“I will never forget what the American soldiers did to my country, my tribe and my family. They violated our national sovereignty and our Islamic laws. They killed my son and my younger brother. They destroyed my home. If I see the soldiers who are responsible for this – if I have the opportunity - I will kill them” (qtd. in Bailey). These are the chilling words of a Pakistani journalist whose home was bombed. His statement exemplifies how America’s abrasive and impractical military interventions in the Middle East stir up anger and hate that will only lead to an increase in terrorist activity and recruitment, ultimately doing more harm than good. The United States’ violent approach to Islamic terrorism is problematic because its narrow perspective has not dealt with the “ideological and social framework of radical Islam” due to the advocating forces of political and private interests (Ali). The effects of violent war has fueled ideological and vengeful fervor leading to increased terrorist financial support and recruitment, making the world a far more dangerous place. The result of this failed violent approach has also placed the Middle East and the United States in a worse situation than before by fragmenting innocent Middle Eastern and American families, inflaming revenge, and diminishing diplomatic opportunities. Lastly, military intervention has rung up an unprecedented price tag for the United States. To fight terror, the United States has only spent money on violent military attacks. War in the Middle East has only left a vengeful resentment in the midst of socioeconomic disruption making the world less safe. In the United States, the profit and politically driven lobbies are now bigger, more powerful, and more concentrated than ever before, investing huge sums of money to push the United States into a perpetuating war on terror. These corporations and their lobbies, that act solely upon their own interest, hold excessive political influence in significant policy making decisions, leading the United States into a flawed understanding of the motives of Islamic terrorism and a failed approach that has made Americans less safe. During the September 11 attacks, oil corporations lobbied government officials to overtake Iraq, creating a conflict of interest among policy makers. The lobbies of oil corporations succeeded by using their powerful influence to fund and commence the war. Today, corporations such as “ExxonMobil," "Chevron," "BP," "Shell," [and] the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton...” (Juhasz). Such military interventions for a war on terror were not carried out in favor of the interests of the American people and their values, but for the benefit of a handful of influential corporations. Washington is not only influenced by oil corporations, but also by politically driven organizations and lobbies that create conflicts of interest through political contributions. For instance, Zionist lobbying group, AIPAC, relentlessly lobbied in the United States to have it rapidly launch forceful and military campaigns against the Assad regime in a war against terror, employing “hundreds of activists to win support in Congress,” effectively perpetuating the war (Lendman). In the same way, the American Enterprise Institute, that strongly advocated for the war in Iraq, now seeks “to lobby for a war in Iran [and hopes] to raise as much as $200 million Several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million [and] since the group is organized as a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to reveal its donors” (Stauber). These organizations and lobbies with wealthy anonymous constituents have spent millions on lobbying and political contributions in order to influence politicians to make decisions in favor of the war on terror and consequently in the interests of their organizations, not in the interests of the American people. Such conflict of interest among policy makers and advocates became clear when former oil executive, Dick Cheney, played a powerful role in promoting US military policies regarding the war on terror. Cheney’s personal financial disclosure signed on September 1, 2000 reveals he received a $34 million bonus from Halliburton shortly before becoming Vice President for George W. Bush (“Chris Matthews says Cheney got $34 million payday from Halliburton”). Halliburton, his former company, made $39.5 billion in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past decade (Young). Conflicts of interest like these are common in Washington today. Currently, there are no codes of law that obligate government officials from disclosing special compensations or financial income that could lead to such conflicts of interest. America and most of its politicians hold extensive discussions against violence when schools and malls are shot and bombed. There is a chilling hypocri