Last night, the U.S. airstrikes hit the Islamic State targets in Syria for the first time since its campaign to “degrade and destroy [Islamic State group].” The United States, backed by other Arab nations, attacked the Islamic State group’s capital and other areas using fighter jets, bomber aircrafts and tomahawk cruise missiles to send a strong and unified message.

The United States has constantly involved itself with conflicts in the Middle East in an attempt to bring stability to an area that it once helped destroy. But when is enough? How long will the American government risk the lives of brave soldiers to protect “American interests”?  

It’s understandable that the government needs to go around the world establishing democracies, even if it takes blatant lies and exaggerating nonexistent threats. But even after spending more than $60 billion of taxpayers’ money in Iraq since the war in 2003, it is the American people who continue to suffer from its government’s extraneous involvement in the Middle East.

The Senate recently approved President Barack Obama’s request to fund and arm Syrian rebels in their fight against the Islamic State group. The White House requested as much as $500 million to train roughly 5,000 rebels in the next twelve months. That is the kind of money Detroit needs, not Syrian rebels.

The majority of the American population doesn’t even know what exactly is going on and who is fighting who in Syria and Iraq. It is easy for the government to convince uninformed people to hate a group by calling them “terrorists” and sympathize with other groups by identifying them as “rebels.”

Therefore, the Islamic State group is a “terrorist” organization whereas those fighting them are “rebels.” Likewise, people fighting Syrian President Assad are “rebels” themselves.

I by no means agree with what the Islamic State group does while beheading people to spread terror. It definitely makes it a “terrorist” group. But I don’t know what that grading scale would make America, who shot down an Iranian plane, killing 290 passengers — including 66 children — in 1988.

Nor am I sure how to classify the Haditha massacre in 2005, when U.S. Marines killed 24 Iraqis including women, children and a man in a wheelchair — all of whom were unarmed.  

The list of U.S. military atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam goes on and on. But what makes one act into “terrorism” and others not?

It all lies in the perspective and from which side you are. For us, we are raised to believe that the Islamic State group and other similar groups are terrorist organization who pose a serious threat to our nation and should be annihilated without leaving even a trace of their existence. Likewise, for the residents in the Islamic State group, it is the Westerners and Europeans who pose a serious threat to their existence and must be defeated at all cost.

Regardless, it is a “war on terror” from both sides against each other and the one with the drones shall prevail and write history as they see fit.

All of the avid followers of the TV show “Scandal” should know that the White House uses an elaborate public relation strategy to mask the reality and bend the truth as much as possible in their public address.

So a “war on terror” might not be an actual war on terrorism. An ulterior motive could be that by arming Syrian “rebels” and quelling the Islamic State group, it can eventually usurp the Syrian president Assad, leading to one less ally for Iran.

This would be an ideal outcome enabling the United States to set up a puppet government with whom to trade oils. Not to mention that American energy companies like Exxon Mobil, Chevron Corporation along with nine other companies are drilling for oil in Kurdistan and other “rebel” areas already.

But the problem is that the United States never really learns from the past.

Through “Operation Cyclone,” the U.S. poured several billion dollars in training more than 12,500 rebels in bomb-making, sabotage and urban warfare at Afghan camps to fight against the Soviets. But it was only a matter of time that those “rebels” turned against the U.S. as terrorists.

Similarly, there is no guarantee that the rebels now might not be classified as terrorists tomorrow.

For a country that preaches the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we do not seem to understand what it actually means.

Sending in troops to fight “terrorists” are going to be met with more acts of terrorism. Any actions taken to destabilize a government would be responded to with reactions of the same scale, such as attacks on military and other important establishments, like in the past.

More war simply means more anti-American sentiments and groups readily forming that could pose threats to the country yet again in the future.   

One should understand that the Obama administration’s war in the Middle East is nothing near a humanitarian cause but rather to pursue self-interests. A military intervention was not seen during the civil war in Sri Lanka because the United States did not stand to gain anything, such as access to oil reserves. It is that simple.

I am sure that the Islamic State group will be defeated, but be prepared to fight against another group in future. After all, you reap what you sow.