US War on Terror in 76 Countries Cost $6.5 Trillion

US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
TT

US War on Terror in 76 Countries Cost $6.5 Trillion

US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)

A US study published earlier this week revealed that the United States’ war on terrorism has cost $6.5 trillion, reported The National magazine based on report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

The ongoing war on terror began in October 2001, a month after the September 11 attacks in the US.

US President Donald Trump revealed in one of his tweets that his country has spent 7 trillion dollars on the Middle East alone.

Estimates predict that US loans to fund the war will result in an 8 trillion dollar debt by 2025.

The number of countries involved in the war has reached 76 or 39 percent of the countries in the world. The tally also lists regions where US forces are deployed on the ground, such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. It also lists where American advisors are training local forces on counter-terrorism methods.

Experts said there are currently no real discussions in the United States on the cost of the war due to the nature of the conflict that lacks no stable fronts or boundaries.

A map presented by the study of the 76 countries linked to the war raised questions over the effectiveness of Washington’s approach on the conflict. They explained that the approach has turned many major cities into rubble and forced the displacement of millions of people, which has destabilized many host countries.

The map also showed the extent in which terrorist groups have spread across the world, turning the conflict against extremists into a worldwide phenomenon. The conflict stretches from as far as Southeast Asia, the Philippines, passes through the Middle East and reaches North Africa and Niger in the west of the continent.

The National said that the ongoing US war on Afghanistan is the longest in American history and it is predicted to go on even longer, especially under Trump’s administration. The current president had unveiled a national defense strategy two months ago in which he agreed to send more troops to Kabul and increase airstrikes against terrorist groups, including the Taliban.

The magazine said that the situation in Afghanistan indicates that the war will continue for a long time and it will extend beyond the country’s borders. A US Secretary of Defense report spoke of some 20 terrorist and radical groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The National traced back the beginnings of the war on terror. It said that the US initially launched the war by attacking Afghanistan in order to eliminate Taliban, which had great control over the country. The beginning of the war seemed promising and American forces were able to make advances in Kabul. The Taliban had incurred enough defeats that its fighters had asked US troops to allow them to lay down their arms and return to their homes.

This initial success led senior officials in the administration of then President George W. Bush to raise their expectations and ambitions. Bush and his Vice President Donald Rumsfeld then believed that there was a need to extend this success in countering terrorism to 60 other countries.

At the time, Washington saw the war on terror as being restricted to one country at a time. It then began preparing for extending this war, setting Iraq as its next target.

The war led to the toppling of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the National said that the US had not only intended for his ouster, but it had also set its sights on the country’s oil wealth.

A British official, who was close to the Bush administration at the time, was quoted by the magazine as saying: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but real men want to go to Tehran.”

He implied that the US invasion of Iraq was not really aimed at combating terrorism, but its real target was Iraq’s oil and Washington should have shifted its attention to Iran, which had transformed into an extremist state after the 1978 Khomeini revolution.



What Could Happen Next in Sudan's Civil War

Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
TT

What Could Happen Next in Sudan's Civil War

Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)
Sudanese men walk past a bullet-riddled building in Khartoum's twin-city Omdurman on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Ebrahim Hamid / AFP)

The war in Sudan appears to be reaching a critical juncture after nearly two years of fighting that has killed tens of thousands, driven millions from their homes and spread famine.

In recent months, the military has been making steady advances against its rival, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, and it says it has wrested back control of the capital, Khartoum. That includes the iconic Republican Palace. The RSF has not acknowledged the loss.

While the war is unlikely to end soon, here is a look at what the developments could mean, according to The Associated Press

What’s happening on the ground? The war erupted in April 2023 between the military and the RSF with battles in Khartoum and around the country. The leaders of the two forces had been allies who were meant to have overseen the democratic transition after a popular uprising in 2019, but instead worked together to thwart a return to civilian rule.

However, tensions exploded into a bloody fight for power.

Since then, at least 28,000 people have been killed, though the number is likely far higher. The war has driven more than 14 million people from their homes and pushed parts of the country into famine.

Will this end the war? The military victory in Khartoum likely just moves the war into a new chapter, creating a de facto partition of Sudan into military- and RSF-run zones.

Military chief Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan has shown no sign of engaging in serious peace talks. The RSF, headed by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has seemed to be determined to keep fighting.

The RSF still holds much of western Sudan, particularly most of the Darfur region.

The advances in Khartoum may cause strains to break open in the military’s coalition. The military has been backed by a collection of armed factions — including former Darfur forces and armed brigades — that are historic rivals united only by the goal of fighting the RSF.

What is the significance of the RSF recently creating a ‘parallel government’? The RSF and its allies signed a charter in February in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, establishing a parallel government.

Burhan also has spoken of setting up a transitional government, raising the potential for two rival administrations jockeying for support as their forces battle — entrenching Sudan’s effective partition.

The RSF’s 16-page charter calls for “a secular, democratic and decentralized state,” maintaining what it called Sudan’s “voluntary integrity of its territory and peoples” — a nod to Sudan’s many communities demanding autonomy from Khartoum.

The RSF grew out of the notorious Janjaweed militias, mobilized two decades ago by then-president Omar al-Bashir against populations that identify as Central or East African in Darfur. The Janjaweed were accused of mass killings, rapes and other atrocities.

In the current war, the RSF has been accused of numerous atrocities. The Biden administration slapped Dagalo with sanctions, saying the RSF and its proxies were committing genocide. The RSF has denied committing genocide.

The military has also been accused of abuses and denies that.