Why the US's ‘Global War on Terror’ Doesn’t Apply When Indians Die
Nidhi | May 16, 2025, 22:50 IST
( Image credit : Times Life Bureau )
After the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the US launched a relentless Global War on Terror, resulting in invasions like Afghanistan and Iraq with tens of thousands of deaths. Yet, when terrorism affects India, the US response is limited to calls for dialogue and ceasefires, avoiding direct intervention. This article examines the contrasting approaches of the US to terrorism depending on the region, highlighting the selective enforcement of its Global War on Terror and the implications for India-Pakistan relations.
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the deadliest terrorist attack in modern history. The response from the United States was immediate and absolute: within 26 days, it invaded Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban regime that harbored Al-Qaeda. Thus began what America proudly called the “Global War on Terror.”
This war would go on to span two decades, cost over $2 trillion, and claim more than 800,000 lives globally — including an estimated 47,000 Afghan civilians and over 7,000 American service members and contractors. The justification was simple: terrorism must be eliminated, no matter where it lives or whom it hides behind.
But when India suffers terror attacks — often orchestrated by groups based in Pakistan, a country the U.S. itself has designated as a safe haven for terror groups — the world suddenly shifts tone. Calls for restraint, dialogue, and de-escalation replace the moral certainty that guided U.S. action after 9/11. Why is there no global war when Indians die? 
In response to 9/11, the U.S. launched Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7, 2001. Backed by NATO and dozens of allies, the U.S. claimed it was exercising its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
But the mission quickly expanded beyond targeting Al-Qaeda. It became a full-scale war against the Taliban. Over 15,000 Afghan civilians were killed in just the first few years. By the time the U.S. withdrew in 2021, the Afghan death toll had risen to over 170,000, including:
47,000+ civilians
66,000 Afghan soldiers and police
51,000 Taliban and opposition fighters
2,400+ U.S. service members
Despite this massive human toll, the global response was supportive — even celebratory. The narrative was that of justice, not aggression.
In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, alleging Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These weapons were never found. There was no direct link to 9/11, no Taliban, no Al-Qaeda.
Still, the invasion happened — without UN Security Council authorization. Over 200,000 civilians died, and the country descended into chaos. Yet again, the justification was framed under the Global War on Terror.
The message was clear: when America is threatened, it acts — with or without proof, with or without the UN, with or without global approval.
From Pakistan’s tribal regions to Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, the U.S. carried out thousands of drone strikes under its War on Terror mandate. These strikes often killed civilians — including children.
In Pakistan alone, between 2004 and 2018, U.S. drone strikes reportedly killed between 2,500 and 4,000 people, including an estimated 400–1,000 civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Yet, these strikes continued with tacit international approval. The logic was simple: the U.S. had the right to eliminate threats wherever they existed. 
India has been one of the worst victims of cross-border terrorism — especially from Pakistan-backed groups. Consider just a few of the attacks:
1993 Mumbai Blasts: 257 killed, over 1,400 injured — orchestrated by Dawood Ibrahim, who now lives openly in Pakistan.
2001 Parliament Attack: Carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives; nearly triggered war.
2008 Mumbai Attacks: 166 killed, including foreigners. The attackers were trained in Pakistan, with links to the Pakistani military establishment.
2016 Uri Attack: 19 soldiers killed.
2019 Pulwama Attack: 40 CRPF personnel killed in a suicide bombing claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammed.
2025 Pahalgam Massacre: Dozens dead, including civilians and security personnel.
In each of these cases, the perpetrators were traced back to UN-designated terrorist groups operating with impunity in Pakistan.
Unlike the U.S., India has rarely responded with overwhelming force. Its responses have been targeted and controlled:
2016 Surgical Strikes: Indian special forces crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to destroy terror launchpads.
2019 Balakot Airstrike: India bombed a Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp deep inside Pakistan — without harming civilians.
These actions were taken in self-defense, backed by real-time intelligence, and without the mass civilian tolls that characterized U.S. campaigns.
Yet, after each Indian action, the international community urged de-escalation. There was no global condemnation of Pakistan, no moral backing of India’s right to defend itself.
When America invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, it led to two wars and cross-border drone campaigns. When India invokes the same clause, it's lectured on restraint.
Where the U.S. was supported in its quest for justice, India is asked to negotiate with the very state that shelters its attackers.
The double standard is glaring. If an attack happens in the West, it’s a crime against humanity. If it happens in India, it’s a regional issue. America's Global War on Terror reshaped the world — not always for the better — but it made one thing clear: its citizens will be avenged, and its enemies punished.
