If by 'ground troops' we mean conventional Army/Marines formations, then absolutely not. Airstrikes and Special Operations forces is the most we should be contributing. Our allies in the region should be providing the conventional forces in our war against the Islamic State.
While it is true that Americans seem to be warming up to a more aggressive stance, I think that this is one of those things where wording really counts. Would Americans really support an Iraq War level commitment (which was 200,000 troops and trillions of $?). And do they really want us to invade Syria with combat troops? (not too long ago they were against even air strikes in Syria)
We don't need combat troops to destroy the Assad regime -if we really wanted to oust him, all that would be required is to provide the insurgents air cover, and they could take care of the rest. Bashar al-Assad is not Saddam Hussein -he is far weaker.
