Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
If this is the case, then your strategy provides all of the fuel that enables ISIS to make war against us. Now, ISIS doesn't have that capability. They are limited in their ability to attack the west by disillusioned misfits that have failed to adjust and then go on a lone wolf rampage; or by capturing naive individuals that go to Syria for humanitarian/journalistic reasons. If you send a whole bunch of troops to go fight ISIS, you are handing them a present in their lap, which is the ability to directly engage American troops, and create propaganda. You've just given them the ability to make war. Second, you have given them the ability to recruit a lot more and possibly even unite disaffected groups to oppose American military intervention.The objective of any military operation is to destroy the enemy's ability to make war.
I don't see how this strategy would be better than what we are currently doing. It would cost more, aid the enemy, enable the enemy, and put many more American lives in danger.
What about the fact Obama has more wars now than Bush did at his peak. However, we have seen enough to know that you won't pony up to the bar
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
No doubt. But politics is 'the art of the possible' and in the case of Iraq, what could provide the longest long term benefits.If you try to justify Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone then there's plenty of other places that could use your help...
The man has morals whereas the lefts morals remain obscure. And unless you support terrorism you should fight against it but, as usual, leftists remain part of the problem rather than offering a solution.the list above is where I'd like you to start since you're now the moral arbiter and policemen of the world.