[Zhang Fei]

But we are taking sides. We sided with the Shia in Iraq, then we armed and trained the rebels (Sunni ISIS in Syria and Libya) and now we hear that we might team up with Shia Iran to fight ISIS (which, did I mention we armed and trained). I’m not seeing a clear objective (much less strategy) here.

The objective is identical to what it was during WWII and the Cold War - prevent hostile powers from unifying the target region under its rule. The strategy is to cooperate with hostile powers when our interests coincide, and fight them where these interests do not.

Also, why are these “the world’s oil resources”. Does the rest of the world have a right oil and other resources on American soil? I’m not getting that angle either.

The rest of the world has a right to those resources as long as they (1) are not hostile to the US and (2) do not alter the existing geopolitical configuration via armed conquest. That's why military establishments exist - to defend a country's interests against hostile powers. If the Russians manage to persuade the Canadians to join the Russian Federation, good for them. If they decide to conquer Canada, then they will need to fight Uncle Sam to get at Canada's resources.

[Lorianne]

Re you Canada/Russia analogy
Iraq already has the oil resources. They are on their soil. They are not conquering anyone to get them, they already own them, do they not?

I’m not seeing why they are “ours” ... either the US or as you said “the world’s” resources.