The US ought to put boots on the ground to combat ISIS

THE PROBLEM WITH GROUND WARSThe problem with ground wars waged by the US in the middle east is two-fold. First, it discourages sectional and national/international unity by allowing the US to deal with the bad guys. Second, in the act of dealing with the bad guys, we get the bad rap as the killers of civilians, invaders, etc.To the first point, this should be obvious. If a Western power can swoop in and deal with the issue every time there is one, why should sectarian groups, such as the Shia, Sunni, Kurds, etc, drop their fighting[1] to unite in some way to defend themselves? Why should nations with antagonistic relations, like Israel, Syria, Iran, etc, unite to face a common threat if we do it for them? If the US launched a massive ground campaign and essentially took the hits for these groups/nations, what reason would these groups have to organize themselves, now or later?The now or later part is important. Obviously, any fighting against ISIS will need some ground troops. If these groups are forced to provide the troops, and possibly work together to certain degrees while doing it, that increases the chance that, having fought together before, they might be more open to cooperation down the road. In a region as unstable as the Middle East, this is clearly advantageous, not just for them, but for the US as well.To the second point, we have to think about the bad rap the US receives when it gets involved in heavy fighting. Obviously anytime there's a war, there are going to be collateral casualties, and there's going to be collateral damage (e.g. homes, schools getting shot up/bombed out). This will be so if the US gets involved, or if forces native to the region get involved. So the question we have to ask is, what causes the least repercussions?Imagine your innocent family is killed in a bombing. Would you be more likely to harbor animosity for the killers if they were invaders in your land, not of your race, not of your cultural values than if they were your own people? One of the great recruiting tools for groups like Al-Qaeda has been the very fact that the US is in lands they don't 'belong in'. We could argue whether or not we belong, but the perception is there that we do not.If your family is killed by your own country's soldiers on accident, whilst fighting ISIS, you might be more likely to be forgiving. It was your own people, defending your country from invaders. I'm not saying people won't be bitter, but there are likely to be less perceived injustices than if we were involved, as you'll see.If your family was killed by the US, by people who don't belong in your country, by people of a different nation, you might be less likely to be forgiving. It'd be easier to remain hateful from the outset, as the US doesn't have a very high moral ground in your mind (this statement is supported by polling data of Middle Eastern opinions of the US[2]). If your family was killed, and you were extremely angry, it would be easy to latch onto the idea, "They don't belong here! This isn't their country! They're not our masters!"So what do we get out of this increased hate for the US? Recruitment for terrorism. Drives to take up arms against the West. Every time the US commits a perceived war-zone injustice, the likelihood of new terrorists down the road, and thus more killing down the road, goes up. If we allowed the native forces of the Middle East to do the fighting, and incur the collateral damage, we create less of this.THE ALTERNATIVESo I've established that US forces on the ground is not preferable to allowing the natives of the region to take care of that. But, just because it wouldn't be wise to be seen on the front lines, causing all the unfortunate collateral damage that comes along with war, we can work behind the scenes, in several key ways.ISIS has an extremely diverse funding operation, not relying on any one particular method of acquiring funding and resources[3]. Despite that, many of their methods are ones that we can disrupt.OilI'd begin by demonstrating one method that we are already disrupting quite effectively: oil. With repeated precision airstrikes and drone strikes, we have slowed their lucrative oil refining operation to a crawl[4]. One of the goals of ISIS is to establish an Islamic State, with boundaries and governance. This means they'll have people living under them. Currently, there are 8 million people living under them, paying taxes to provide funding[3]. By taking out the oil production, we slow down the economies of the people living under ISIS. When their subjects' economy slows down, the revenue produced in taxation will slow as well. Not only do we slow down their economic tax revenues along with direct oil revenues, we slow down their armored vehicles. It's not as if they have solar-powered tanks.Private donorsISIS also receives funding from private donors; rich sympathizers with their cause[3]. The US ought to apply the full might of their intelligence and special ops apparatus to hunt these men down when possible. In situations where military operations in a certain country might do more harm than good, political pressure should be applied. We might be in massive debt, have sub-par life expectancy, and mediocre education, but we do have one of the world's most powerful economies, and we hold significant political clout. This should be applied to ferret out those who fund ISIS.RansomingISIS also accrues significant funds from ransoming[3]. It may sound cold-hearted, but the US ought to continue its policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and it ought to apply political pressure on other countries to fall in line with this. In reality, not paying up is for the best. The money given is significant, and can be used to buy more guns, oil, vehicles, provide training, create propaganda videos, build bombs, etc. Paying up is a short-term mercy, and a long-term defeat.Not only should negotiation not be encouraged, but military action ought to be. Be it a retaliative drone strike or a special ops mission to attempt to save the hostages, countries ought to show that only loss of life is in store for ISIS members who attempt to extort countries in order to finance further death. By not paying up, and by doing this, we will likely reduce the occurrence of any hostage taking occurring, as there'd be no benefit in it for the hostage-takers.Support ground troopsAdditionally, there's no reason that we couldn't provide training, weaponry/funds for weaponry to the native forces that would be doing the ground fighting. This way we maintain that necessary degree of separation, while also increasing the odds of a successful ground campaign.Target social media campaignsFinally, the US ought to target ISIS' massive, and extremely successful social media campaigns. ISIS utilizes apps like Twitter, Kik, WhatsApp, and more to fund and recruit. Under the guise of charities for humanitarian aid, they raise millions of dollars[3]. These apps should be pressured to shut these accounts down by the US Government, and the US ought to trace the accounts back to their source and terminate those responsible for producing the content, with a drone strike, airstrike, or a night raid. This should be a no-brainer. We've got the amassed power of the NSA on our side; nobody should be able to openly promote ISIS on the web without getting blown off the earth by a Hellfire missile.IN CONCLUSIONA ground war waged by the US might be effective short-term, but it promotes further regional instability down the road. We should allow the forces native to the region do the ground-fighting, and use our own resources to wage a behind the scenes war against ISIS' funding and recruitment operations.Sources:[1] http://www.ft.com...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...[3] http://www.newsweek.com...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...