Washington: After the murder of American journalist Jim Foley by militants there have been the expected calls for an increased US military engagement in Iraq, one that seeks to defeat Islamic State on the battlefield.
Some have come from the expected sources. Some have rung hollow, as they have in the past.
Shortly after US President Barack Obama's address to the nation early on Wednesday afternoon, the Republican Party's two most prominent hawks, senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, released a statement condemning the murder and calling for a US-led effort to defeat slamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS.
"That means we must get beyond half-measures, tactical responses, and defensive actions. We need to develop a comprehensive strategy – political, economic, and military – to go on the offensive against ISIS, both in Iraq and Syria," it said.
"As we have seen in recent days, the combination of US air power, together with the provision of arms and advisers in support of partners on the ground, can have devastating effects. We should step up these efforts as part of a broader strategy to eradicate ISIS.
"Unfortunately, in his remarks today, the President did not articulate a commitment to the comprehensive strategy necessary to defeat ISIS."
For good measure, Senator McCain told The Arizona Republic newspaper: "The more [Mr Obama] delays and the more he acts incrementally, the more ISIS adjusts and the more difficult they will become.
"And one of the decisions that he has to make is to attack ISIS in Syria because they are moving the captured equipment there and they are fighting."
Much of this is true, and the two pay lip service to the need for diplomatic, political and economic action, but at heart they are calling for an American military assault, as they always do. And as always, they have not specified what exactly such an effort would entail.
This is likely because they have a pretty good idea of what that is. Depending on whom you speak to, that is the open-ended commitment of, say, 150,000 US ground troops leading an international force.
McCain and Graham, and other interventionists, know full well that not only does the White House oppose this, so does most of Congress and the vast majority of the American people. So even do DC military strategists and academic analysts.
Even if every Islamic State fighter vanished overnight, the problem of an ongoing ethno-sectarian war in the region would remain, says military strategist Stephen Biddle, professor of international affairs at George Washington University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
With some reservations he agrees with the White House's overall strategy of pressuring Iraq's Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad – and more particularly its military – to become more inclusive in the hope of isolating Islamic State so it can eventually be defeated. He also supports limited US military involvement. This will be a long war, he says.
Until it is defeated, Islamic State poses several significant dangers to the wider world. One is the potential for the violence to spread through an area crucial for its energy resources destabilising the global economy. This is more significant than the possibility that it might seek to "blow up a car bomb in Times Square or downtown Sydney", says Biddle.
But it brings us to the third threat, the most dangerous one.
Terrorism has never been a major cause of mortality or morbidity in target states, says Biddle. He notes grimly that in 2001, the year the US suffered most from terrorism, more people died of peptic ulcers.
The greatest threat posed to America by Islamic State is that of overreaction, the spilling of blood and treasure, prestige and influence in a long war that would serve only to allow the terror group to paint the Iraqi government as a US puppet.
James Foley's murder was horrible, says Biddle. "But strategically, it doesn't change anything. Nor should it."
