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.



‘A Moral Red Line’? World on Cusp of Autonomous Weapons Revolution

Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
TT

‘A Moral Red Line’? World on Cusp of Autonomous Weapons Revolution

Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)
Pedestrians look on as a van, displaying a screen asking for a Treaty on AI Weapons, drives through Westminster in London, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2026. (AP)

Lethal autonomous weapons powered by artificial intelligence are set to revolutionize warfare but there is no proper regulatory or legal framework governing the new technology.

A conference starting Monday at the United Nations in Geneva will discuss how to establish curbs and prohibitions on such weapons, called killer robots by some.

But some analysts doubt the discussions at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) will keep pace with the fast-changing weapons.

AFP looks at three key questions ahead of the conference.

- What are LAWS? -

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) "can identify, select, and engage a target without the intervention of a human operator in the execution of these tasks," said Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global and emerging risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

Autonomous weapons have long existed. An anti-personnel mine "is an autonomous weapon in the sense that it explodes when someone steps on it," said Laure de Roucy-Rochegonde of the Centre for Geopolitics of Technology at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

But with the proliferation of AI-enhanced drones, such weapons are now "capable of selecting and engaging a target that was not predetermined, adapting to their environment without human intervention," said Rickli.

So the critical issue for potential regulators lies in determining the level of human control over the decision to employ such a weapon.

The United States refers to an "appropriate levels of human judgement" in the use of autonomous weapons.

France maintains that a human must remain in the decision-making loop and bans "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (LAWS) but permits "partially autonomous" systems known as PLAWS.

"The human role is always ensured through what is termed 'appropriate control' by a military commander -- a concept that varies in scope depending on the system's criticality and the operational context," said Rear Admiral Vincent Sebastien, deputy director of the French defense ministry's Agency for Defense Artificial Intelligence (AMIAD).

- The ethical issues?

"We are now dangerously close to crossing a moral red line: the autonomous targeting of humans by machines," UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and International Committee of the Red Cross president Mirjana Spoljaric warned in a joint statement in August.

But analysts said the Geneva discussions, while important, will touch only part of the issue.

Today, the diminishing role of humans is being driven by the growing use of AI in analysis and targeting.

Rickli said the scope of the agenda in Geneva is "very narrow".

"It fails to encompass the full range of issues surrounding AI on the battlefield" -- an area where its use is expanding, particularly in target generation.

He said this was seen in the US-Israeli war against Iran this year "where the Americans engaged as many as 1,000 targets per day" inside Iran.

"There are a host of problems and unacceptable risks associated with targeting and decision-support systems," added de Roucy-Rochegonde. "Part of this debate concerns systems that are already widely deployed on the battlefield."

"What kind of human supervision is required to ensure that the operator is genuinely exercising their own judgement rather than simply providing a rubber stamp for the machine's recommendations?" she asked.

- How quickly is the situation changing?

The autonomous weapons to be discussed in Geneva are not yet in widespread use, although analysts have noted that they have been deployed by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine, as well as US attacks in Iran.

But the spread is inevitable.

"Autonomy will very quickly become a reality on the battlefield," warned rear admiral Sebastien.

"Autonomous weapon systems are not part of a distant future -- a race towards greater autonomy in weapons systems is already well underway," Guterres and Spoljaric said in their statement.

Yet significant doubts and dangers remain, Dario Amodei, head of the AI giant Anthropic, warned this year: "Today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons."

But ultimately, the incentive for major powers is too strong.

Swarms of autonomous drones -- which "aim to neutralize an adversary through saturation" -- would be highly effective, and some states view them as a crucial strategic advantage, said Rickli.

In January, the Chinese defense ministry described swarms of autonomous drones as the "new face of warfare."

"In an era of sharp military competition, the first state to normalize fully autonomous lethal strikes will reset expectations for everyone else," said Gerald Mako, a research affiliate of Cambridge University in the Small Wars Journal.


In Taiwan, Jensen Huang’s ‘Flawless’ Image Damaged by Affairs

Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
TT

In Taiwan, Jensen Huang’s ‘Flawless’ Image Damaged by Affairs

Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)
Photos of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang during a previous visit are displayed at a local snack shop in Taipei on November 13, 2026. (AFP)

Taiwan-born Jensen Huang, the former boss of Nvidia, was feted like a rock star on visits to his birthplace, posing for selfies with fans and being mobbed by journalists.

