U.S. strategy in Iraq, Syria

This is a comment on the op-ed piece by Jack Dragoni which appeared in the Oct. 3 Southeast Missourian. Mr. Dragoni expressed the point of view that air attacks alone would not defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He further opined that the ground forces which take advantage of these air attacks to fight ISIS should be composed of troops from the Middle Eastern countries which have the most to lose from the existence of the Islamic State.

I agree with Mr. Dragoni's point about the fact that air power alone will not resolve the present conflict. In principle, I would agree with his statement that the so-called boots on the ground should be provided by the nations facing the most immediate threat from ISIS. However, as a practical matter, I do not believe this will work.

From the time of the 1948-49 war when the new country of Israel fought off the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, plus a contingency from Saudi Arabia to the recent defeat of the Iraqi Army by ISIS, the Middle Eastern countries have not shown a great deal of military prowess.

Moreover, the situations which we have been able to stabilize are places such as Germany, Japan and South Korea. These are countries where we have made long-term commitments for the stationing of troops. I fear that we are stumbling into long-standing obligations in places such as the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Is this wise?

JOHN PIEPHO, Cape Girardeau