Do we ever learn from history?

Colonel you are absolutely correct! Without boots on the ground all the bombing is for not. All we will be doing with air strikes is chasing the enemy all over. You need boots on the ground in order try and keep them from running all over like a bunch of cockroaches when you turn the lights on.

Sir,

I think one part of the issue is that we assumed the local fighters, who we trained and equipped, would be more effective. We keep hearing of Iraqi soldiers throwing down arms and running away, even though they largely outnumber the ISIS fighters. I think we were hoping that our air power would be the supplement to the local trained army.

You'd think those that make these decisions (politicians) would eventually figure this out....but then again there is a lot you'd think that they (politicians) would figure out that just never seems to come to pass.

It's obvious that Santayana isn't required reading these days (or for the last 6 decades for that matter).

I spoke about ISIS at my Holocaust Memorial service. Just as the world mostly shrugged as Hitler gained control of Europe, the world is mostly shrugging right now, with ISIS. The reality that ISIS has Boko Haram, AQ, Taliban and other terrorists groups paying fealty to them, meaning that much of Africa and the Middle East is in their reach. Because they have groups in the Sinai at Rafa, and in Libya, it's just a short hop to Europe now.

If the UN/NATO/US/etc don't start acting soon, this world will get ugly really quickly.

Like it or not, as a country we created this mess, so, imho, we bear a moral obligation to clean it up. I know that's easy for me to say, since I am undeployable, but I'm sure that many on this list would agree...

Unless one is prepared to exercise a nuclear option with a commitment towards the total extermination of one's adversary and ensuring the adversary's territory remains uninhabitable for generations, then Airpower alone can NEVER and WILL NEVER win a war...

Pape makes the compelling case...

http://www.amazon.com/Bombing-Win-Coercion-Cornell-Security/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=1-1&keywords=bombing+to+win+air+power+and+coercion+in+war

The way the world is rolling currently, then I would have to say that most people in charge have a massive brain-fart/brain-dump when it comes to history. This usually happens when they enter a close relationship with the Good Idea Fairy

Emails, phone calls, press conferences from the comforts of a plush golf course aint gonna cut it....I have one thing very much in common with those we are fighting, I don't play golf....

You ever hear of the adage "its the old men that go and declare war but the young men that must go and die".....well too few of our elected officials have skin in the game today - maybe they'd act differently if we had more veterans in the seats, with that being said, I agree with you COL Charles Williams, an air campaign alone aint the answer here.

The same folks running operations released five Taliban guys for one deserter and now we may have to fight these dudes again. That is an example of how things are done.

COL Williams, you are entirely correct! After visiting with both the PRTs and the Imbedded PRTs returning from Iraq in DC and later a combat division and their commanders from Afghanistan I came to an undeniable conclusion. Force alone is not the answer. Without an infused strategic and diplomatic solution, the war games will only continue as often...or possibly more often...than they do currently. Somehow the DOD and the DOS have to sit down at the table as co-dependent strategists and the political leaders accept that winning battles alone does not transfer into winning the war...period! Prosecution is easy....strategic justice and weighing them at the cost of redeployment back to a war zone without pragmatism is not.

Sir: Agree with your sentiment here, fahrenbach pegged this very well 50 some years ago.

But, strategically, if we look at big picture national strategic objectives, one can place air strikes against ISIS in their appropriate place, as just one of the means being employed to counter-ISIS (the others being coalitions, Special ops direct action, cyber, training Iraqi security forces, etc) to support the containment of ISIS (the "ways") so as to maintain the structure/territory/viability of a unified Iraqi government and state (the "ends").

And this counter-ISIS strategy is but part of broader regional strategy, the centerpiece of which is stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the short-term (or defending Israel, depending on how you want to frame it).

So, in both cases (counter-ISIS strategy and regional strategy), let's not dumb this down to "we're only doing air strikes" because this is just inaccurate and because it is a perspective that ignores the strategy that exists and is evident to those who look for it.

Whether these strategies will work or are appropriate---that is a different matter.

But we are clearly doing substantially more than a few air strikes here and there.