quality:correction
Criticism

Criticism of the war on terror addresses the issues, morality, efficiency, economics, and other questions surrounding the war on terror and made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer. The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy/military objectives, including structural Islamophobia, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. It is argued that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in the " war on drugs ") since there is no identifiable enemy and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means.

Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, state that " terrorism " is not an enemy but a tactic, and calling it a "war on terror" obscures differences between conflicts such as anti-occupation insurgents and international mujahideen. With a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and its associated collateral damage, Shirley Williams posits that this increases resentment and terrorist threats against the West. There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy, media-induced hysteria, and that differences in foreign and security policy have damaged America's reputation internationally. The campaign has also been rebuked for being a perpetual war with no end-goal and for normalising permanent violence as the status-quo.

In addition, Professor Richard Jackson notes how countries like Russia, India, Israel and China adopted the language of the war on terror to describe their own fight against domestic insurgents and dissidents. He argues that "Linking rebels and dissidents at home to the global 'war on terrorism' gives these governments both the freedom to crack down on them without fear of international condemnation, and in some cases, direct military assistance from America".

Professor of Law Antony Anghie has asserted that "war on terror" is essentially an imperialist project that constitutes a breach of International law and the United Nations Charter. There has also been systematic cover-ups of war crimes by military officers participating in campaign operations across the world. A public enquiry in UK published in July 2023 reported that 3 British SAS units were involved in the summary executions of at least 80 civilians during 2010–2013, accompanied by a decades-long coverup at the highest echelons of British special forces.

US occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq became heavily unpopular among the American public by the late 2000s. Numerous US military veterans have handed back their service medals—including the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal —in fierce protest rallies denouncing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with many condemning the military campaigns as "illegal occupation" of other countries.

Criticism of the war on terror has focused on its morality, efficiency, and cost. The notion of a "war on terror" remain contentious, with critics charging that it has been used to reduce civil liberties and infringe upon human rights, such as controversial actions by the U.S. including surveillance, torture, and extraordinary rendition, and drone strikes that resulted in the deaths of alleged terrorists but also civilians. Many of the U.S.' actions were supported by other countries, including the 54 countries that were involved with CIA black sites, or those that assisted with drone strikes.