The US federal government should bomb ISIS

As requested, I'll start off with my opening arguments, Arg 1: Counter Productive to the effort The only direct military action taken by the United States against ISIS is through drone strikes. The US is hesitant to extend this campaign to include ground troops on Levant soil, however is also equally unwilling to retreat their forces all together. Thus this alone implies the counter productivity of Allied bombings. One cannot expect to win a war of a military campaign with air superiority alone, historically, air superiority has never lead to victory in any war. This can be seen during the 70"s when the United States engaged in the Vietnam war. The operation "Rolling Thunder" was an attempt to replace ground troops with air strikes as the primary offensive. This campaign later proved to be disastrous for the United States and the South Vietnamese. A problem with this type of strategy is that airstrikes at most, can only achieve in temporarily stunting the opponent, not sufficiently disposing of them. It would be far easier for the ground troops (from ISIS"s side) to adapt to dodging air strikes then it would be for drones to adapt to shuffling ground units. The only way that Allied countries would make airstrikes productive would be if the airstrikes were followed by sufficient land forces. However, most of the countries in the coalition lack enough interest or capability to land a ground attack against ISIS. To compensate, the US planned on using the Iraqi military forces and the Kurdish autonomous region to substitute as ground forces. But the Kurdish army is hesitant and unwilling to move beyond their borders and the Iraqi army lacks the capability to move into Syria. The Islamic state does not recognize the border between Iraq and Syria. Despite their origins in Iraq, the ISIS headquarters in Raqqa is actually in Syria. So even if the US invaded Syria with airstrikes and stopped at the barely existent border between Syria and Iraq, then ISIS would simply retreat to its Iraq territories and remain there. The same could be applied vice versa. Therefore, airstrikes lack any strategic benefit. Arg 2: Attacks against ISIS indirectly benefits Assad Prior to the official establishment of ISIS in 2014, Syria was (and still is) facing a bloody civil war between rebels and the Assad government. Originally, this war was mostly between civilian rebels and Assad"s police forces, as riots escalated, protests turned into civil war. Today, at least a dozen or so rebel factions exist going against Assad and each other. Gradually, radicalization happened within the rebel forces. As rebelling factions continue fighting, they turned to more extremist means. This could be seen in the rise of Al Qaeda"s Syrian branch "Al Nusra", which gained much power in Syria prior to merging with Al Qaeda"s Iraqi branch hence forming ISIS. With that in mind, the inherent problem with attacks against ISIS is that by attacking ISIS, one indirectly benefits Assad. Since ISIS/Al Nusra have made up a significant fraction of the Syrian rebel forces, and Al Qaeda is a major supplier of weapons and missiles. Moreover, attacks against Assad would indirectly benefit ISIS for similar reasons. Sources: 1. 2.https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://globalnews.ca... 4.https://cnnsotu.files.wordpress.com... 5.http://www.bbc.com...