steps in the context. One must hope that one day sparking of peace spreads around the world and makes Earth a better place to live in; the earlier it is realized, the better it is.

CSS Solved Past Papers’ Essays

Looking for the last ten years of CSS and PMS Solved Essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the CSS Solved Essays to start reading them. CSS Solved Essays

CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers

Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by  Miss Iqra Ali  &  Dr Nishat Baloch , Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students. General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers

Articles Might Interest You!

The following are some of the most important articles for CSS and PMS aspirants. Click on any to start reading.

Recent Posts

Top Categories

Cssprepforum, education company.

cssprepforum.com

Welcome to Cssprepforum, Pakistan’s largest learning management system (LMS) with millions of questions along with their logical explanations educating millions of learners, students, aspirants, teachers, professors, and parents preparing for a successful future. 

Founder:   Syed Kazim Ali Founded:  2020 Phone: +92-332-6105-842 +92-300-6322-446 Email:  [email protected] Students Served:  10 Million Daily Learners:  50,000 Offered Courses: Visit Courses  

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox.

• CSS Solved Essays
• CSS Solved GSA
• CSS Solved PA
• CSS Solved Islamiat
• Current Affairs
• All Courses
• Writers Club
• All Authors
• All Members
• All Teachers
• Become an Author
• Who is Sir Syed Kazim Ali?
• Privacy Policy

CssPrepForum is Pakistan’s largest and greatest platform for CSS, PMS, FPSC, PPSC, SPSC, KPPSC, AJKPSC, BPSC, GBPSC, NTS, and other One Paper 100 Marks MCQs exams’ students. It has become Pakistan’s most trusted website among CSS, PMS students for their exams’ preparation because of its high-quality preparation material.

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.