Is it time for American ground troops against ISIS ?

Listen. I know there are a lot of you out there who have no appetite to reintroduce American ground troops into the middle east theater. If you're a member of this club, know that I was counted among your numbers not that long ago. After 13 years of American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have certainly spent enough blood and treasure. I thought that if the Iraqis and Afghans could not train and field a tangible defensive military force after a decade plus - when would they? After all, it's their country to defend - not ours. We certainly did our part by eradicating Al Queda and setting up a democratically elected (though far from perfect) government in both countries. They have been the beneficiaries of American blood, sweat, toil, loss and money. Frankly, I would love to withdraw all American forces from the region and let them have at each other until the Shiites kill the Sunnis or vice versa.  Let them enjoy their centuries long hatred of each other. But the problem with ISIS goes far beyond the borders of either country. And unlike Al Queda which preferred suicide bombers and the like, ISIS is a tangible military force with arms greater than vintage AK-47's and box cutters. And also unlike Al Queda, ISIS controls land, and a lot of it. So barbaric is ISIS that Al Queda distanced themselves from ISIS claiming that their tactics were too brutal. This coming from an organization that flew commercial airliners into office buildings. Whether crucifying Christians, beheading 10 year old boys, raping women and selling them into slavery - ISIS makes Al Queda look like your local Red Cross chapter. Sure, we could walk away from ISIS if we chose to. After all, all this is taking place thousands of miles from our shores. But the planning for 911 also took place from a similar distance. We ignored the threat for a decade. And 3000 Americans paid with their lives.

Our current President says the ISIS threat is real. But insists that an air campaign will be sufficient to turn the tide against them. Virtually every military advisor says otherwise. Either he is lying to himself or us. Last week, he telegraphs our plans to the enemy by informing them that he will not introduce American ground troops in any assault. That bit of information was intended for a war weary domestic audience, not ISIS. Yet ISIS gains confidence with the proclamation that America's commitment to victory against them apparently has limits. He will try to convince our allies to contribute arms and aid against ISIS. But it's unlikely even the Brits will send any troops. Whether we like it or not, the United States alone has the military assets to destroy ISIS. It sure would be nice to have someone else do some of the heavy lifting, but ultimately the job is ours. I too wish it weren't so. But American exceptionalism carries with it responsibilities that no other nation has.

Current estimates say that ISIS has about 15,000 members in the field. With superior intelligence, arms, tactic, air power and training - less than half that number of U.S. troops could annihilate ISIS in Iraq. The Kurds in northern Iraq are finally being armed by the United States as they should have been a year ago. But I do not believe in arming the so-called "moderate" Muslims in Syria as Senator McCain and other advocate. Although ISIS is integrated in Syria, it is a far more complicated situation. I am less convinced than some that moderate Muslims even exist. Removing ISIS from Iraq and destroying their capabilities there should be the primary effort.

Once again, America is called upon to defeat a barbaric enemy who has plans to inflict damage at home just as they are doing abroad. If we shirk from this responsibility, ISIS may gain so much territory, power and influence that it will become an even larger player in Mideast politics and ideology. Should that happen, we may one day look back at this moment and wonder why we didn't seize the opportunity to destroy ISIS while it was much smaller and less effective.