The discourse on terrorism is multifaceted, arguably the major reason its universal definition eludes many. For instance, Bose (2005), states that Article 2(1) of the European Commission’s Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism does not recognize any randomly formed group for immediate offences without formally defined roles. The Article says a ‘terrorist group’ is a structured group of more than two persons established over time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences. However, most South Asian countries’ anti-terrorist laws allow individuals or groups to be charged with terrorism, with some laws defining ‘association’ with terrorism or terrorist groups so loosely that even sharing a meal in a public restaurant can be punishable.
Terrorism and its effects affect not only the countries involved but every country receives its share of the consequences since no country is an island due to international trade and cooperation, many believe that the term is largely abused to label people who hold dissenting opinions on some established order. Bose (2005) strongly argues that until recently, violence was not considered a terrorist act. The US government, under President Reagan, hailed armed groups like RENAMO, UNITA, CONTRAS, and Mujahideen as freedom fighters. The African National Congress and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were recognized as legitimate representatives. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) argued that terrorism should exclude militant liberation activities by people fighting for freedom, independence, and sovereignty. Notwithstanding the above, Arin, Spagnolo and Spagnolo (2016) contend that the economic impact of terrorism has garnered significant attention over the past decade. Becker and Murphy (2001), on the other side, argue that since terrorism only destroys a tiny percentage of capital assets, its effects on economic activity should not be overstated. However, Frey, Luechinger, and Stutzer (2007) argue that terrorist attacks can cause significant damage to a country’s capital stock, diverting foreign resources like tourism and Foreign Direct Investment. Frey et al contend that terrorism also induces uncertainty, distorting resource allocation and altering individuals’ savings, investment, and consumption behaviour. Conversely, efforts aimed at terrorism that is high-security measures increase transaction costs and divert resources from productive use. Terrorism to Frey et al, creates a fear-based climate, reducing people’s well-being beyond immediate economic consequences.
Economists studied the macroeconomic impacts of terrorism post-9/11, finding that countries with one or more terrorist attacks lost 0.048 percentage points in income per capita growth in a given year (Blomberg et al,) cited in (Sandler, 2023). According to Sandler (2023), most countries’ annual income per capita growth averages just 2%, indicating a small but measurable growth portion. The fall in growth is attributed to losses in private investment and increases in government expenditure, as larger security spending crowds out private investment, which is the real growth engine. This and many others could be argued to have occasioned the war on terrorism but for the war to take a global dimension was a result of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon that birthed the Global war on terrorism as stated by Strozier (2007) that the US declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT) in response to the 9/11 attacks.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is an international military campaign launched by the United States and its allies in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda (Feyyaz, 2009). The US government, under President George W. Bush, initiated Operation Enduring Freedom, a military intervention in Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban regime and eliminate the terrorist threat (Dobrot, 2007). The GWOT expanded beyond Afghanistan to include other active terrorist groups in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and the Sahel region (Momiyama, 2005; Hénaff, Lapidus, & Doran, 2008). The campaign involved military operations, intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts, and financial measures to disrupt and defeat terrorist organizations. The GWOT led to the establishment of new security measures, such as the Department of Homeland Security in the US and enhanced counterterrorism strategies worldwide. It also sparked debates about civil liberties, human rights, and the use of military force in combating terrorism (Momiyama, 2005). The GWOT has been a controversial and complex endeavour, with debates over its effectiveness, ethical implications, and long-term consequences. Its legacy continues to shape discussions about terrorism and national security.
The global war on terrorism though suggests war on terrorists in every part of the globe, a war many argued or termed as “war in error”, the war was primarily targeted at groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban who were believed to be operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To Veit (2002), the American War on Terror has led to significant international involvement in Afghanistan and beyond, both militarily and otherwise. The US operations in these two states gave birth to AfPak (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
By surveying existing research and literature, the study strives to interrogate three central questions regarding the global war on terrorism which are perplexing to stakeholders and academics in conflict and peace studies.
Question 1: What is the meaning of terrorism?
Question 2: What is the background to the formation of the AfPak?
Question 3: What are the impacts of the Global war on terrorism on the AfPak region?
