Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated assurances to the contrary, the vast majority of Americans simply do not believe the U.S. will be able to “degrade and destroy” ISIS in Iraq and Syria without committing ground troops to the task at some point.

A NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll released on Sunday revealed that 72 percent of the public believes that American combat “boots on the ground” will likely be introduced into Iraq and Syria in short order. Only 20 percent still believe that Obama can deliver on this promise to the public.

Prior polls have shown that the public has little faith in the efficacy of Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIS in their Syrian stronghold, and understandably. The president’s strategy consists of identifying and vetting moderate Syrian rebels –a herculean task in itself – which will be followed by their exfiltration from Syria to third-party countries where they will be equipped and trained to fight ISIS. From there, the now elite moderate rebel forces will be reintroduced back into Syria where they will likely target Bashar al-Assad’s forces as much as ISIS’s, if not more so. By the Pentagon’s own admission, it will take years to create a 15,000 strong capable of defeating ISIS though this dubious process.

Those are a lot of moving parts, and Americans know a Rube Goldberg device when they see one.

Not only is the public skeptical of Obama’s strategy and believe that military commanders will eventually recommend sending American combat forces back to the Middle East, a plurality would welcome that development. “45 percent are in favor of using [American combat troops to fight ISIS] if military commanders think they’re the best way to defeat the ISIS army, while 37 percent are opposed,” an NBC News report revealed.

President Barack Obama may be able to make good on his promise to avoid using ground troops in the Middle East, no matter how poorly that conflict is going for coalition forces and their “indigenous” partners on the ground. His political commitment to avoiding the recommitment of U.S. forces to combat operations in Iraq (and a new theater in Syria) may outweigh his strategic concerns. But, according to the administration and the Defense Department, this war will likely outlast the Obama presidency. If Obama does not commit troops to the fight against ISIS, his successor likely will.

At least, that’s what the public believes. What’s more, they welcome that development. Far from being war weary, the nation is even more concerned about prolonging this war by fighting it through half measures. If there is to be a war, the public seems to be suggesting, it should be a quick and decisive one. What the president is planning is quite the opposite; a drawn out conflict which is unlikely to end in ISIS’s destruction.

On the matter of the ISIS threat, the president has almost no credibility with the public. On matters of national security, is a dangerous place for a president to be.