India, despite being the largest democracy and one of the worst-hit victims of terrorism, is rarely afforded that same principle. It is expected to suffer in silence, or worse, negotiate with the sponsors of terror.
The next time an Indian city is bombed or soldiers are killed, and the world tells India to “exercise restraint,” ask this:
Does the “Global War on Terror” only apply when Western lives are lost? Or are Indian lives worth avenging too?
This war would go on to span two decades, cost over $2 trillion, and claim more than 800,000 lives globally — including an estimated 47,000 Afghan civilians and over 7,000 American service members and contractors. The justification was simple: terrorism must be eliminated, no matter where it lives or whom it hides behind.
But when India suffers terror attacks — often orchestrated by groups based in Pakistan, a country the U.S. itself has designated as a safe haven for terror groups — the world suddenly shifts tone. Calls for restraint, dialogue, and de-escalation replace the moral certainty that guided U.S. action after 9/11. Why is there no global war when Indians die?
When the U.S. Was Attacked, It Declared War — No Questions Asked
The Afghanistan Invasion: Swift, Unilateral, Devastating
9/11 attack
( Image credit : Times Life Bureau )
But the mission quickly expanded beyond targeting Al-Qaeda. It became a full-scale war against the Taliban. Over 15,000 Afghan civilians were killed in just the first few years. By the time the U.S. withdrew in 2021, the Afghan death toll had risen to over 170,000, including:
47,000+ civilians
66,000 Afghan soldiers and police
51,000 Taliban and opposition fighters
2,400+ U.S. service members
Despite this massive human toll, the global response was supportive — even celebratory. The narrative was that of justice, not aggression.
Iraq: No UN Approval, No Terror Links — Still Invaded
US Invasion of Iraq
( Image credit : Times Life Bureau )
Still, the invasion happened — without UN Security Council authorization. Over 200,000 civilians died, and the country descended into chaos. Yet again, the justification was framed under the Global War on Terror.
The message was clear: when America is threatened, it acts — with or without proof, with or without the UN, with or without global approval.
Drone Strikes: The War Without Borders
In Pakistan alone, between 2004 and 2018, U.S. drone strikes reportedly killed between 2,500 and 4,000 people, including an estimated 400–1,000 civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Yet, these strikes continued with tacit international approval. The logic was simple: the U.S. had the right to eliminate threats wherever they existed.
When India Is Attacked, It’s Told to “Talk It Out”
A History of Terror, A Lack of Action
Mumbai Blast
( Image credit : Times Life Bureau )
1993 Mumbai Blasts: 257 killed, over 1,400 injured — orchestrated by Dawood Ibrahim, who now lives openly in Pakistan.
2001 Parliament Attack: Carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives; nearly triggered war.
2008 Mumbai Attacks: 166 killed, including foreigners. The attackers were trained in Pakistan, with links to the Pakistani military establishment.
2016 Uri Attack: 19 soldiers killed.
2019 Pulwama Attack: 40 CRPF personnel killed in a suicide bombing claimed by Jaish-e-Mohammed.
2025 Pahalgam Massacre: Dozens dead, including civilians and security personnel.
In each of these cases, the perpetrators were traced back to UN-designated terrorist groups operating with impunity in Pakistan.
India’s Response: Measured, Surgical, Lawful
Indian Army
( Image credit : Times Life Bureau )
2016 Surgical Strikes: Indian special forces crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to destroy terror launchpads.
2019 Balakot Airstrike: India bombed a Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp deep inside Pakistan — without harming civilians.
These actions were taken in self-defense, backed by real-time intelligence, and without the mass civilian tolls that characterized U.S. campaigns.
Yet, after each Indian action, the international community urged de-escalation. There was no global condemnation of Pakistan, no moral backing of India’s right to defend itself.
The Hypocrisy Is Stark
Where the U.S. was supported in its quest for justice, India is asked to negotiate with the very state that shelters its attackers.
A Global War — But Not for Everyone
The double standard is glaring. If an attack happens in the West, it’s a crime against humanity. If it happens in India, it’s a regional issue.
Whose Lives Count in the War on Terror?
India, despite being the largest democracy and one of the worst-hit victims of terrorism, is rarely afforded that same principle. It is expected to suffer in silence, or worse, negotiate with the sponsors of terror.
The next time an Indian city is bombed or soldiers are killed, and the world tells India to “exercise restraint,” ask this:
Does the “Global War on Terror” only apply when Western lives are lost? Or are Indian lives worth avenging too?