Boots on the ground

There are now more than 40 countries supporting or participating in the air attacks against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and in Syria. There is a general consensus, though, that wars cannot be won solely from the air. Air power can be effective in hindering the enemy's ability to fight, and against ground forces has both a deadly and a psychological effect on massed enemy troops. Still, we saw in World War II, Korea and in Vietnam that ground forces can continue to fight despite air attacks.

When enemy forces disperse and blend into the civilian population, they no longer present identifiable targets for air strikes.

Those who suggest we should engage in bombing to total destruction the cities and towns where enemy fighters are hiding need to give up the past and join the reality of 2014. Intentional targeting of civilians is now, by treaty, a war crime. Even if it weren't illegal, there is no way to kill every enemy soldier from 25,000 feet. Someone needs to go into the rubble and engage those surviving forces. This brings us to the issue of "boots on the ground" and who should be in those boots.

According to Dan Murphy in the July 2 Christian Science Monitor, there was "$17 billion spent by the U.S. training and equipping the new Iraqi military between 2003 and 2012." Despite this, when the Iraqis were facing the Islamic State fighters, they ran and left their weapons and equipment for the enemy. This is what happens when a tribal society's military has no loyalty to their country, trust in their leaders, and will not defend their own nation, cities and families.

The most immediate threat the Islamic State poses is to the nations of the Mideast, and the "boots on the ground" should be filled by troops from those nations. We should assist them in their fight, but we cannot afford to spend more money and lose more troops fighting wars they won't fight.

Jack Dragoni attended Boston College and served in the U.S. Army in Berlin and Vietnam. He resides in Chaffee, Missouri.