After giving some background and explanation, the parts that follow will reference studies that look at the global war on terrorism and its general impacts, the Afghanistan and Pakistan reaction to the war. First, the study will explain the meaning of terrorism, the background to the formation of the AfPak region, and the impact of the global war on terrorism on the AfPak region. The essence of the paper is to help establish the impact of the Global War on Terror on the AfPak region and the need to devise a more practical alternative to address acts of terrorism everywhere, instead of using violence to address violence.
Terrorism
Terrorism has become a pressing issue, yet its exact meaning remains unclear. The history of terrorism is closely related to political violence, but the term “terrorism” has been used since the late 18th century. Its use has evolved significantly, and in contemporary political discourse, it is often used as a polemical term with emotional charges, hindering rational discussion on the nature and moral standing of terrorism and effective coping strategies (Primoratz,2022). Jenkins (2023) argued that the definitions of terrorism are typically nuanced and contentious, and due to the violence and fury of the act itself, the term has become deeply stigmatised in popular culture. It was initially used in the 1790s to describe the fear that the revolutionaries employed against their opponents during the French Revolution. The discussion about terrorism is multifaceted because every group and the perception of terrorism, for instance, terrorist groups and every person who practices the same have a definition to justify the act. For instance, Bruce (2021) asserts that terrorists’ definitions of terrorism differ from societal norms, preferring terms like freedom fighter, guerrilla, insurgent, and revolutionary. This appeared to have made generating a single universal definition of terrorism a very complex endeavour. However, Richardson (2006) believes that the legitimacy of a group’s goals should not determine its classification as a terrorist group, as a terrorist is not a freedom fighter or a guerrilla. Richardson argued that regardless of one’s agreement with the objective or the government that a terrorist is attempting to overthrow, a terrorist is still a terrorist.
Carr (2007) argued that most Americans have been surprised to learn that almost every U.S. government agency dealing with terrorism maintains its definition of the phenomenon. These definitions are not identical or easy to reconcile with one another. The same phenomenon applies to America’s academic and intellectual communities, where every expert or think tank defines terrorism in their own way. Most definitions are deliberately structured to exclude certain types of violent activities that non-specialists might identify as “terrorists” or include others based on political preference for a country, faction, or cause.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), terrorism has two dimensions, i.e. international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism involves violent criminal acts committed by individuals or groups inspired by foreign terrorist organisations or nations. In contrast, domestic terrorism involves acts committed to further ideological goals influenced by domestic influences, such as political, religious, social, racial, or environmental factors. Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence or threats to instil fear, often used to coerce governments or societies towards political, religious, or ideological goals (Oxford Dictionaries, 2002). Similarly, Jenkins (2023) espoused that terrorism is the deliberate use of violence to instil fear and achieve political objectives when direct military victory is not feasible. This has prompted some social scientists to characterise terrorism as the “weapon of the weakest” and guerilla warfare as the “weapon of the weak.” Jenkins (2023) established that terrorism has been committed by various political organizations, nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries, and state institutions like armies, intelligence services, and police. To Laqueur (1997),terrorism is the unlawful use of force against civilians to further a political goal. Bose (2005), criticised the use of violence as a key variable to qualify an act as terrorism, on the premise that violence is a common issue in societies due to inequality and the state’s failure to address grievances.
Bjørgo et al (2005), argue that terrorism is a set of combat methods used to achieve psychological fear in non-combatants, rather than an identifiable ideology or movement, primarily aimed at causing fear among others. According to Richardson (2006), in an attempt to justify his act, Osama bin Laden described “good and bad terrorism”. To him, terrorism can be commendable or reprehensible, with unjust terrorizing innocent people being objectionable and unjust. However, terrorizing oppressors, criminals, thieves, and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and property protection. Osama bin Laden described his act (terrorism) as commendable because it targets tyrants, aggressors, and enemies of Allah. Bin Laden suggests that terrorizing and punishing these individuals is necessary to straighten things and make them right, as it is directed at tyrants, traitors, and enemies of their own countries, faith, prophets, and nations.
