[We should arm both side and let them kill each other.]
The Middle East is both a smaller and a bigger problem. It’s smaller because it doesn’t have Europe’s highly-productive economies. It’s bigger because with 50% of the world’s oil, it can spike oil prices to $200 a barrel, and tank our economy. It’s also bigger because since WWII, both nuclear weapons and the long range missiles with which to deliver them to our cities are now a reality.
Having said that, the cost of staying engaged in the Middle East is peanuts compared to WWII. We spent roughly 50% of economic production every year for 4 years fighting in Asia and Europe. That’s 2 years of economic output spent fighting WWII. The Mideast + Afghanistan costs about $50b a year. That’s 0.25% of a year’s economic output. A pain in the rear end, but we won’t be having decorated vets roaming the country plugging War Bonds.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-10/54219-oco_spending.pdf
Your 1% die and 99% join the winning side is not supported by history. The schizm between sunni and shia is 1,400+ years old and is not going away any time soon. The ‘losing’ side always becomes the terrorists to continue the attack.
However, I do agree we should keep them in a box, but that does not require boots on the ground, IMHO. There are many other tools to accomplish this task.
JoMa
Please don’t confuse the yahoos here with logic...they can’t handle it.
I think we should pull our guys out and let those folks handle their own problems. Our boys are worth too much to expend on them.