When our armed forces go to war – and make no mistake about it, they have – Americans rally in support. To ensure their sacrifices are not in vain, we as a people also owe it to them to examine the goals and strategy of the conflict.

Air attacks have been launched against Islamic State terrorist forces in Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iraq. Some bombs also fell on members of another group, al-Nusra, in Syria.

Forces from Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates took part in the strikes. However, U.S. forces were the backbone of the attack, which included cruise missiles from an American destroyer and airstrikes from a U.S. carrier.

All five Arab coalition members are predominantly Sunni Muslim countries, as is Syria. Iraq is mixed, though areas conquered by the Islamic state are primarily Sunni Muslim.

In a way, Sunni domination of the attacking Arab states is good. But a backlash was not long in coming, as Iran – a Shiite state – joined Russia in condemning the assault. That will be a challenge for U.S. diplomats, as Shiite countries including Iran view the Sunni coalition as a threat.

But there are other obstacles in the way of destroying, or at least neutralizing, Islamic State terrorists. First, airstrikes cannot eliminate or even cripple the Islamic State. Like other terrorists, the group specializes primarily in guerrilla-style attacks, not conventional warfare. A few hundred bombs and missiles will only force its leaders to regroup.

Destroying the Islamic State will require “boots on the ground,” and President Barack Obama vows they will not be worn by Americans. Who, then, can be relied upon to provide troops – and will they remain friends of the United States after the Islamic State is eliminated?

Another concern, illuminated by the side-attack on al-Nusra, is that scores of Islamic terrorist groups operate throughout the world. Some may decide emulating the Islamic State’s brutality and goal of attacking the United States is a good idea.

Obviously, something had to be done about the Islamic State. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry deserve credit for assembling a coalition of countries to attack.

But now what?

Members of Congress, operating in a bipartisan fashion to truly support U.S. interests and military personnel – rather than in the unquestioning role of cheerleaders – should demand answers from the White House on questions such as those posed above and others that will be critical in determining whether the nation wins this fight.