War with ISIS?

I think there is a disconnect between how progressives and conservatives view war.  Progressives seem to believe that a war means the end of the world, that they would have to spend other people's money on soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and the military industrial complex - money that could be better spend buying votes and funding abortions, not to mention paying off their own wealthy supporters. To them, war means a breakdown in civil discourse and diplomacy - and diplomacy is the high calling that takes precedence over any other considerations.  Just ask the president.

To me, a conservative, war is the last thing you want.  The reason is that war always causes destruction and death - including the death of civilians and non-combatants.  The military is enlisted to break things and kill people.  War has only two outcomes - either you win or you lose - there is nothing in between that matters. If you do want to avoid killing innocent civilians, and that is more important than winning the war or saving the lives of your own military - then do not go to war. 

The military is not enlisted to win hearts and minds of the enemy or civilians in the battle zone. That kind of thinking is some new age mushbrained thinking that cannot be based in reality.  Just consider a foreign army invading your neighborhood - killing your neighbors, women and children - and destroying your property.  How can they become your friend after that?

Now, if some other party declares war on you and are actively killing your people, you no longer have a choice.  You must go to war and destroy the enemy.  In the case of ISIS, they are using US military equipment, along with others they have captured, to kill their perceived enemies and US civilians - all the while declaring war on the USA. How do we avoid war with them at this point?

President Obama has responded by public stating that he will not "put boots on the ground" (even though he already has).  Rather, he wants to "manage" the problem.  The president, to his credit, has authorized air support to slow ISIS down.  But slowing them down is not an option.  Why? - ISIS has stated their goal - a world wide caliphate slaving under Sharia law with them in charge, and including the destruction of the United States of America.

Just because President Obama does not want to go to war, doesn't mean he can avoid it.  This enemy will not allow that.  They are in it for the long haul - they have been dreaming of a world wide caliphate since the 6th century - and they almost did it, expanding through Europe and Asia until the crusades pushed back.  They seriously need pushing back again.

Should the USA be involved in a war with ISIS? Continue the War on Terror?  Of Course we should and we need to take the lead on this.  We do not need to put many "boots on the ground" for this, and I would not recommend it.  We should supply close air support, weapons, intel, and supplies to support indigenous fighters, such as the Kurds.

President Obama said ISIS is a cancer that is metastasizing and must be destroyed.  Well Mr. President, the longer you wait to get serious the harder it will be to destroy them and longer means a much higher body counts will result.

I heard a gentleman on the radio this morning said returning troops gave some real inside into the situation in Iraq.

In Iraq, the people wanted to US to defeat their enemies and then get out so they can impose their beliefs on the everyone there.  

That is precisely what Prime Minister Maliki did when we booted Saddam Hussein and handed the country over to him.  How'd that work for us?

Since we cannot win hearts and minds by killing the people, and we are only throwing away our blood and treasure when we destroy the bad guys for them, we should let them fight it out and help the ones that appear more USA friendly.