You represent what should be a large cohort of people criticizing me for the post. But apparently all of them agree with me--sadly.
But I don't want the cliche "boots on the ground" (not knocking you--it's a cliche because it's dumb enough to be popular with many people) I want "bombs on the ground."
The minute GW Bush ordered troops in I said to my wife "That's a tragic mistake. They should visit with bombs, not visit with troops." I was totally right and the war is used as an example of "stay out of somebody's else's war."
I do not believe you can finish a war without boots on the ground. There will always be another faction to take over IF you manage to physically kill the heads of the previous one.
Bombing with nothing else is merely distructive, takes a LOT of oil out of circulation.
I am not interested in “regime change” 10,000 miles away, but if I did, I would be more likely to pick another country in the region to be an allied hegemon (e.g. Turkey, UAE), knowing they would do it because of personal interest, and not because of shared values.