How President Obama’s Analysis Is Wrong on Terrorism

The reaction from Islamic militants is directly proportional to the American interference in their personal affairs.

By Rakesh Raman

There’s a strange paradox about U.S. President Barack Obama. In 2009, Obama won the Nobel Prize for peace. But he wants to see violence at every inch of our planet. And that’s what he’s doing.

After dictating wars, strikes, invasions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. and whatnot, now Obama is ready to target Iraq and Syria. In the new phase of attacks, the U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Baghdad began Monday, Sept. 15.

With more than 20,000 airstrikes under his orders, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, Obama is now being called the “Bomber-in-Chief” instead of his normal title of “Commander-in-Chief.”

And all the violence that Obama has ordered is based on an unfounded, exaggerated hypothesis that if America didn’t wage wars against Islamic countries, Muslim militants would kill Americans. Strange.

This hypothesis was floated by American politicians after the 9-11 (2001) attack on the World Trade Center. While 3,000 people were killed in the attack, the Americans were made to believe the attack was carried out by the militant organization al-Qaeda to check America’s interference in Afghanistan.

However, there are different theories that challenge the truth behind the attack. Many believe that American government used the attack as a pretext to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to create opportunities to curtail civil liberties. In fact, among others challenging the government’s version of attack, a 9/11 Truth movement has started to unearth the truth.

Related Stories:

Mr. Obama, Are Islamic State Terrorists Really Good on Social Media?

What President Obama Says on ISIL Terrorism

America’s Military Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Documentary

Under the pretext of protecting Americans from terrorists, Americans Presidents have sacrificed more American lives than terrorists could have killed. According to estimates, in the post-9/11 wars, nearly 7,000 American military personnel have died in only Afghanistan and Iraq.

The only difference now is that instead of allowing militants to come to America for killing Americans, Obama is sending Americans to other countries to be killed there.

And in these conflicts more than 50,000 American soldiers have been wounded — 16,000 of them seriously. Mental health crisis among veterans is so common that vet suicides are happening every day. Increased rate of divorces among military persons, drug abuse, sexual abuse of female personnel are also among the scary results of avoidable U.S. wars.

Plus, there is an enormous financial cost of these wars. Quoting Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Montreal-based Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent research and media organization, reports that the decade-long American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up costing $6 trillion. This amount is nearly one-third of the current American debt of about $18 trillion.

You also can see that how the cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is going up every second.

The war-related financial loss to the U.S. government will have a long-term detrimental impact on the people at large. As the American debt has always been rising, it’s resulting in sick economy, joblessness, societal unrest, mental depression among people, and so on.

If you add all this up, the total human and financial loss to the U.S. is so high that all the terrorist outfits of the world put together can’t bring this kind of damage to Americans.

This is simple arithmetic that President Obama and his predecessors have failed to understand. There’s a likelihood that his successors would also continue with the spate of wars as a legacy that Americans are willy-nilly following.

If Obama really wants to justify his Nobel Peace Prize, he must understand that killing of any human under any circumstances can’t be justified – not even under the pretext of internal security of your people. When you are killing people – rightly or wrongly labeled as terrorists – you’re also a terrorist (may be of a different breed).

If you see it carefully, American governments have been doing all those acts that terrorists do. If terrorists kill people, American rulers are also killing innocent people and unnecessarily sacrificing their own soldiers. If terrorists invade others’ land, Americans are also doing same invasion.

If terrorists commit excesses on others, they’re also committing atrocities on others as well as their own people. If terrorists hold innocents as hostages, American administration also holds innocents in prisons (solitary and illegal confinements) without allowing them to defend themselves. Then what is the difference between you and a terrorist?

As a Peace Prize laureate, Obama is supposed to find out a peaceful solution to end this perpetual conflict. If he can’t do that, he is not doing justice to his position. Americans don’t need a leader who orders frequent attacks on others. Even a Tom, Dick, and Harry can give that order as a President. But Presidents are supposed to be prudent and act wisely.

The reasons of the current spate of America-led wars are mostly commercial, as over the years America has largely become a plutocracy – which means the government is run by a few wealthy people. Elected government officials are relegated to mere figurehead roles, as dummies.

The wars benefit the rich businessmen and also the government high-ups, who get the opportunities to swindle money earmarked for war paraphernalia. Now perhaps under pressures from hidden forces, the U.S. Presidents are using different pretexts such as 9-11 attack, WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq, and now the beheading of two Amercan journalists – James Foley and Steven Sotloff – to continue wars.

All these justifications for attacks on others are unproven, unfounded. Governments and security agencies in different countries carry out such clandestine operations – called psyops – to justify their violent moves.

And U.S. is using the same tactics to justify the support from its allies. For example, the beheading story of British worker James Haines who was reportedly beheaded by ISIS. Although it’s again an unsubstantiated story, U.S. could rope in the U.K. to support it in the planned attacks on ISIS in Syria.

Related Stories:

Was the American Journalist James Foley Killed by ISIS?

Is Austin Tice also an ISIS Hostage in Syria?

Traditionally, Americans had been living in cozy, cocooned environments. Now, they’ve to face tough social and economic conditions because of certain wrong political decisions. Most Americans have lost their ability to think because of these constant hardships and hypothetical fear that politicians and local media have created around them.

Now they also feel that war and attacks on Muslim countries is the only way that can save them. But they are wrong. Actually, the reaction from Islamic militants is directly proportional to the American interference in their personal affairs.

If you want to protect your own interests, just focus on your own country and let others manage their own. Don’t try to be a universal cop. That’s the whole point which Obama and his clique must understand for their own sake. Will they?

By Rakesh Raman, the managing editor of RMN Company

You also can read: More Articles by the RMN Editor, Rakesh Raman

Photo: President Barack Obama, Courtesy: The White House