From a friend on Facebook:

Here’s a thought:
It is not a stretch to say, at least financially, that the US government values military conflict above anything else. Indeed, above everything else. In 2015 for example, the US spent 54% of its annual discretionary budget on the military. Yes, you read that correctly. In 2017 that figure rose to 63% and, in 2018, 68%. They literally value the military above all other areas of government spending combined.
Moreover, at close to $700B annually, military spending contributes so much to the US economy that it would not be too long a bow to draw to conclude the US economy would simply collapse without continually spending money on “national security” and the military industrial complex. In other words, the US “needs” war. And that’s why we “have” war.
Nothing new so far. But here’s a hypothesis, an did relates to refugees:
War is one of, if not the, most studied disciplines in human history. Every aspect from strategy, to logistics, to technology, to casualties, to psychology is continually scrutinised, analysed and reviewed - largely, in order to make improvements. Is it not then improbable, if not impossible, that the “problem” of refugees and displaced persons, of which there are presently over 70 million worldwide, would be excluded from military thinking?
I think not.
So I put it to you that refugees, such as we have seen in Europe for example, are more than the so-called by-product of war. They are an intended consequence. A desirable "bonus" if you like, designed to justify ever-increasing military spends. An influx of huge numbers of refugees, disrupts established harmony and culture and inevitably pushes a population away from its natural state of love, inclusiveness and compassion, towards the totally unnatural state of fear, racism and fascism - all of which are necessary ingredients in creating and maintaining conflict, which in turn helps justify military spending, which helps prop up the economy.
What say you?

Kostas Antoniadis