From the above one can argue that terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. It often targets civilians through bombings, shootings, or other violent means. The goal is to create fear and disrupt normal society, promoting a particular agenda or ideology. The targets of terrorism are often civilians, aiming to create panic and disrupt normal societal functioning. Terrorism however must be defined by the act and not the person behind the act. This would help generate a universally accepted definition to help address acts of terrorism rather than the current treatment where acts of certain people are classified as terrorism depending on their background while other people with the same acts are classified differently.
The Background to the formation of the AFPAK Region
AfPak was a term used by the US to refer to Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theatre of operations. Introduced in 2008, it reflected the Obama administration’s approach to the region, which viewed Afghanistan and Pakistan as having a dominant political and military situation. Pakistan was relegated to Afghanistan by President Barack Obama in 2009 due to its heavy cost in the war on terror. Pakistan took offence to the term “AfPak,” arguing it was unfair to associate it with war-torn Afghanistan. Observers also agreed that the term had a negative connotation and demanded its deconstruction for compelling reasons (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014). However, Pakistan criticized the term’s use, and the term was stopped in 2010. In 2017, the Trump administration expanded Afghanistan’s policy to include a regional South Asia strategy, focusing on counter-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan and a greater economic role for India in Afghanistan (Feffer & Prados, 2009; Mohseni, 2017; Malhotra, 2017).
The “AfPak region” is a geopolitical designation referring to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, highlighting its strategic importance due to its intricate political, security, and economic dynamics, highlighting the shared challenges and opportunities they face. The AfPak region, which includes Afghanistan and Pakistan, has a complex history of political, ethnic, and religious complexities. Afghanistan has been a battleground for various regional and international powers for centuries due to its strategic location at the crossroads of Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East (Ahmad, 2010). The region has a diverse ethnic makeup, with major ethnic groups being Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. The country has faced conflict, including the Soviet invasion in the 1980s and the civil war, culminating in the rise of the Taliban in the 1990s (Butool, 2013). Pakistan, on the other hand, has a complex political landscape, a history of military rule, and a tense relationship between its civilian government and the powerful military establishment (Mines, 2023).
Pakistan, once a US ally, has been deemed a threat to the global war on terror due to its large population, nuclear weapons, and uncontrolled al Qaeda headquarters. The inclusion of Pakistan in Afghanistan, known as AfPak, was partly due to David Kilcullen’s assertion that the Pakistani military, police, and intelligence service are a rogue state. The global financial crisis is escalating these issues, and within one to six months, the Pakistani state could collapse, leading to al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons and an extremist takeover that would dwarf the current war on terror.
Ali (2010) reported that to make policymaking easier, the US and its partners combined Afghanistan and Pakistan under a single framework (AfPak). According to Ali (2010), the US had highlighted Pakistan’s contribution to stabilising Afghanistan and reducing terrorism. Therefore, to deny the Pakistani Taliban safe havens in tribal areas, President Obama asked that Pakistan take action against them. He issued a dire warning, saying that Pakistan’s efforts to counter the danger were not yielding consistent results and that al Qaeda and the Taliban are “killing Pakistan from within”. Pakistan has to show that it is committed to eradicating violent extremists and al Qaeda from its territory. The AfPak region is argued to have been a focal point in the global war on terror since the 9/11 attacks, serving as a haven for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (Ahmad, 2010). However, challenges persist, including insurgency, cross-border terrorism, political instability, and a lack of regional cooperation, making it a complex and difficult theatre in the global war on terror.
The Impact of the Global War on Terror on the AFPAK region
The global war on terrorism is believed to have created more complications than already existed before the launch of the global war on terrorism especially in the AfPak region. The global war on terror has had a huge influence on the AfPak area due to the US-led operation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The global war on terrorism is argued to have exacerbated and in some cases created novel problems in the AfPak region, among the problems include but are not limited to increased militancy, civilian casualties, violation of human rights, and economic and social cost.
Increased Militancy
The Global war on terrorism is argued to have created a complex militant landscape in the AfPak region. The presence of international forces in Afghanistan and subsequent insurgency have led to a surge in militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with militant groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda exploiting instability to carry out attacks and establish strongholds (Basit, 2017). Similarly, Bird and Marshall (2011) strongly contend that the use of military force in the global war on terrorism has resulted in civilian casualties and collateral damage in the AfPak region, causing resentment and anger among affected communities, and fostering radicalization and extremist recruitment. This indicates that the mere declaration of global war on terrorism in itself was or is not a bad idea, it is the mode of operation which made many describe the course as a lost battle even before the troops were withdrawn from the AfPak region.
