FYI: Each Tomahawk missile costs apx $1.5 million.
FYI: Airborne missiles can cost more than $1 million
FYI: Saudi Arabia has a larger air force than Australia.
FYI: Most of the companies that make cruise missiles, bombs and other "expendable" munitions are publicly-traded on U.S. stock markets. Those companies don't profit unless we use these munitions and need to order more.
Over the last 13 years, our nation has become economically addicted to being at war. Publicly-traded companies are judged on their growth- and their stock prices generally reflect investor opinion on whether the business will grow its market and sales.
Because they are publicly-traded companies, there are likely many pension funds, 401(k)s, and other public investments depending on them to make, and grow, their profit. Which means selling more "expendable" munitions.
I don't like this. I'm not anti-war. I am anti-idiotic and BS war. I'm also a veteran. I'm against the supposed "urgent need" for America to play the role of enforcer over in that "neighborhood." Yes, two Americans were killed in a very gruesome way- but they went in there knowing it was a dangerous place. I don't blame them, but there are hundreds of Americans killed around the world every year.
If our "allies" in the Middle East want our business and money, and for us to visit their neighborhood to conduct that business- they should ensure that their own neighborhood is safe. Once again- we already give them billions. It is their responsibility to keep it safe for their customers... the U.S. (and others).
I'm fine with attacking these groups- but why are we having to pay for it? Why hasn't anyone asked how much this "many years" conflict will cost? If there was a conflict in south Texas or Arizona, would Saudi Arabia or England lead or even join the efforts? Of course not. Even if one of their citizens were killed. Or two.
It is the primary responsibility of a nation to protect itself. It is not the responsibility of the United States of America.