How did Republicans describe President Barack Obama’s ISIS strategy at the most recent presidential primary debate in Las Vegas? "Wrong," "reckless," "left us unsafe," "leads from behind" and "feckless weakling."

Behind that rhetoric, however, the proposals offered by the GOP field contain little detail or largely follow the White House’s plan.

The biggest issue is how few specifics the Republican candidates offer on how they would fight ISIS, the terrorist group that currently occupies territory in Syria and Iraq.

"When no one defines their terms, deals with key issues like where and when, or changes in land forces, then no one knows how much they agree or differ," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Christopher Preble, a defense and foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, noted that while it’s easy to disparage Obama’s policies, the critics aren’t offering anything different.

"You’d expect them to stake out positions that are obviously hawkish — large number of troops, more involvement, limited amount of negotiations — but I haven't seen that, to be very honest," Preble said.

On ground troops and international cooperation

Virtually every Republican who participated in the debate has voiced general support for ground troops in the region, with the notable exception of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. But few have articulated how the deployment would differ from Obama’s current use of U.S. troops. Currently, there are 50 special ops but no combat troops in Syria and a task force of 200 servicemen, in addition to the 3,500 troops already in Iraq.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has advocated for increasing the number already stationed, but hasn’t given specific numbers. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has called for 6,500 additional troops in Iraq.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham had the most hawkish position, advocating for 10,000 troops in Syria as part of a larger regional force. But Graham dropped out of the race on Monday.

To our knowledge, while many have called for "boots on the ground," no other candidate has specified where these boots should be stationed or how many pairs are needed.

Similarly, every one of the candidates has called for working with a coalition of Western and Arab countries and arming Kurdish and other tribal forces fighting ISIS.

The United States has been working with a multinational coalition since 2014 and indirectly arming the Kurds as well.

On the air war

Since the air war against ISIS began in August 2014, the U.S.-led coalition has launched 9,011 airstrikes against ISIS, targeting weapons, checkpoints, buildings and positions, personnel, vehicles and oil assets.

All of the GOP candidates support this campaign, though some have criticized it for being limited. For example, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has said he’d "bomb the ---- out of" ISIS while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz repeats a call to "carpet bomb them into oblivion."

Trump has offered no specifics on what this would look like, besides targeting oil controlled by ISIS — which is already happening. Cruz, for his part, incorrectly defines "carpet bombing" as "embedding special forces" to select discrete targets — which "we are already doing," military historian Lance Janda told PolitiFact.

The notable policy option where the GOP candidates break with Obama’s plan is on the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria (in which unauthorized aircraft are prohibited from entering). The Republicans as well as Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton are for it, while Obama has opposed it as unsustainable and unrealistic.

To establish a no-fly zone, the United States would have to play a central role in its management and upkeep, escalating its role in the Syrian civil war, writes Karl Mueller, an analyst with the global policy think tank the RAND Corporation. Yet many candidates who support a no-fly zone also oppose intervention in the Syrian civil war, at least for the time being.

On nonmilitary measures

The differences between the Republican field and Obama are more stark when it comes to humanitarian assistance and overall rhetoric.

The administration announced that it will accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. Virtually all of the candidates oppose this, citing security concerns. Bush and Cruz want to make an exception for Christian refugees, while the campaigns for Paul and Graham emphasized that the ban would be temporary.

The GOP field also diverges from Obama in rhetoric, with the Republicans repeatedly using the term "radical Islamic terrorism." Obama avoids using the words as a strategy to isolate the group. Obama says he doesn’t want to feed the narrative of the United States being "at war with Islam."

The candidates’ ISIS strategies, in one chart

Here’s a chart laying out the proposals we found from the candidates. Bold text reflects a position that is different from Obama’s.