I admire your sentiment, but that doesn't answer my question. What does america gain from involving itself in this besides increasing the terror threat domestically
Arguably one could say we are elevating democracy and increasing our geopolitical standing, but is that worth more civilian lives? Would say it was worth it if somebody in your family was killed in an attack that wouldn't have happened had we avoided involvement?
It can't be argued that it would make us safer as a country, nor would it make us any richer as a country. The war will 100% result in more animosity towards the US and ISIS has demonstrated that they make good on their threats. As of yet, we aren't their main target. It will also cost anywhere from 50 billion to a few trillion dollars like Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us because we will be the ones who will rebuild the country.
I disagree that it won't make us safer. It won't make us safer in the short run. It will in the longer term. ISIS isn't going away without a major ground assault from one or more competent armies. In the meantime, they control over 10 million people and billions in oil revenue. Look at what Al Qaeda was able to do on 9/11 with far less than that. And these people are if anything more militant and resourceful than Al Qaeda.
The fallacy of your position is that you assume they will leave us alone if we just pull out and stop attacking them. If that is what you believe, then you don't understand who these people are and what is motivating them.
The direct security benefit stems not only from depriving them of state level resources, but also from the fact that probably a quarter of the world's violent jihadists are now in one geographical region instead of being scattered throughout the globe. Killing or capturing the vast majority of them can only be a security benefit to the US and to the rest of the world.
There's a second rationale besides security. I believe it is legitimate to use our military for humanitarian reasons. ISIS is slaughtering people, raping and enslaving women, and destroying antiquities. This is a chance to use our military for the right reasons, unlike engagements we've had in the past like the Iraq war and Vietnam.
I don't expect you or anyone else to agree on this point. It is a subjective thing when atrocities have reached a point to warrant our intervention, and I'm fully aware that some people wouldn't want us to ever use it for this reason.
Bottom line, the rationale for ground forces here is 1000x better than it was for many past uses of our military.
I'm open to suggestions about how to eliminate ISIS without an American ground offensive. If we could step up our assistance in some way without escalating it to a US ground assault, and this will work, I'd support it. However, so far I haven't seen many alternatives proposed. There is essentially a) pull out, b) airstrikes and training/aid, or c) ground attack. If there's something between b and c that will cause the end of ISIS within a reasonable time, I'd like to hear it. So far the ideas of GOP critics of Obama for more aggressive action short of a ground attack don't sound like they will accomplish much more than the present strategy.
What isn't an option so far as I'm concerned is to walk away and let these people have a state, and pretend that it won't cause us any problems down the road. That's just sticking our heads in the sand.