The global war on terrorism is believed to have contributed to the increased radicalisation and extremism in the AfPak region as the perceived foreign occupation by foreign military forces and drone attacks in Afghanistan has resulted in anti-Western feelings among sections of the population and has been utilised by extremist organisations to attract people for their cause (Butool, 2013). It is equally argued that the global war on terrorism has increased militancy in the AfPak region as a result of how the region’s prolonged conflict and instability resulted in widespread community displacement and marginalisation, particularly among youth, who may be vulnerable to radicalisation due to feelings of alienation and economic insecurity (Khan, 2009).
Also, the global war on terrorism appears to have fuelled ideological narratives portraying the West as a threat to Muslims, often spread by radical organizations, thereby fostering radicalisation and support for extreme views among some segments of the population. This cannot be treated as a complete fallacy considering the argument that Bush’s vision of “Global War on Terrorism” was not the literal meaning it denotes but instead, a campaign meant to champion democracy and its potential to create fairness and justice worldwide, reducing a potential war in the future. The aim was to transpose Western government styles into regions which were perceived as having poor governance, ethnic divisions, and infrastructure problems making them ill-prepared to adapt to democracy (Sloggett & Sloggett, 2009). The question remains under whose analysis and supervision were the variables or metrics of poor governance, ethnic divisions and infrastructure problems ascertained. Western democracy as purported to be transposed worldwide is alien to the majority of the Muslim countries practicing theocracy. Therefore, the attempt to impose democracy on such countries as occurred in Afghanistan was met with resistance. Khan, (2011) contends that the fact that insurgent organisations are drawing new members despite the U.S. and NATO bombings on Afghanistan and the Pakistani border highlights that the decadal conflict has fuelled terrorist activity on both sides. Ali (2010) established that the strategy, characterized by excessive force, arbitrary detentions, and indiscriminate raids, particularly in Pashtun areas, failed to defeat the Taliban and their supporters, leading to increased extremism and local discontent.
Civilian Casualties
The global war on terrorism has caused more civilian deaths in the AfPak region. Military operations and drone strikes have resulted in civilian casualties in the region, fuelling resentment and anti-American sentiment, leading to social unrest and hindering efforts to gain local populations’ support (Khan, 2009). For instance, the Costs of War Project reports that the war in the AfPak region resulted in 70,418 civilian deaths, 161 journalists and media workers were killed and 551 deaths for humanitarian Aid workers. However, the death toll may be higher due to unaccounted deaths due to disease, loss of access to food, water, infrastructure, or other indirect war-related consequences. It is strongly argued that the global war on terrorism has led to an increase in civilian casualties in the AfPak region due to various factors just like in many wars, military operations, including drone strikes and aerial bombardment, usually cause unintentional civilian fatalities, injuries, and damage to houses and infrastructure in populous areas, particularly in areas targeted by terrorist organizations. In the case of the AfPak region not only did military operations like drone strikes and aerial bombardment cause civilian casualties, but the tactics used by the insurgent groups deliberately risked civilian lives, such as using civilian areas as shields, deploying explosive devices in populated areas, and conducting suicide bombings in crowded spaces contributed immensely to civilian casualties in the AfPak region.
In 2008, Afghanistan experienced one of its most violent years since the Taliban’s ouster, with over 6,000 people killed, the deadliest year since 2007 (Khan, 2009). The United Nations, cited in Khan (2009) reported over 2,100 civilian deaths, a 40% increase from 2007, with 973 Taliban-related deaths and 236 US/NATO forces-related deaths. The death toll rose from 6,000 in 2007 to 6,500 in 2008. It is also argued that innocent civilians have died as a result of misidentification, incomplete intelligence, or collateral damage in military operations and night raids whereas efforts to minimise injury to non-combatants during military operations were also undermined by civilian casualties resulting from improper targeting and intelligence failures (Ali, 2010).
