Obama says no combat troops to Iraq; U.S. weighs airstrikes

No troops to Iraq, but other options are being considered.

That was President Barack Obama's message Friday in response to the lightning advance by Sunni militant fighters in Iraq that could threaten the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki........

Pressure for the United States to provide military support to Iraq's struggling government has increased, with conservative Republicans blaming Obama for creating a security vacuum in 2011 by pulling out U.S. troops.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/iraq-us/
What is the predominant opinion in the US about how to solve the issue and stop this 'invasion'?

Obama cannot go back on the pledge to end US involvement in Iraq.

I wonder how many Americans, at the time when Obama made the pledge and acted on it, would endorse the Republican claim that Obama created a 'security vacuum' implying that he should not have withdrawn.

The manner in which the ISIS is moving in, the greater the delay in acting, would only make the situation wretched.

If no troops are to be used, then should Drones not be used before Iraq is lost to the fundamentalists?

The uncertainty as to what will happen to Iraq is only pushing up oil prices and that would lead to inflation.

Uncertainty over Iraq pushes oil price to three-month high
http://www.theguardian.com/business/...isis-militants
It will also water down the effect the Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. Russian oil will be in high demand to offset the loss of Iraqi oil, which has the second largest oilfields in the world, with the added advantage of being 'sweet' oil.

But he clearly indicated that plans are being drawn up to give support to the Iraqi military. That would most likely be aerial support and there were reports of the Pentagon preparing to order the George HW Bush aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf this weekend.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...t-9535810.html
What effect would one aircraft carrier have?