December 04, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -    A single common theme emerges from most public discussions of U.S. foreign policy. No matter how widespread the carnage, devastating the financial impact or enormous the opportunity cost of war – the United States is always presumed to have meant well. US foreign policies are designed as much to improve the well-being of foreigners as to protect US national security. It is relatively rare for revisionist historians or informed critics questioning the true motives behind US foreign policy to be allowed any significant platform to air contrarian views. Despite this pervasive discrimination, a significant segment of the American public not only believes US elites exploited the 9/11 attacks, but would like to see US government officials who backed the "Global War on Terror" criminally prosecuted.

Credible "Global War on Terror" damage assessments are as scarce as policy contrarians. Since 9/11, US government officials debated but generally shied away from releasing official body counts. This is to avoid public perceptions that the US is now trapped in a "quagmire" reminiscent of Vietnam. Credible, official total financial cost estimates of the series of conflicts – officially premised on the idea that they will protect the US from future 9/11-style attacks – are similarly difficult to come by. When there are no solid numbers, it becomes impossible to have meaningful debates or perform public opinion research – which may be why the information deficits persist.