"Limited to air strikes" = "just the tip". Does anyone really believe there will be no boots on the

[Erose999]

ground? What happens when (as always does) one of our planes gets shot down and its a US airman taken hostage? Or if one of the "advisors" on the ground were killed or captured?

Furthermore, campaigns limited to air strikes have never, EVER worked to bring stability to a region.

The US is not responsible for ISIS. Why isn't Iraq fighting them? Where are the neighboring countries, who are threatened by ISIS? Last I'd checked, Turkey and Jordan both have large standing armies.

[cali]

1. well, I think it's certainly possible that we'll end up with "boots on the ground"but

but, a) no, our planes aren't always shot down and airmen taken hostage. b) I don't think the killing or capture of an adviser would automatically result in "boots..." c) I agree that air strikes usually don't bring stability to region. This one won't, but that's not the aim.

The U.S. may not be responsible for ISIS, but Iraq as clearly demonstrated isn't capable of fighting ISIS.

[Erose999]

2. Does the Administration, in all their infinite 3d Chess wisdom, have an answer for that though?

The rules and responsibilities concerning civillians who go to Syria on their own free will and get themselves taken hostage, versus American military personnel who are captured are quite different. I'd like to know how Obama would respond in that event. It hasn't "always" happened, but its happened more often that not in these types of interventions.

[louis-t]

3. Has anyone noticed the huge increase in tv ads for the military?

Army Reserve and Navy, so far.