Pakistan enjoys a global reputation of being linked to the threat of terror by supporting and sponsoring terrorists. The advent of the war on terror gave rise to a type of paranoia that materialized in different forms across the globe. The era began with the occurrence of the 9/11, when Al-Qaeda hijacked an aeroplane to launch an attack on the twin towers in New York City, taking the lives of hundreds. To date, 9/11 is considered the most catastrophic event in the history of world terrorism. However, if we examine policy-making related to the defeat of extremist forces following 9/11, we will find various loopholes that have caused countries to target the wrong organisations. With the US taking control of the “War on Terror,” actions to contain extremism have resulted in the rise of fear and “Islamophobia” around the world. Laws surrounding terrorism have often been used to further the agenda of a particular country, giving rise to various ills such as racial anxiety against Muslims and unwarranted violence. Traditionally, Pakistan has had a fair share of involvement in the jargon of terrorism. The country has received a reputation of not only giving rise to destructive terrorist factions but also of providing havens to organised extremist groups. However, it is important to note how terrorist forces in Pakistan came into existence in the first place. During the end of the Cold War, General Zia-Ul-Haq came into an agreement with US President Jimmy Carter, offering military support to US soldiers fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The promise was upheld when rogue soldiers from Pakistan, as well as those pouring in from the Middle East, began undergoing extensive military training after allying with Soviet forces. The training program, which was held in Pakistan, was being funded by various countries – mainly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In 1979, the group became known as the “mujahideen” and fought alongside the US soldiers during the war in Afghanistan. However, the aftermath of the Afghan war became extremely problematic for Pakistan. With no formal purpose to serve, the mujahideen began preparing an agenda to become an organised terrorist group. Whether the intelligence services in the US or Pakistan backed these forces is a question that looms. In the process of the Taliban becoming an organised group, various militants fled Afghanistan and other surrounding areas to join the Taliban faction in Pakistan. They became known as the “Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan” (TTP). The ranks of the Taliban began to grow as members of the Aghan Taliban began infiltrating local communities in areas of Northern Pakistan, including Waziristan, Swat and Dir. The recruitment of locals enabled them to expand their mission of conducting suicide attacks throughout the country; killing thousands of civilians and spreading terror. The violent streak of bloodshed and bombing carried out by suicide bombers and terrorists from the TTP overcame Pakistan in 2007. The most destructive attack carried out by the group was the Peshawar bombing in 2014, causing nearly 200 deaths of children and faculty of an army school. Here, we tend to question whether the Pakistani state is voluntarily sponsoring terrorism, or if it is, in fact, a victim to gross events of terror – suffering at the hands of the terrorist militias. Additionally, it should be questioned why despite the seasoned military having conducted extensive operations across the country, the threat continues to resurface, even today. With the international community continuously ostracising Pakistan over deep terrorist networks within its borders, the country has not been granted with an opportunity to expend resources in the way of minimizing the terrorist threat. US President Donald Trump cut off all aid being given to Pakistan due to its alleged failure to deal with terror groups that exist in the country. Although Islamabad denies any involvement with terrorist groups, the US administration accuses Pakistan of harbouring a wing of the Afghan Taliban, Haqqani Network. However, the US government has not provided any solid evidence that corroborates the presence and recruitment of members of the Haqqani Network in Pakistan. In extension to this, other major players of the world, including the US and the UK, have hurled accusations against Pakistan for being infiltrated by terrorists, especially after Bin Laden was found in the territory. In reality, the largest challenge that faces Pakistan is how to fully curb the threat of terrorism and thoroughly eradicate extremist elements. Since 9/11, Pakistan has become a beneficiary of USAID to increase its security and assist the fight against terrorism. Pakistan received $18.8 billion in aid between 2006 and 2016, where it had already sustained losses over $123 billion in the fight against terrorism. The amount provided as USAID did not even partially cover the financial losses, which majorly crippled the economy. This not only left Pakistan with insufficient funds to make efforts in the way of resisting terrorism but also hampered economic and industrial progress. When US President Trump cut USAID in 2018, Pakistan’s economic policy became inconsistent and was constantly readjusted to allocate funds for imperative institutional matters. The marginalising of Pakistan is a part of a broader notion that spreads fear in Western states and other parts of the globe. After policy exchanges on the subject of terrorism began, the UN formally endorsed the term “Islamophobia,” that refers to the fear and prejudice against Islam and political activism of Muslims. The US and UK have both formulated legislation that propagates the notion of Islamophobia. In 2016, US President Trump enforced an all-Muslim ban against seven states. Although Pakistan was not included in the list, the country still gets wrapped up in global talks regarding the threat of terror. Both the US and the UK made their immigration policy more stringent, where individuals belonging to Muslim countries were extensively