When the American government thinks it suits their purposes to support Islamic militants, they support them

E.G. in Libya, Syria and the Caucasus.

When the American government think it suits their purposes to be actively against Islamic militants they do that instead.

The overall purpose is to keep the American public scared, in order to keep spending astronomical sums on the military and to reduce civil rights.

Often the purpose of attacking Islamic militants, is to recruit more Islamic militants. E.G. via the drone strike program in Pakistan and Yemen.
(Less often it is about securing Natural Resources.)
The more Islamic militants there are in the world, the greater the threat to the American public and American interests in general.
What better way could there be to garner support for increasing military spending (now 3 times higher than it was during the cold war - inflation adjusted)?
Or to garner support for greater domestic control, mainly through domestic spying on every American? The amount now being spent on domestic "security" is now many times higher than it was during the cold war.
Or to reduce civil liberties by passing things like NDAA indefinite detention, the effective repeal of Posse Comitatus?

The first loyalty and only real driver for the CEO of an American arms company is to increase the profits of his company for his shareholders.
The best way to get the American government and the world generally to spend more on arms, is to make America and the world generally a much less safer place.

If the American government's real aim was to reduce the threat of Islamic militancy, why haven't they done anything about Saudi Arabia spreading their extreme form of Islam, by subsidizing Wahhabi schools in the West?  

If the American government's real aim was to reduce Islamic militancy why don't they promote Western education?
After all, for the cost of the wars (over $5tn) America could have paid to educate every college age Muslim for the last 10 years in a Western style University and you would only need to do that for future influencers - primarily the wealthy and the more intelligent Muslims.
How many less Islamic sympathisers would there now be in Pakistan if the Americans had a program to pay for Pakistani's to be educated in Western style universities?
After all that is what the Romans did for hundreds of years (educated the children of the rulers of the lands that they conquered in Rome, in order to promote Roman values when they went back home).
That is what the British did too.
(I am not advocating the above policy, I am just highlighting the extreme stupidity of America's current foreign policies and how much against the interests of ordinary Americans they are.)