Since it seems inevitable that the United States will once again beinvolved in a Middle East conflict that will never have any resolution, may I present an idea about the funding for this engagement that has not been bantered?
Despite the fact that no Middle Eastern country will commit troops to fight ISIS, considering that ISIS is much more of a direct threat to them than to the United States, why not have those same
countries (rich in oil reserves) pay the expense of any/all costs of the assistance provided by the U.S.?
Why should we have to pay the costs to help insulate them from the ISIS crazies?
Bill DiPillo
* * *
Mr. DiPillo,
Don't hold your breath waiting for the very financial backers of ISIS/ISIL/IS to fund the fight against them. Army General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified in a Senate committee hearing, "I know major Arab allies who fund [ISIS]." (See the Youtube clip linked below.) Of course this implicates the US government in contributing to the rise of ISIS, since these allies (a.k.a. state sponsors of terrorism) receive American foreign aid and military hardware. Moreover, the vast majority of the so-called "vetted" and "moderate" rebel groups in Syria - some already covertly armed and trained by US forces in Qatar and Jordan - at a minimum coordinate with ISIS in the insurrection against the Assad government. At worst, some have overtly pledged allegiance to ISIS, sold hostages to them, joined them and/or transferred American weapons to them.
It seems the entire raison d'être of the American military-intelligence-industrial complex is to expropriate and spend as much taxpayer money as humanly possible to fight enemies of its own making. Thankfully, more and more Americans - especially active duty military members and veterans - have come to recognize this politically-driven racket for what it is.
Regards,
Sam Deaton
Signal Mountain