It must however be noted that civilian casualties were on the ascendancy as indicated by Khan (2009) despite efforts to reduce civilian harm through rules of engagement, civilian protection training, and precision-guided munitions, underscoring the intricate difficulties of military operations in contested and populated areas. The civilian deaths in the AfPak area resulted in anger, complaints, and a lack of faith in the government and foreign troops, which made it more difficult to win over local support and establish long-term stability. Resolving this issue is essential to reducing the humanitarian damage and advancing a long-term, rights-based strategy for security and counterterrorism.
Human Rights Violations
The global war on terrorism led to human rights violations in the AfPak region, as a result of the use of strategy characterised by excessive force, arbitrary detentions, indiscriminate raids, and torture which is argued to have failed to defeat the Taliban and their supporters (Ali, 2010). These violations have eroded trust in government institutions and impacted the AfPak region negatively. Similarly, Feyyaz (2009), argued in support that the global war on terrorism ended up violating the rights of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To Feyyaz (2009), in the name of fighting terrorism, people who were suspected of being involved in terrorism were arbitrarily detained, sometimes without being given a fair trial or access to legal counsel. This led to extended incarceration without charge or trial, in violation of both the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. The report of torture and other cruel treatment of detainees in the operations of the forces for the global war on terrorism, though arguably carried out by state and non-state entities. It contradicts the universal prohibition of torture under international law and undermines the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Also, military operations and drone strikes hit unintended targets of civilians resulting in fatalities and injuries among non-combatants as reported (Khan, 2009; Ali, 2010). The Costs of War (2023) argued that the number of civilian deaths increased significantly in 2017 as a result of the US military’s easing of engagement guidelines for airstrikes in Afghanistan. This violates the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law that mandates that all parties involved in an armed conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives at all times. Hence a clear indication of how the global war on terrorism violated the rights of civilians in the AfPak region and even mainland Afghanistan and Pakistan. The freedom of movement of civilians was violated due to the restrictions on civil liberties.
These human rights abuses appear to have had a serious negative influence on social cohesiveness, the rule of law, and public confidence in governmental institutions in the AfPak region. The activities have exacerbated complaints and animosity within the impacted communities, impeding attempts to bring about peace and protect human rights in the area.
Economic and Social Impact
The global war on terrorism has significantly impacted the economic and social life of the AfPak region, diverting resources and attention from broader issues like poverty, education, and healthcare, hindering efforts to promote long-term stability and development. This is supported by Byrd’s (2022) reports that since August 2021, the Afghan economy has declined by 20% to 30%, leading to job losses, social service cuts, worsening poverty and hunger, and a humanitarian crisis. Many Afghans have left the country, government agencies have lost staff, and many businesses have closed or downsized, resulting in a drop in investment. This development is largely the ashes of the war, considering the long duration of the war in the AfPak region its impacts will take decades to be corrected. The conflict has disrupted economic activities, affecting agriculture, trade, and infrastructure development, causing business difficulties and a decline in productivity and livelihood opportunities in the AfPak area. This is in tandem with the report by the Costs of War (2023) that because of the conflict’s damage to the infrastructure, public health, security, and economy, the US war in Afghanistan is still taking lives. The war has greatly impoverished the lives of Afghans. Acute malnutrition threatens 3 million children, and 92% of the population has some degree of food insecurity. There is now a famine in certain areas. The majority of people live on less than $1.90 each day (The Costs of War, 2023). Also, due to heightened hostilities between the military and terrorists, approximately three million people from Swat and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) fled Pakistan in 2009, making it one of the biggest Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) crises in history (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014).
Conflict and instability have disrupted access to education and healthcare services, causing damage or closure of schools and increasing health risks for the population in the AfPak area. In the case of Pakistan, the education sector has been severely impacted by the global war on terrorism, with policies aimed at promoting education, constructing new schools and colleges, facilitating education, and enhancing private school networks severely impacted. Significant efforts are needed to repair the significant damage inflicted on this vital sector of Pakistan’s social activity (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014). According to the Centre for Research & Security Studies (2014), the Taliban significantly destroyed 409 educational institutions in the Malakand division and 64 in the federally administered tribal areas (FATA). The terror campaign in Swat destroyed 190 governments and 368 private schools. Over 42% of the destroyed institutions had boys on their rolls, resulting in nearly 150,000 students being deprived of education and 8,000 women teachers being left jobless. This has led to an alarming decline in school enrolment in some areas of FATA and NWFP.
