Retractable bollards with warning light to enable or block traffic (Andrii Shepeliev/Getty Images Plus)

An investment in democracy and freedoms around the world is needed more (Andrii Shepeliev/Getty Images Plus)

The post-9/11 “counterterrorism” failure

The counterterrorism economy, where vast sums of money continue to flow into security operations, has too often failed to deliver meaningful results.

Hussain Nadim

3 April 20254 min read

This past week, I was invited to brief the US Congressional staffers on US counterterrorism policy. My message was simple, that after 24 years and $8 trillion spent, the US counterterrorism apparatus has not only failed but has made America less safe, while empowering foreign authoritarian regimes that exploit US security concerns for their own gain. It is time for a fundamental rethink.

Since 9/11, the United States has poured trillions into counterterrorism efforts, yet terrorism has not been defeated – it has metastasised. Domestic terrorism in the United States has grown by 357 per cent, the Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan, the Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K) is surging, and much of the Middle East, including Pakistan, remains unstable.

Counterterrorism was supposed to be a temporary measure under the PATRIOT Act following 9/11, which included sunset provisions by 2005. However, subsequent extensions to the PATRIOT Act institutionalised counterterrorism into a permanent feature of US policy. This transformation has created a self-sustaining “CT” economy, where vast sums of money continue to flow into security operations that often fail to deliver meaningful results. Meanwhile, diplomatic engagement and political solutions – arguably the only long-term strategies that work – have been sidelined. This security-first mindset has not only failed abroad but has also securitised American diplomacy and domestic politics, diminishing its ability to foster stability and democratic values across the world, and in the United States.

The post-9/11 “counterterrorism” framework that shaped US foreign policy for more than two decades is no longer relevant.

One of the biggest misconceptions in US policy circles is the belief that terrorism is primarily a product of ideology or religious extremism. In reality, terrorism overwhelmingly flourishes in postcolonial states ruled by extractive elites who have historically bypassed democracy and structural reform in favour of authoritarian control. These regimes, rather than investing in governance and economic development, rely on US foreign aid and security partnerships to maintain their grip on power.

For these regimes, counterterrorism is not about defeating militants – it is about securing funding and external legitimacy. From Afghanistan to Pakistan to the broader Middle East, authoritarian rulers have weaponised terrorism to extract resources from the United States while simultaneously using counterterrorism operations to suppress democratic voices in their own countries.

The United States, in turn, has repeatedly fallen into this trap, allowing itself to be manipulated into bankrolling oppressive regimes under the guise of security cooperation. In cases where the US policymakers do recognise the con, short-term security interests often trump the long-term benefits of supporting democracy and governance reforms. The result has been an ongoing cycle where US support strengthens authoritarian rule, which in turn exacerbates the very conditions that fuel terrorism. The way to fight “terrorism” is not through “counterterrorism” operations but through an investment in democracy and freedoms around the world.

Therefore, the United States must conduct a serious audit of its counterterrorism apparatus and begin the process of de-institutionalising it. The CT framework must be replaced with a renewed focus on diplomacy, governance, and economic partnerships that prioritises democratic institutions over security arrangements with authoritarian rulers.

As a matter of principle, the United States must take a clear stand: It will only engage with, fund, and endorse legitimate democratic governments. This shift is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic necessity. Authoritarian regimes may promise short-term stability, but history has shown that they ultimately sow the seeds of unrest, conflict, and anti-American sentiment.

Pakistan serves as a prime example of how misguided US policy has become. For years, Washington has played favourites in Pakistan’s internal power struggles, backing military and dynastic political elites who have repeatedly undermined democratic processes while selling the mirage of “counterterrorism” to the United States. For a deeply discredited ruling political and military elite in Pakistan that relies on US foreign aid to sustain its hold on power, what real interest is even there to fight terrorism? In fact, all the incentive is to do otherwise. Pakistan is an integral part of this “CT” and “USAID” ecosystem that represents the rot since 9/11.

The world is changing. The post-9/11 “counterterrorism” framework that shaped US foreign policy for more than two decades is no longer relevant. The emerging global order will be defined not by counterterrorism but by two dominant forces: democracy and technology. These must become the new pillars of American engagement with the world.

It is time for Washington to move on from the shadows of 9/11 and instead double down on supporting democracy and technology as a force of stability and growth around the world.

About the author

Hussain Nadim

Dr Hussain Nadim is a Professorial Lecturer at George Washington University and the former Executive Director of Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) based in Islamabad.

Topics

United States Terrorism & extremism