Trump Calls For Mass Boots On The Ground Against ISIS. Flip-Flop? Who The Hell Knows?

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump insisted at Thursday evening’s GOP debate that he would be open to giving the green-light on a massive invasion to overtake ISIS. “We really have no choice,” he said. “We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them. We have to get rid of it and then we have to come back here and rebuild our country, which is falling apart.” When pressed by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt to provide specifics, Trump uncharacteristically offered rough estimates of the number of ground troops needed to defeat ISIS. “I would listen to the generals…but I would – I’m hearing numbers of 20 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast,” he disclosed.

Before Thursday, Trump had never quite committed to the idea of a full-scale ground operation. CBS News explains:

But Trump’s position on ground troops has always been amorphous and without specifics. He’s even talked about how he has been vague on purpose, saying at a South Carolina rally in December, “I want to be unpredictable. I don’t want to tell ISIS what I’m going to do to knock the hell out of them.”

While the real estate mogul has predicated his foreign policy platform on his apparent opposition to the Iraq War (a reversal from his earlier stance when he supported the war effort in 2002), his latest position appears to be consistent with what many counterterrorism experts have been arguing for months.

When Trump says he’s consulting with “experts,” he may actually be parroting policy lessons. In the wake of the Iraq War, the idea of dispatching boots of the ground may be a hard pill to swallow for many Americans. But the fact still remains, air strikes alone cannot degrade ISIS. The only way to defeat ISIS is with U.S. assets on the ground.

In an editorial for The Washington Post, James F. Jeffrey, former ambassador to Iraq, Turkey, and Albania, former deputy national security adviser, and current fellow at the Washington Institute, argues:

But without U.S. ground forces, none of this will take place. The Islamic State will hold together its “state,” and its counterattacks — as well as Iranian-Russian exploitation of the Islamic State for their own aggression — will destabilize much of Eurasia and expose the United States again to mass terrorist attacks.

Surprisingly, the majority of Americans now seem to be on board with the idea. According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, published in November, 60% of Americans support ground troops in Iraq and Syria.

It’s unclear whether Trump is merely appealing to popular sentiment in some theatrical display of performative masculinity or espousing policy initiatives he plans on following through with.

The frontrunner’s penchant for showmanship (rather than realpolitik) on the campaign trail has undoubtedly electrified crowds of adoring fans. For the most part, Trump’s foreign policy strategy has consisted of feel-good chants and machismo.

At a recent campaign rally, Trump most threw some red-meat at the crowd and simply shouted, “We’ll bomb the shit of ‘em,” (the colloquial ‘em here is an apparent reference to ISIS).

In fact, Trump has been all over the map when it comes to foreign policy. Last December, Trump said in an interview with Fox News, “I would do whatever you have to do. I’ve been saying on your show for a long time, take the oil, and you know that. I’ve been saying it very loud and strong for years. I mean, I’ve been saying it for years. They’ve never done it.” Basically, Trump’s cartoonish answer mirrored what a 60s hippie liberal thinks neocons do. In case there’s still any doubt, China, not the United States, secured most of the oil contracts in Iraq. Trump’s “war for oil” meme notwithstanding, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where the candidate stands on key issues in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Who the hell knows what Trump will say next?