Though Pakistan has benefited from debt write-offs, military assistance, and foreign funding due to its participation in the ‘war on terror’, the devastation caused by the war cannot be quantified. The costs of this conflict are more than the gains; from 2001 to 2009, a total of $45 billion was lost. The devastation of the military, security, social, and developmental infrastructure, loss of foreign investment, capital flight, closure of industries in war zones, support for internally displaced people, damage to the tourist sector, and job losses are some of the negative effects (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014). The loss of human resources alone exceeds any monetary benefits derived from the US. The Pakistan Economic Survey of 2017-18 revealed $126.79 billion incurred due to the loss of physical infrastructure, foreign investment, and industrial output, along with monetary compensation for conflict victims, though experts suggest the number of losses presented by various administrations and private organizations is largely speculative (Ahmed, 2021). Pakistan’s poverty levels have been negatively impacted by factors such as a stagnant economy, financial crisis, power shortages, wheat and sugar crisis, dwindling foreign investment, and volatile security largely due to the impact of the global war on terrorism. In 2009, poverty rose by 2.3% to 36.1%, putting 62 million Pakistanis below the poverty line (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014).
Afghanistan is currently in a low-level equilibrium with slow economic growth, causing a lack of improvement in most lives. This situation is precarious and could be disrupted by factors such as drought, reduced humanitarian aid, the Ukraine war’s impact on food prices, or worsening security (Bryd, 2022). The long duration of the war coupled with the destruction of farmlands and crops, and the collapse of businesses is largely accountable for this development. In the case of Pakistan, military operations have caused significant losses to agriculture and crops in the troubled areas of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Estimates suggest that two-thirds of standing food and cash crops may have been lost in some areas, with one-third of the total standing wheat potentially lost due to unharvestable conditions. Fruit trees have been cut down by armed forces for better monitoring, affecting families’ earnings, particularly in Swat. Maize cultivation was affected due to security or infrastructure reasons. Tobacco, vegetables, rice, and orchard fruit, all important cash crops, have been damaged or abandoned, resulting in direct income loss for families (Ali, 2014).
Despite its immediate humanitarian role in meeting necessities, the global war against terrorism has resulted in a reliance on foreign aid and military help in the AfPak region, creating obstacles to long-term economic development and self-sufficiency. This is because in as much as foreign aid is advocated for, its overreliance results in aid dependency a situation that is anti-development. This is supported by Standford (2015), that dependency on aid is a long-term strategy that hinders development, progress, or reform. Standford (2015) contends that food aid increases dependency on aid imports, which disincentivises local food production and reduces market demand. Therefore, the reliance on foreign aid in the AfPak region which in this case appears to be a necessary evil, has created another problem for economic development.
Conclusion
Terrorism, a term with a complex history, has been used since the late 18th century to describe the fear of revolutionaries during the French Revolution. It is defined as the deliberate use of violence or threats to instil fear, often used to coerce governments or societies towards political, religious, or ideological goals. Critics argue that violence is a common issue in societies due to inequality and the state’s failure to address grievances. For a universally accepted definition of terrorism, it is essential to define it by the act rather than the person behind the act.
The AfPak region, a term introduced by the US in 2008, refers to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, highlighting their strategic importance due to their complex political, security, and economic dynamics. The region has a complex history of political, ethnic, and religious complexities, with Afghanistan being a battleground for various regional and international powers for centuries. Pakistan, once a US ally, has been deemed a threat to the global war on terror due to its large population, nuclear weapons, and uncontrolled al Qaeda headquarters. The US and its partners combined Afghanistan and Pakistan under a single framework (AfPak) to make policymaking easier upon Pakistan’s failure to take action against the Taliban, as its efforts were classified as not yielding consistent results.
