Where I do NOT agree with the article is when it basically endorses the Obama policy of containment and gradual degradation of ISIS. For one thing, this subjects the Kurds and moderate Iraqis to a very prolonged war and continued horrors. It also assumes ISIS can be contained - a foolish assumption: These people may be 7th century savages in mindset, but they are cunning as Satan. The author evidently has not considered that now ISIS has popped up in force in Libya.
ISIS wants a BIG fight, and if they don’t get it, they will learn and do what is necessary to make it happen. That means, I believe, assuming no real change in US leadership, killing Americans. Lots of them.
The author also assumes that because the US (ie., Obama) blew it in Iraq, we will do so again, merely causing the cycle to repeat. I would argue that we too, can learn — if we can avoid electing another foolish lib, that is!
The author further neglects the presence of moderate Sunni tribes in the Sunni (now Isis controlled or pressured) parts of Iraq, who are already pleading for help (as in weapons) to re-establish their security. These tribes would be powerful, but we de-fanged them after taking out Saddam.
Now... It might not be necessary to wipe out ISIS entirely in battle. One idea might be to simple take Dabiq (it is not a large town, only 3400 people or so, in 2004). Remove any remaining civilians (there can’t be many), level it, and scatter around some moderately half life radioactive material to keep anyone away for 20 years...
If the entirety of Dabiq were routed, would that make a difference to ISIS/Daesh?
I thought the point about the difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS being that the existence of ISIS was utterly dependent on having land, that is, the territory of their “new caliphate,” as proclaimed by their “caliph,” Al Baghdadi, is vital. Take away the land they have seized by killing them and retaking it, and they evaporate.
But that’s going to mean ground troops. Bombing alone isn’t going to do it, unless we’re willing to do saturation bombing of any inhabited area of their territory, causing a lot of collateral damage.
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, because it depends on attempting to impose Islamic law on existing countries through fear and gradual acquisition of legal power, is a different matter.