The Fungus-in-Chief is reluctant to deploy the US military in Iraq to fight ISIS so the US is now seeking contractors to "help build and strengthen the military in the war-torn country." As you may recall, the Iraqi military dropped their weapons and ran in the face of an advancing ISIS force. And, many will remember how many years the US was in Iraq "training, building and strengthening" the Iraqi military forces while providing military equipment costing millions of dollars that was subsequently left there after the US withdrawal. Evidently, those efforts were not enough or just plain unsuccessful.

What kind of contractors are being considered exactly?

The US Army Contracting Command, according to a Stars and Stripes report, is requesting applications for personnel to advise the Iraqi Defense Ministry and Counter Terrorism Service in areas such as troop development, logistics planning and operations, communications, infrastructure management, intelligence and public affairs logistics. Personnel should be "cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, and Sunni and Shias."

Are these "contractors" a private fighting force, such as mercenaries? Are these "contractors" advisers with military training? How are you going to "train and strengthen" a group of men who turn and ran at the initial clash with ISIS? How do you train someone to be courageous? And, did not some of Iraq's military force say they would not fight for a Shia majority government or fight against Sunni "brothers?"

Sunnis and Shias have been clashing for centuries as to who is the upholder of "true" Islam. Is there really any way to reduce this "tension?" Sunnis do not want to support a Shia dominate government and Shias do not want to support a Sunni dominate government. Any slight tip of the scale in either direction produces a protest leading to conflict. Then, there is the ever-present fact that "Islam is Islam." Add to the mix the Arab/Kurd tension and it is obvious this is a volatile mixture that will only be resolved in one way – the eradication of the opposite side with the winner taking the spoils.

According to Defense Department spokesman Commander Bill Speaks, the services of contractors fall within the existing mission to the Office of Security Assistance-Iraq, whose purpose is to "help build institutional capacity of Iraq's security ministries."

Former Army Lieutenant Colonel David Johnson, executive director of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington, claims that contractors in combat areas are not the same as "boots on the ground" and are less costly than the deployment of US troops.

"The government always seeks to minimize boots on the ground to reduce domestic political risk," Johnson stated to Stars and Stripes. "The American people and media do not consider a paid contractor to represent them in the same way they do a soldier."

So, it's acceptable to send Americans as "contractors" to a combat area as long as it isn't formal military. As Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute indicates, the US has sent as many contractors as troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the past. Because it was done in the past, does that mean it should be done again?

As O'Hanlon puts it, "As the political premium seems always to be placed on how many troops we have abroad, the pressure to have contractors do as much as possible only grows."

Have these people forgotten about the 100 American contractors who were abandoned by the US military at Balad Air Force Base and fought advancing jihadis for their lives after private security forces and the Iraqi military dropped them weapons and ran?

Apparently so, as they are now seeking applications for more contractors to enter a hotbed of terrorist jihad to help the Iraqi government military forces who may or may not be committed to stemming the tide of ISIS.

Americans are concerned about the number of US troops being deployed abroad and concerned with the places they are deployed along with their ever-changing "rules of engagement" dictated by "politics" that threaten the very survival of our forces. The US government has made a habit of sending troops into combat for increasingly "political/ideological" reasons while claiming "national security" while limiting our forces' ability to defend themselves. Troops are sent to foreign nations for "agendas" or to topple governments instead of noble and just causes. When that agenda or installed government fails, troops are withdrawn and all America has to show for it are dead troops and weakness. Nothing was accomplished except the destruction of our military forces, wasted taxpayer dollars and a frustrated, angry public, which then leads to more politicizing when it comes to troop deployment.

Now, deployment is so politicized that "contractors" are being recruited to fulfill positions to further agendas, which, if the past is to be indicative of the future, tells us this will surely fail as well, meaning more wasted taxpayer dollars, resources and possibly American lives.

Wars should be reserved for the most noble and just causes; and, war is sometimes better than some forms of peace. The wisdom comes in distinguishing what is noble and just, putting aside agenda, to determine if the combat is worth the sacrifice asked to be made. There is no such wisdom in Washington DC.

ISIS, read Islam, threatens the freedom of the entire civilized world. There is no more noble cause than freedom, the God-given right to exist and individual God-given inalienable rights. However, the US cannot continue to fight battles where one oppression is exchanged for another, where Shia is supported against Sunni or Sunni against Shia, with both being dictated by "agendas" and "interests."

In Iraq, the world is looking at Islam versus Islam, Sunni versus Shia. Either way the US goes, the US supports Islam. Islam is terrorism, regardless of sect, and infidels are the enemy of Islam. Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Islam deposed leader of Iraq, was despised by the Shia Muslims for the "violations" he committed against them. The Sunni Muslims despise the prominent Shia Islamic government of Iraq for the "violations" against them. Both sects devolve into terrorism when perceived "violations" occur against them, whether committed by other Muslims or infidels. What does supporting one side or the other benefit anyone? Both are Islam. Both are oppressive and both threaten freedom.

The problem is Islam. Islam is the enemy of freedom and the enemy of the US. Unfortunately, the hacks in Washington refuse to acknowledge it. The fungus-in-chief followers fore-go wisdom to play a game of skirmishes based on "politics and agendas." The history of Hitler allying with the world of Islam in World War II is forgotten.

There is a reason for the saying, "War is hell." War is not a game of skirmishes; it is an all-out assault against an enemy for one purpose – defeating the enemy. But, one has to know who the enemy is. War, being hell, is the reason the cause must be noble, just and righteous; for the sacrifice made because of it is sometimes a terrible price. And, the peace that comes from half-waged war is no peace at all.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.