The lack of a significant ground force means not only that we can't "paint" targets, but that we also can't conduct accurate battle damage assessment to figure out if what we hit had the desired effect. Also, once the initial targets are "crossed off" the list, who is going to figure out what to hit next? Satellite imagery and drone feeds only go so far...you need to confirm that the building where ISIS vehicles were parked yesterday isn't full of kids today.
If we've decided, as a nation, that we're going to destroy (rather than just contain) ISIS, then we need to stop telling ourselves that this can be done without a sizable ground force.
And while I think containment is the better option (and ultimately the one we are bound to fall back to), it's just not very sexy and doesn't placate the talking heads in the media.
The lack of a significant ground force means not only that we can't "paint" targets, but that we also can't conduct accurate battle damage assessment to figure out if what we hit had the desired effect. Also, once the initial targets are "crossed off" the list, who is going to figure out what to hit next? Satellite imagery and drone feeds only go so far...you need to confirm that the building where ISIS vehicles were parked yesterday isn't full of kids today.
If we've decided, as a nation, that we're going to destroy (rather than just contain) ISIS, then we need to stop telling ourselves that this can be done without a sizable ground force.
And while I think containment is the better option (and ultimately the one we are bound to fall back to), it's just not very sexy and doesn't placate the talking heads in the media.
Technically, Sheikh Abd al-Aziz Al Sheikh said that Muslims should fight IS *if* they are killing other Muslims. I think that is a big caveat.