screened and often denied visas to these countries. President Trump made immigration control a cornerstone of his political policy to ensure that terrorists were not being granted entry into the US. However, in reality, these policies were tied to a misconception that led to the generalising of Islam and all Muslims around the globe. “Terrorism” became synonymous with “Islam,” and major leaders took no step to draw a line separating extremist radicals and innocent Muslims. On the contrary, these policies successfully directed the global public to believe that Islam, as a religion, is the root of the problem. An Islamic state by constitution, Pakistan enjoys a global reputation of being linked to the threat of terror by supporting and sponsoring terrorists. The international community fails to understand the domestic policy and situation regarding terrorism in Pakistan. With lesser funds to sustain military efforts such as Zarb-e-Azab, it is likely that Pakistan will serve as a battleground and that the eradication of this threat has not been done in its entirety. In extension to this, other major players of the world, including the US and the UK, have hurled accusations against Pakistan for being infiltrated by terrorists, especially after Bin Laden was found in the territory Recently, the country has been taking steps in domestic politics to work against the banning of extreme right-winged parties, including Jamat-ud-Dawa. Its leader Hafiz Saeed was arrested for terror financing. Additionally, the government has employed the “National Action Plan” to curb the threat of terrorist attacks and hold combatants accountable. However, the lack of investment behind the enforcement of judicial legislation leads to loopholes in the standard of accountability. This serves as an appeasement to the well-established organizations with widespread links and networks. When referring to international terrorism, it is important to note that the Muslim community present in countries such as the US and UK has become victim to the conundrum of stereotyping and labelling, which causes racial anxiety against the community at large. Islamophobic policies have strategically legitimised instances of hate crime within the UK and the US. Institutions including the media help further this political agenda to instil fear among the masses against the notion of terrorism. Heightened public anxiety surrounding this issue is in the interest of the state, which desires to have the masses fear Islamic terrorists, causing an inconvenience to their peaceful living. The reason behind state interests propagating Islamophobia remain unknown, but could potentially surround a national agenda to secure strategic interests in the Middle East. The Pew Research Center showed that in the US, 62 per cent of the public sees ISIS (Islamic State) as the top threat to the nation along with climate change. The figures on the causes of death, however, tell a different story. In the US alone, there is a higher percentage of deaths caused by obesity, HIV/aids, suicide and road/traffic accidents. Terrorism has caused the least number of deaths in the nation in comparison to other, more natural ways of dying. In extension to this, the US administration must redefine the word ‘terrorism’ to include the increasing incidents of school and public shootings in the US committed by Caucasian, non-Islamic individuals and groups. Political analysts argue the real effect of the war on terror, which seemed to be the saving grace of all extremism according to the Bush administration in the US. Instead of directing their focus toward singular targets, the US carried out heavyweight operations across Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The infamous drone attacks included their so-called efforts led to the death of nearly half a million people–between 480,000 to 507,000–, according to Al-Jazeera. The death toll includes a high number of local police officers, civilians and soldiers among terrorists themselves. It has been proven that the number of terrorists killed by these operations is very low compared to the amount of collateral damage done across the region. Afghanistan saw the highest number of deaths among the concerned countries in 2018. The US easily justified these numbers by claiming that “there is always uncertainty in any count of war.” In conclusion, it is fair to believe that the fear of terrorism has a high impact in the US, but there is a low probability of the occurrence of terrorist attacks conducted by ISIS and similar radical groups. Has the war on terror made us safer or is it just a ploy by the US government to glamorize a threat to rivet racial anxiety and Islamophobia among the public? The truest efforts in the way of combatting terrorism would comprise of multi-lateral operations in accordance with the Right to Protect (R2P) doctrine issued by the UN. When the US carries out unilateral operations in parts of the Middle East, it appears as if they are furthering an agenda constituted by their government and military. If the US wants to be at the head of the war on terror, it must request thorough reports from concerned countries explaining the situation at hand. Subsequently, it should join hands with its NATO allies as well as the countries that are at risk to constitute a comprehensive plan of action that minimizes collateral damage and is devoid of any ulterior motives. This would include coming up with a technique to discern civilians from potential terrorists and combatants. The war on terror can prove to be a successful initiative towards containing the threat to terrorism if the matter, with accurate sources of inquiry, is treated in the interest of a multi-lateral community. The community could be made to issue comprehensive feasibility plans to introduce reconstructive and rehabilitative measures in the concerned areas. The deep-rooted networks of these organizations should be targeted in their core. The writer is a published author and a student of politics and government, sociology and anthropology major at Ohio Wesleyan University