As the geopolitical landscape currently sits - no.
With the current president in office - no.
It is clear that bombing isn't enough. Ground forces are required, however, simply deploying the US military isn't the answer.
The world at large needs to wake up to this problem and man up instead of simply asking Uncle Sam to do the job. This is simply a re-run of every prior conflict of this type.
And I wouldn't send in American men and women to get shot at, knowing that this administration is far too interested in political expedience to really wage a war. Turn it over to the Joint Chiefs and give them their best case scenario, not some strategy that balances military strategy with political strategy/expedience. This administration will never do that, so in other words, HELL NO.
So if ISIS launches a successful attack within the United States next week killing 10,000 or 100,000 people, you would still say the U.S. military should not go in on the ground to remove this threat? How many American civilians would have to die at home to change your thinking on this?
Are we playing what if? That's a kind of limitless game and kinda loads the question more than a bit.
I did not indicate I was completely opposed to ground forces, in fact I stated that I thought they were necessary to actually get the job done of really doing serious damage to these people.
But, with this president in the CURRENT state of affairs and the CURRENT geopolitical landscape, no I would not send in ground troops right now.
I do not think that right now ground forces have a long term impact, unless the world wakes up to the fact that this is a systemic issue for the entire world to deal with. That includes Islamic nations cutting off their back-channel funding and safe havens, and other nations stepping up and realizing this is a long-term thing that must be dealt with globally, not simply by burning American dollars and men.
I do not think the current president has shown that he will do what is militarily necessary as opposed to what is politically expedient, so no, I do not risk American military personnel who may well be just wasting their time, lives and bodies so the politicians can look like they're doing something - right up until the political winds change.
If one of those things changes and therefore changes the scenario, it might change my analysis and therefore my conclusion. I am not opposed to using the military to go kill enemies. It's what they're hired and trained to do. I am opposed to running down a path that we've run down before and basically wasted our time, $$$ and people trying to fix something that isn't fixable with military power alone, so right now, in the current situation, my answer is still 'no'.