The global war on terrorism has exacerbated existing issues, particularly in the AfPak region, causing more complications than previously anticipated. The Taliban, a key target of U.S. intervention, remains a potent force in Afghanistan and has regained control of significant territory. The Taliban has not only regained control of significant territory, they have taken over the leadership of Afghanistan. In Pakistan, militant groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) pose significant challenges to the government. The war has resulted in significant economic and social costs, civilian casualties, displacement, infrastructure destruction, human rights violations, and increased militancy in the region etc. The reliance on military intervention and foreign aid has created long-term obstacles to economic development and self-sufficiency in the region with the long-term impact of the intervention still unfolding. In conclusion, while the war on terrorism in the AfPak region may have had some successes which in real terms is difficult to establish, the war has not achieved its primary objective of eradicating terrorism, because the war has rather increased militancy partly due to the mode of operation employed by the US/NATO forces.
The global war on terrorism in the AfPak region necessitates a comprehensive approach that addresses the problems created by the war though those problems could have been avoided. The following suggestion could help address the problems in the AfPak region.
To assist a long-term political settlement, diplomatic engagement promoting peace discussions and negotiations involving essential players, including regional powers like Pakistan and Iran and international actors, should be conducted.
To eliminate extremist ideology, living standards should be raised, while employment opportunities should be generated especially for the youth. Also, long-term infrastructural and economic development projects should be championed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These initiatives should involve foreign aid, investment, and support for small enterprises and local entrepreneurship.
Humanitarian assistance should be provided to those affected by the conflict, including refugees, internally displaced persons, and vulnerable communities, focusing on healthcare, education, basic services, and food insecurity.
To combat terrorist organisations and stop the revival of extremist violence, enhance regional and international collaboration in the region. They should establish intelligence sharing, border security protocols, and capacity building for local security forces. Also encouraging the implementation of community-based programmes, transitional justice systems, and grievance-redressing activities for marginalised populations as part of reconciliation and reintegration efforts will go a long way to restore peace in the area.
Addressing the problem created by the global war on terrorism in the AfPak region requires a comprehensive strategy focusing on stability, development, and reconciliation, requiring sustained international engagement and local efforts for a peaceful future.
Author: Owusu Eric | A student of Lancaster University, U.K.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, K. (2021). ‘War on terror’ has cost Pakistan more than $150bn in losses since 9/11, officials say. Retrieved on December 16, 2023 from https://www.arabnews.com/node/1927131/world
Ahmad, I. (2010). The U.S. Af-Pak Strategy: Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan. Asian Affairs, 37(4), 191–209. Retrieved on December 03, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44173461
Ali, M. (2010). Strategy for Peace: Af-Pak and Beyond. Pakistan Horizon, 63(1), 47–61. Retrieved on November 22, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711020
Ali, A. (2014). Economic Cost of Terrorism: A Case Study of Pakistan. Retrieved on December 16, 2023, from https://www.issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1299569657_66503137.pdf
Arin, K. P., Spagnolo, F., & Spagnolo, N. (2016). Brutality or Frequency? An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Terrorism on Economic Growth in India. Revue Économique, 67(6), 1141–1151. Retrieved on November 22, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44028664
Basit, A. (2017). IS Penetration in Afghanistan-Pakistan: Assessment, Impact and Implications. Perspectives on Terrorism, 11(3), 19–39. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26297839
Becker, G. and Murphy, K. (2001). “Prosperity Will Rise Out of the Ashes”. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on December 06, 2023 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100430580598371160
Bose, T. K. (2005). Global War on `Terrorism’ and Democratic Rights. India International Centre Quarterly, 31(4), 27–39. Retrieved on November 22, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23005978
Bird, T., & Marshall, A. (2011). THE PAKISTAN PROBLEM. In Afghanistan: How the West Lost Its Way (pp. 185–216). Yale University Press. Retrieved on November 22, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nprjb.9
Bruce, G. (2021). Definition of Terrorism – Social and Political Effects. Retrieved on December 01, 2023, from https://jmvh.org/article/definitionof-terrorism-social-and-political-effects/
