I missed the part where the Allies announced that it was a "no boots on the ground" kind of deal. I seem to recall there was this thing called "D-Day" where the Allies landed a little over 150,000 troops in one day. And two atomic bombs used in Japan. Is that what you're suggesting?
As is usually the case with progressives there is a total lack of understanding of history or war for that matter. Again we see an over simplification of the issue to the point of absurdity. The issue is not the aerial assaults, but only aerial assaults announced weeks ahead of time amid a direct promise of "no boots on the ground." So the comparison is idiocy in itself. ISIS knows the entire US strategy and have apparently figured out where the bombs will land. Hitler was convinced by some clever footwork of the British the allies were planning to invade the north, and the bombing raids were carried out to perpetuate that myth and limit Germany's ability to re-supply and re-arm. The Nazi's were surprised and overwhelmed, the bombing was used to "soften the target" for an invasion.
So the differences are extensive, starting with the fact the Allies had a strategy, one designed by the smartest military men in the west, kept it secret and carried it out. Obama has no strategy, certainly not one designed for military success, has pre-announced his plans and appears incapable of carrying them out.
It's time to start dealing with the questions, the unanswered questions instead of deliberately diverting attention from them.