Perhaps you can elaborate, but I don't see the mistake. If Putin wants to get bogged down in the Middle East to bolster a weakened ally that doesn't even have friends left in his own region, then by all means have at it. If Russia is fully successful, ISIS is defeated and we have the Syrian status quo, pre-Arab spring, which is an Assad government.
I don't expect that Russia can "beat" ISIS with air power any more than we could.
The mistake was them getting through the door in the first place. Quagmire or not, do you seriously see Russia leaving the region anytime soon? I think they're there to stay just like we were the moment Saddam walked into Kuwait. Russia continuing to beef up its presence in the Middle East isn't a good thing. A few years ago the US may have been a cunt hair away from taking Assad out or in the least simply yelling for "regime change". Now there's a snowball's chance in hell of that occurring without risking WWIII which we obviously aren't going to do.
US initially opposed to Assad, Russia propping him up, all sides trying to take on ISIS yet not on the same page with a potential redrawing of the map in the near future. This is reality yet sounds like a mod for CIv V. It's crazy and IMO more Americans should be paying attention to what is going on.
Flagg makes good points about wanting the US in a limited role but what happens if the situation deteriorates? If I happened to be president during this crisis I wouldn't want to send in ground troops either but if ground troops are "off the table" as they say and the use of special ops and drone strikes aren't having the desired effect, what is plan B?
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
-Adolf Hitler