OK but back to your WWII analogy? Which side should we be backing? Which is the greater threat, ISIS or Iran?
You seem to be saying that it’s alright to temporarily team up with a less than savory group short term in order to ward off a more immediate and/or greater threat.
And we ARE taking sides. We have been taking sides. We supported the Shia in Iraq. Are you suggesting we have been (strategically) supporting the wrong side? There is another article up on FR right now claiming that we are teaming up with Iran to go after ISIS. So which group is (strategically) the best one to team up with right now?
I tend to think neither one. But I’m trying to work within your WWII analogy. If we go with your analogy we should be supporting ISIS (and indeed it seems the Obama admin has been arming and training them in Syria).
Now we seem to be asking our military to risk their lives to fight ISIS which evidence is starting to suggest we armed and trained in Syria and Libya.
Others think our military should start a war with Iran to pre-empt nuclear capability.
My question, which I think is more than valid, is WHY are we supporting or teaming up with either side? Why are we there? What is our objective? For what are we asking our military to fight and die for over there.
If it’s national defense, then the only ones close to threatening that on a large scale right now is Iran. We can and should, of course, be stopping any terrorist group who is planning an attack on our home soil. But that’s not what we have been doing over there in Iraq. We’ve been setting up one group of Muslims to dominate over another group of Muslims. How is this 1) our business or 2) in our strategic best interest?
We should be bombing Iranian nuke installations while cooperating with them on fighting ISIS in Iraq.
To prevent ISIS or Iran from becoming much bigger threats. Again, the main principle is to prevent a Muhammad wannabe from unifying the Muslim world that incidentally includes the vast majority of the world's oil resources.