His spectacular downfall might change that.

Huang's once "flawless" image in Taiwan has been shattered by revelations of two extramarital affairs -- including one with a woman accused of being a Chinese spy -- that forced him to resign from the company he founded.

"I thought he had the persona of a devoted husband, and it turns out he's kind of a scumbag," Ivan Liang, 28, told AFP during his lunch break on Friday.

Huang has been a source of pride and inspiration for many Taiwanese. While other tech titans kept a low profile, Huang was chatty and charming in public, readily signing autographs and posing for photos.

"I definitely think my perception of him has changed because, after all, he originally had that 'nation's dad' image," said Leo Fu, a 42-year-old import distributor.

"I feel like that image of him has probably taken a hit in the eyes of the general public in Taiwan."

Dessert shop owner Jane Hsieh, 70, still has fond memories of Huang visiting her store on multiple occasions for one of her traditional tofu puddings.

"Before this, he felt like such a flawless person," Hsieh told AFP in her shop where photos of her and her husband posing with the leather-jacketed Huang, his wife Lori, and son Spencer, are proudly displayed.

"It's just a shame because he gave everyone the impression that he was a really great guy, and he was always very polite when he came here," she said.

While her feelings about Huang have changed as a result of the affairs, Hsieh said she would not remove the photos from her shop.

"Why kick someone when they're down?" she said.

- 'Pretty outrageous' -

At the Chinese restaurant where one of Huang's lovers -- identified as suspected Chinese spy Alice Huang -- was filmed kissing him on the cheek in May 2025, a plate signed by Huang on the same night is still on display.

Staff were reluctant to talk about the infamous evening to AFP on Friday, only saying they were always focused on serving their customers.

"I think it's pretty outrageous," 38-year-old Chen Yu-ting, who works in finance, said of Huang's affair with someone believed to have spied for Beijing.

"If the other person really was trying to use him, it seems like he was just way too easily deceived," she said.

"Given his status, he really should be paying much closer attention to the people around him and who he associates with."

While Huang's affairs have tarnished his reputation, some Taiwanese are more concerned about the impact the scandal could have on Taiwan's economy and stock market.

Huang has generated huge amounts of wealth for the island at the centre of the global artificial intelligence (AI) technology boom.

Nvidia's advanced chips critical to the AI buildout are made by Taiwanese tech titan TSMC and have helped drive Taiwans' stocks to record highs and push its economy into double-digit growth.

Ivan Liang, who works in imports and exports, said he was "very worried".

"The market crashed... a few days ago, and then Nvidia's stock price just kept dropping and dropping and dropping," Liang said.

"I don't trade US stocks myself, but the US and Taiwan stock markets definitely move in tandem and affect each other," he said.

"Whatever he does is none of my business -- I only care about my money."


Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
TT

Can One Security Force Implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement in Southern Lebanon?

A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)
A UNIFIL military vehicle patrols the southern Lebanese town of Ibl al-Saqi (AFP)

Countries involved in Lebanon are considering a security force to replace the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) when its mandate expires at year-end.

The force would support the Lebanese army in implementing agreements and international resolutions in southern Lebanon. But can a new force enforce both UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the US-brokered framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel?

Talks have produced broad agreement on the need for such a force, but its composition, mandate, operating procedures and participating countries remain undecided.

The uncertainty was reflected in a statement by Group of Seven foreign ministers after their Nov. 9-10 meeting in Paris. They called for a robust, credible, and long-lasting security architecture in Lebanon to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, in line with Resolution 1701 and to advance implementation of the Trilateral Framework.

No further agreements were announced.

US envoy to visit Beirut

Attention now turns to a visit to Beirut on Monday by US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, who is due to meet with President Joseph Aoun.

Recent media reports suggest Washington is moving to replace UNIFIL in southern Lebanon with a verification committee and substitute the framework agreement for Resolution 1701.

The resolution ended a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. Its main provisions included an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and the deployment of additional UN troops to monitor the cessation of hostilities alongside the Lebanese army.

