At least 37 million people have been displaced by America's 'war on terror' in less than 20 years

[ghost]

At least 37 million people have been displaced by America's 'war on terror' in less than 20 years

© Larry Downing/Reuters Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. Larry Downing/Reuters

 

 

• At least 37 million people have been displaced by America's "global war on terror," according to a new report from Brown University's Cost of War project. 

 

• The number of displaced people could be as high as 59 million, the report states. 

 

• Displacement has caused "incalculable harm to individuals, families, towns, cities, regions, and entire countries physically, socially, emotionally, and economically," the report states.

 

• The federal government's price tag for the war on terror is over $6.4 trillion, and it's killed over 800,000 people in direct war violence. 

 

• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

 

At least 37 million people, and possibly up to 59 million, have been displaced by America's "global war on terror" since it was launched by former President George W. Bush's administration nearly 20 years ago, according to a new report from Brown University's Cost of War project.

 

The report says that it offers the first comprehensive picture on how many people have been displaced by the conflicts waged by the US as part of the so-called "war on terror." 

 

"The US post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 37 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II," the report states. 

 

Millions of others have been displaced in smaller conflicts involving US forces in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Niger, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia, according to the report. 

 

To put this into perspective, 37 million is nearly equivalent to the population of California — the most populous state in the US. 

 

A little over 25 million of those who've been displaced have returned home, the report added, going on to say that "return does not erase the trauma of displacement or mean that those displaced have returned to their original homes or to a secure life."

 

Displacement has caused "incalculable harm to individuals, families, towns, cities, regions, and entire countries physically, socially, emotionally, and economically," the report states, emphasizing that the total number of displaced people does not fully capture the impact of losing one's home and more.

 

© Reuters FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump makes an unannounced visit to U.S. troops at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan Reuters

 

 

The report was issued just days before the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, which fostered major changes across the globe and continue to have a reverberating impact on America's approach to foreign affairs. Overall, the war on terror is widely viewed as a massive failure that cost the US an exorbitant amount of money and resources, to say nothing of the loss of life. 

 

According to the Cost of War project, the federal government's price tag for the war on terror is over $6.4 trillion, and it's killed over 800,000 people in direct war violence. 

 

The US still has troops in Afghanistan, which it invaded in October 2001, and the Trump administration is engaged in ongoing, tenuous peace talks with the Taliban. Historians generally agree that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 catalyzed the rise of ISIS, which fostered an entirely new conflict in Iraq and Syria, as well as terror attacks worldwide. Meanwhile, though Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, Al Qaeda has not been totally defeated. 

 

MSN.com

[Nuclear Fallout]

Nothing for nothing, this war was and is the ultimate flop.

 

I am not right now disusing a to z, but I will touch Afghanistan, the US wanted to hurt the USSR, pulled every stunt one can imagine. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Afghanistan

 

WHAT DID THEY ACHIEVE???

 

N O T H I N G

 

Every good damn soldier who died in Afghanistan died exactly for that   N O T H I N G.

 

I am terrible sorry, I am a bit upset(understatement).  There was a young lady who died in Afghanistan something like 12 years ago.

If memory serves me well she was some sort of Military Press Liaison Soldier. Died when her Humvee was taken out.

 

Pretty lady, age 22 I think. 

 

 

Anyway, the US NOW FINALLY wants to leave Afghanistan.

 

Again, the US has gained  N O T H I N G, and Soldiers like hers are STILL DEAD! 

 

Fix America (including the current occupant IN SOME SORT OF A COLORED HOUSE).

 

If you hate me, then hate me, it does not change that the US has gained  N O T H I N G!!!

[Jogs]

The war has helped some people, they have been able to fill up their pockets.

[Mutton]

5 hours ago, Jogs said:

The war has helped some people, they have been able to fill up their pockets.

 

...and that's what it's always been about. Most wars are not fought for ideals, they are fought by the common people to make the powerful more powerful and the rich richer.

[dMog]

well although i agree with the sentiment above but what are your thoughts on the Taliban when in power killed girls if they went to  or wanted to go to school or wanted to get educated or named kids who got vaccines... not to mention they were very brutal to disenters

[Mutton]

Well, I did say 'most', however...

 

tl;dr: Individuals might be fighting for personal beliefs and principles or to protect their homeland from a (perceived) threat. Those leading them are nearly always fighting telling them to fight for power and wealth.

 

I've now typed and deleted two very long answers. The situation there is about as complex as it gets and has been for a long time. Yet in another way, it is simple.

 

It's all about power. I don't care if the USA says it went (back) into Afghanistan to combat atrocities or terrorism. It was already there, in the background, and had been for many years. Why? Power and control in the region. Same reason the USSR was there before them. The Afghani leaders themselves fought civil wars over which of them would be the ultimate leader. Pakistan helped create the Taliban from the Mujahideen warlords.

 

Power, power, power.

 

I don't doubt that many are fighting, in many places and organisations around the world, for their principles and beliefs or to protect their homeland from someone seen as an invader or self-imposed ruler. Whether they get branded as terrorists or freedom fighters depends on whether the big players want them to win or not.

 

But why is the war being fought in the first place? I do not doubt for a moment that those leading them, often from afar with money, training, weapons and 'guidance', are doing it for anything other then their own power.

[dMog]

as i do not agree with the usa being there in the first place ...that in itself is a different and endless argument...my comment was only about the abhorrent government that was in power and is back in power and WILL  do the same atrocities  again ad the only crap we ever hear is crickets about how murderous that reime was and will be again to their own people... not to mention they gave safe haven to terrorists to plan attacks on western nations complicates it even more.No easy answers, and no black and white situations either

oh and oil is the reason for all the wars in that region,,, Russia was there the usa helped that nation fight the Russians, then the usa went in and Russia now helps that nation fight the USA... if it was not for oil no super power would ever even know that country existed

[Mutton]

48 minutes ago, dMog said:

oh and oil is the reason for all the wars in that region

 

Exactly.