Butool, S. B. (2013). Pakistani Responses to AfPak Policy: Local Narratives and an Ending Global War? Asian Survey, 53(6), 1005–1036. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2013.53.6.1005
Bjorgo, T., Gupta, D. K., Maleckova, J., Horgan, J., Post, J., Merari, A., Silke, A. (2005). Root Causes of Terrorism Myths, reality and ways forward. Retrieved on December 04, 2023, from https://opev.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BJ%C3%98RGO-Tore.-Root-Causes-of-Terrorism-.pdf
Byrd, W. (2022). One Year Later, Taliban Unable to Reverse Afghanistan’s Economic Decline.Retrieved on December 16, 2023, from https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/08/one-year-later-taliban-unable-reverse-afghanistans-economic-decline
Carr, C. (2007). “Terrorism”: Why the Definition Must Be Broad. World Policy Journal, 24(1), 47–50. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40210071
Centre for Research & Security Studies (2014). The Cost of Conflict in Pakistan. Retrieved on December 16, 2023 from https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/cost-conflict-pakistan-0
Dobrot, L. A. (2007). THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM: A RELIGIOUS WAR? Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11778
Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d). Terrorism. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism
Feyyaz, M. (2009). The Global War on Terror in South Asia. Pakistan Horizon, 62(4), 39–53. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711052
Feffer, J. & Prados, J. (2009). The AfPak Paradox. Retrieved on December 05, 2023, from The AfPak Paradox – FPIF
Frey, B., Luechinger, S. and Stutzer, A. (2007). “Calculating Tragedy: Assessing the Costs of Terrorism; “Journal of Economic Surveys. Retrieved on December 06, 2023, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00505.x
Hénaff, M., Lapidus, R., & Doran, R. (2008). Global Terror, Global Vengeance? Substance, 37(1), 72–97. Retrieved on November 23, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25195157
Jenkins, J. P. (2023,). terrorism. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
Khan, A. (2009). Obama and Afghanistan. Strategic Studies, 29(2/3), 1–26. Retrieved on December 02, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48527378
Khan, M. (2011). Pakistan-U.S. relations amid Afghanistan war: options and challenges. Strategic Studies, 31(1/2), 75–90. Retrieved on December 02, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48529347
Laqueur, W., (1977) Terrorism London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson
Malhotra, J. (2017). President Donald Trump moves from ‘AfPak’ to ‘AfPakIndia’. Retrieved on December 05, 2023, from President Donald Trump moves from ‘AfPak’ to ‘AfPakIndia’ | The Indian Express
Mines, A (2023). The Evolving Terrorism Threat to the U.S. from the Afghanistan-Pakistan Region. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from https://extremism.gwu.edu/evolving-terrorism-threat-us-afghanistan-pakistan-region
Mohseni, S. (2017). Trump’s speech signals a strategy for South Asia, not just for Afghanistan. Retrieved on December 05, 2023, from Trump’s speech signals a strategy for South Asia, not just for Afghanistan – Hindustan Times
Momiyama, T. S. (2005). The Global War on Terror: Quo Vadis? Naval War College Review, 58(4), 139–142. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26396680 on December 06, 2023.
Oxford Dictionaries (2002). Terrorism. Retrieved on December 01, 2023, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420
Primoratz, I. (2022). “Terrorism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=terrorism
Richardson L. (2006). What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Terrorist Threat. John Murray.
Sandler, T. (2023): An Economic Perspective on Terrorism and Counterterrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence. Retrieved on December 06, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2023.2259992
Sloggett, D., & Sloggett, C. (2009). Reframing the Narrative of the Global War on Terror. Journal of Information Warfare, 8(2), 44–57. Retrieved on December 02, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26486757
Strozier, C. B. (2007). The Global War on Terror, Sliced Four Ways. World Policy Journal, 24(4), 90–98. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40210210 on December 05, 2023.
Stanford, V. (2015). Aid Dependency: The Damage of Donation. Retrieved on December 17, 2023 from https://www.twigh.org/twigh-blog-archives/2015/7/31/aid-dependency-the-damage-of-donation#:~:text=The%20nature%20of%20aid%20almost%20intrinsically%20causes%20what,results%20in%20order%20to%20maintain%20the%20cash%20flow.
The Costs of War (2021). Human and Budgetary Costs to Date of the U.S. War in Afghanistan, 2001-2022. Retrieved on December 14, 2023, from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022
The Costs of War (2023). Afghan Civilians. Retrieved on December 16, 2023, from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan#:~:text=Nearly%20every%20factor%20associated%20with,Afghanistan%2FPakistan%20warzone%20since%202001
Veit, R. (2002). Afghanistan: War on Terror / War in Error? AQ: Australian Quarterly, 74(4), 7–40. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20638100