Lebanon, Israel and the United States signed the Trilateral Framework Agreement in Washington on June 26, setting out a phased process to end the conflict and restore Lebanese sovereignty over the country's entire territory.

Under the agreement, the Lebanese army would gradually assume security control of designated "pilot zones" as non-state armed groups are disarmed and their military infrastructure dismantled, paving the way for a phased Israeli withdrawal.

The agreement also calls for a US-backed military coordination group to oversee and verify implementation.

It remains unclear whether separate international forces would replace UNIFIL and oversee the framework agreement, whether the two mandates could be merged, or whether Resolution 1701 would be dropped in favor of the agreement, with a single force assigned to implement it.

'Complicated' transition

A diplomatic source described the situation as "complicated," saying the current transition differs from the circumstances surrounding Resolution 1701.

At the time, a new military and political reality had emerged that the parties sought to preserve, the source told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Today, the source said, the mandate, powers, composition and operating procedures of any force replacing UNIFIL remain unclear.

The framework agreement also presents a legal obstacle.

"It is an understanding between three parties and cannot be imposed on the international community or assumed to have its automatic endorsement," the source said.

Turning it into a Security Council resolution would be difficult, the source added, because some member states could object.

Israel's position

Israel appears reluctant to accept a new international force to replace UNIFIL, which it accuses of having allowed Hezbollah to expand toward its border.

According to details emerging from recent negotiations over the framework agreement's implementation, Israel wants direct oversight of efforts to verify that the pilot zones are free of Hezbollah weapons and military infrastructure.

It favors a mechanism giving it a continuing monitoring and operational role rather than relying on reports from an independent international body.

Fundamental differences

Military and strategic expert Brigadier General Khalil Helou said UNIFIL's departure would render Resolution 1701 meaningless, effectively allowing the framework agreement to take its place.

"Resolution 1701 contains clear provisions and has a legal dimension, unlike the US-sponsored framework agreement, which requires negotiations to implement each of its provisions," Helou told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Merging the two would therefore be difficult, he said.

The framework agreement also makes no provision for foreign forces to implement it. Instead, it outlines understandings between Lebanon and Israel, with a military annex setting out reciprocal steps, he added.

Legal obstacles

Legally, a single force could implement both Resolution 1701 and the framework agreement. But constitutional and legal expert Adel Yamin said the nature of its mandate would pose further obstacles.

"Verifying disarmament is more intrusive than providing conventional support to the army," Yamin told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Such a mission could require clearer rules of engagement, raising questions about the host state's consent, he said.

Yamin also cited reports that Israel opposed an international force including French troops and that Washington considered Resolution 1701 obsolete, favoring the framework agreement as a basis for direct communication between the Lebanese and Israeli militaries.

One option, he said, would be a UN force or mission to implement Resolution 1701 alongside a multinational mechanism to oversee the framework agreement.

But that would risk overlapping powers and conflicting reports.

UN umbrella for framework agreement

International efforts are also being discussed to bring the framework agreement under UN auspices, potentially superseding Resolution 1701.

Yamin outlined several legal routes.

One would be to register the agreement with the UN Secretariat under Article 102 of the UN Charter, provided it qualifies as a treaty.

Registration would not give the agreement effective UN backing but would allow it to be invoked before UN bodies, he said.

Another option would be for the parties to send identical letters seeking Security Council endorsement, followed by a presidential statement or resolution welcoming the agreement.

The council could also endorse the agreement and annex it to a resolution, or establish a new force or expand an existing mandate to implement it, following the model of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).

But Yamin warned that UN backing would be a double-edged sword.

It would internationalize Israel's withdrawal obligations rather than leave them dependent solely on US guarantees. At the same time, it would place Lebanon's commitments to bring weapons under exclusive state control under tighter international scrutiny.

Yamin also cautioned against incorporating into a UN resolution any provisions that could cast doubt on Israel's obligation to withdraw immediately from Lebanon.

Such provisions should not gain international legal cover, he said, arguing that any clause undermining Lebanon's sovereignty or territorial integrity would violate both the UN Charter and the Lebanese Constitution and would be automatically void.