BOMBING VS BOOTS ON THE GROUND

Let's see, when Obama drew a Red Line on Assad if he used chemical weapons we would bombard and bomb him.  Assad did cross the red line.  In reply to possible bombing and shelling, Assad volunteered to give up all Geneva Convention banned chemical weapons (that did not include chlorine gas) and, apparently,y he at least largely did so.  But litteralists accused Obama of not following through on his word.  It was not that they thought he should have gotten more for not shelling and bombing Assad's home base, it was that he drew a Red Line so he should have shelled and bombed Assad no matter what.  I suppose these people feel that this would have done in Assad.  I'm sure we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and perhaps a lot of civilians, but would this have toppled Assad?  Please note sending American troops on the ground in Assad's home base was never considered.

Well, in the case of ISIS,Obama IS bombing and strafing them, but we are told by these same people that this is not enough.  We need troops on the ground to take and hold the territory, that bombing and strafing is not enough to destroy them.*  The number of troops asked for is rising from around 10,000 before to, say, 50,000 now.  Yesterday I heard the assessment that it would take 200,000 troops to destroy 40,000 ISIS members.

It used to be that American politics ended at our border, but that is long gone and now everything is politicized.  So it no longer matters what you do as it is sure to be vehemently criticized.

* The Kosovo War was an exception where air power won itself without boots on the ground.