 

These days I tend to believe (useless as that is) that countries should stay out of other countries' domestic issues. In all my life I've rarely seen much good come out of interference in the long run, probably because that interference is never as simple as 'let's stop something bad happening'.

 

The problem is that, if you ask the majority of those being oppressed, they will likely side with their oppressors. I've seen it first hand in many ways. Where do you go from there? Attack the oppressors anyway, for the 'greater good'? Even if the majority want the oppressor gone, why haven't they done something about it? If we do something about it, even those who wanted it are then quick to blame us and say we should not have interfered. There is no 'win'.

 

People are people. I don't hold most of them in much regard because of what they do and allow to be done to each other. I used to be the sort to always help out, to protect those who needed it and risk myself doing so. A long life of that has taught me one thing: it's a waste of time.

 

I think it best to leave this discussion, because it's going to get very controversial and I don't think this is the place for it. I know what my answer would be, if the decision were put into my hands, and it would be considered extreme. But I would start with all politicians and their ilk.

[tennis]

Here is the part that was not mentioned in the story headline.  The iconic photo of the World Trade Center (WTC)  towers, before they fully collapsed, is included as well.  Four commercial airplanes, if you recall, were high jacked and used during the 9/11 attacks.  All civilians aboard those airplanes perished.  The below is furnished for your information and use.  Here are the facts.  You decide.  Think about what you would have done as a President of your country if the below had happened after your homeland had been attacked? 

 

Think about the countless families and children that were directly lost or suffered the loss of their parents or children.  Virtually an entire New York City Emergency Response Organization of firemen were lost as the WTC tower collapsed, when the emergency response personnel were crushed to death, trying to save people and property. There are videos of the people who leaped from the towers to their deaths, as they were otherwise trapped and were being burned to death in the inferno pictured below.

 

So.  Was George Bush correct in his response to the grave attack on the USA on September 11, 2001?  And, ultimately who was responsible, (in your mind(s) for the attacks and the eventual repercussions, both short term and long term repercussions?

 

Now the background:

 

George Bush was inaugurated as USA President January 2001. 

 

Eight months later, on September 11, 2001, as Bush was assuming his role as President and Commander-In-Chief of the USA military,  there was an attack on the USA.  Here is how that attack is described, according to Wikipedia:

 

...a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2,977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and substantial long-term health consequences, in addition to at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.

 

As a result of the terrorist attack, President George Bush took action to protect his country.  According to Wikipedia, President Bush took the following action:

 

In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Bush created the United States Department of Homeland Security and launched a "War on Terror". 

[Nuclear Fallout]

6 hours ago, dMog said:

well although i agree with the sentiment above but what are your thoughts on the Taliban when in power killed girls if they went to  or wanted to go to school or wanted to get educated or named kids who got vaccines... not to mention they were very brutal to disenters

 

ASK THE CIA

 

Personally, those I would have given a ticket to Allah.

 

However, really, the Taliban would have never reached their level of power WITHOUT the CIA.

[Nuclear Fallout]

26 minutes ago, tennis said:

Here is the part that was not mentioned in the story headline.  The iconic photo of the World Trade Center (WTC)  towers, before they fully collapsed, is included as well.  Four commercial airplanes, if you recall, were high jacked and used during the 9/11 attacks.  All civilians aboard those airplanes perished.  The below is furnished for your information and use.  Here are the facts.  You decide.  Think about what you would have done as a President of your country if the below had happened after your homeland had been attacked? 

 

Think about the countless families and children that were directly lost or suffered the loss of their parents or children.  Virtually an entire New York City Emergency Response Organization of firemen were lost as the WTC tower collapsed, when the emergency response personnel were crushed to death, trying to save people and property. There are videos of the people who leaped from the towers to their deaths, as they were otherwise trapped and were being burned to death in the inferno pictured below.

 

So.  Was George Bush correct in his response to the grave attack on the USA on September 11, 2001?  And, ultimately who was responsible, (in your mind(s) for the attacks and the eventual repercussions, both short term and long term repercussions?

 

Now the background:

 

George Bush was inaugurated as USA President January 2001. 

 

Eight months later, on September 11, 2001, as Bush was assuming his role as President and Commander-In-Chief of the USA military,  there was an attack on the USA.  Here is how that attack is described, according to Wikipedia:

 

...a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2,977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and substantial long-term health consequences, in addition to at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.

 

As a result of the terrorist attack, President George Bush took action to protect his country.  According to Wikipedia, President Bush took the following action:

 

In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Bush created the United States Department of Homeland Security and launched a "War on Terror". 

 

I wanted to say something here, but I refrain myself.

 

 

 

What I will say, there are brains who foresaw that, but no one listened.

 

There was at least one research paper made about this.

 

 

[ghost]

I respect each and every opinion posted. Thank you for keeping this civil and intelligent discussions. 

 

The article is about human beings being displaced by The war on "terror." Most of these people have no political agendas, nor do they have terroristic ideals; In plain simple words "innocent people." Personally, I can't imagine having to flee my home because someone decides to drop bombs and destroy my city. To which most people had nothing to do with terror or war. 

 

If the argument is about "national security." then my counter argument would be: Attacking civilians will only push them to join these terroristic groups. thus making and creating a far worse situation. If that's the case case then nothing changes and is a rinse a repeat type situation.

[Jogs]

The case of Taliban is also the same. the fighters gave their life while their leaders enjoyed.

Who knows if their leader actually got killed or if he was not the leader at all.