In general, it is because an imperial power such as the US is desperate to maintain its client states.  It must dole out more and more aid and weapons and support in order to keep states which otherwise have little in common with it in its orbit.

Internal forces, such as US weapons makers, influence the government also.

From an interview with Andrew Cockburn in the Dallas Morning News:

Andrew, when people speak cynically about the compromises we make to our own stated values in our relationship with Saudi Arabia, the American relationship, they typically refer to the Saudis’ ability to supply us with oil, and certainly that was the case dating back to the 1940s. But now that the resurgence of domestic fuel extraction has decreased our reliance on that foreign oil, what ties us to the Saudis economically?

A huge amount of money. Well, all sorts of things still. The one that really hits the eye is the enormous trade in weapons from us to them. As I say in the piece, since 2010 … we have sold or signed agreements to sell, it’s now actually topping $112 billion. It was $111 billion when I wrote the article, but they’ve thrown in just over another billion since then. … That leads to all sorts of things, like a huge American military presence … in Saudi Arabia who’s not just protecting the regime, training … all their internal security forces. We train another force that protects the oil installations, and we train the Saudi military. These trainers basically double as arms-sales merchants, because they make it explicitly their job to sell American defense products.

What is Syria about?  Why do members of the US Establishment enable the destruction of Syria and its people, financed by the American taxpayer?

From Jeffrey Sachs:

A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama’s orders, provides organizational support and training.

……

Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America’s allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

……

…….America’s two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

This article by Alistair Crooke provides an interesting summary of US-Russia relationship and the drive by many in the US foreign policy establishment to increase tensions with Russia.

In Syria, the US

• wants its Islamist allies, led by al Qaeda, to control Aleppo
• This would take a major population center out of government control and provide leverage to oust Assad
• al Qaeda would be turned loose on the citizens of Aleppo
• This failed due to Russian military actions, but the US still wanted al Qaeda protected as they are the strongest anti-Assad force in the area
• the September deal with Russia seems to have the US agreeing to allow al Qaeda to be separated from the “less radical” jihadies and targeted

Is the US Establishment drive to demonize Russia about the US election?

“Which brings us to the complex question of the current demonization of Russia by the Cold War Bloc (which includes Hillary Clinton) in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Gregory R. Copley, editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs has described the situation as one in which the U.S. Establishment is deliberately and intentionally “sacrificing key bilateral relationships in order to win [a] domestic election,” adding “in my 50 odd years covering the US government, I have never seen this level of partisanship within the administration where a sitting president actually regards the opposition party as the enemy of the state.”

In short, the stakes being played here – in demonizing Russia and Putin – go well beyond Syria or Ukraine. They lie at the heart of the struggle for the future of the U.S.”

A connection between Syria and Ukraine?

“And Kiev too is deploying along the entire borders of Donetsk and Lugansk. (A description of the military escalation by Kiev can be seen visually presented here).

Is Poroshenko’s U-turn the American “revenge” for Russia’s “win” in Syria – to heat up Ukraine, in order to drown President Putin in the Ukraine marshes? We do not know.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has boasted: “I think I tend to be in more direct conversation, for longer periods of time with the President [Poroshenko], than with my wife. (Laughter.) I think they both regret that (Laughter).”

Is it possible that Biden was not consulted before Poroshenko made his annual address to the Rada? We do not know, although within 48 hours of Poroshenko’s making his Rada address, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was in London, recommitting to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as he signed a “bilateral partner concept” with the Ukrainian defense minister.”

Of course, it must always be kept in mind that none of this is in the interest of the American people who finance it all.

Why is the US govt going out of its way to hide the involvement of Saudi Arabians in the murder of US citizens, and why is it going out of its way to hype the threat from Iran and Syria?  It’s doubtful that it has much to do with protecting American citizens.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers?CMP=twt_gu

Foreign policy “experts” have their own agenda, and it isn’t keeping America secure.

From Robert Parry:

“In an April 2, 2011 email, Blumenthal informed Clinton that sources close to one of Gaddafi sons reported that Gaddafi’s government had accumulated 143 tons of gold and a similar amount of silver that “was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency” that would be an alternative to the French franc.

Blumenthal added that “this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” Sarkozy also wanted a greater share of Libya’s oil production and to increase French influence in North Africa, Blumenthal wrote.

But few Americans would rally to a war fought to keep North Africa under France’s thumb. So, the winning approach was to demonize Gaddafi with salacious rumors about him giving Viagra to his troops so they could rape more, a ludicrous allegation that was raised by then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who also claimed that Gaddafi’s snipers were intentionally shooting children.”