Do we really want to pay for another “surge” when we have so many problems at home?

Dear Editor,

Remember how reluctant colonies were in the late 18th century to surrender power to a central government? Poor Geo Washington had a time of it collecting taxes and forming armies.

Something similar is causing the turmoil in the Middle East. Allegiance is based on whether you are Sunni or Shiite and your individual tribe.

Countries? They were created as protectorates (the very word is condescending) with colonial masters drawing the map and choosing the leaders. Hence, all the current talk about a caliphate, which is a theocracy (such as Puritans once formed here). Theocracies usually fail.

So why would we want to arm rebels who may be on our side at the moment? Remember Afghanistan. The Mujahideen we armed there to defeat the Soviet Union became al-Qaeda when we left. Loyalties shift like dessert sand (even though they are often for sale). Do we really want to pay for another “surge” when we have so many problems at home?

Of course we are fearful of attacks here (as are many European countries) but just as two brothers acting on their own killed and maimed at the Boston Marathon, ISIS members with U.S. passports will not have to consult ISIS leaders should they wish to attack. Millions spent fighting ISIS in the Middle East will not protect us from such villains.

No, it will take decades for the situation to be sorted out (just as our Civil War tested states’ rights versus a central government). And hysterical Hawks’ fear-mongering tactics will not hurry the process.

Sincerely,

Sandy Miley

Sherrill, N.Y.