If you were the President of the United States how would you deal with ISIS?

I'm not sure how it we couldn't easily track a large group that is able to overrun cities, force trained Iraqi soldiers to flee, and make their way toward Baghdad unoppsed. This isn't just 2 or 3 cars full of dudes driving down a congested highway. How hard would it really be for a drone to at least slow these guys down with a few Hellfires? If the President wanted to help, wouldn't we be able to watch these guys over sattelite and then just drop some Cruise missiles on them? I don't want any of our troops back in Iraq, but this isn't something we have to go door-to-door on; these guys are out in the open moving from one city to the next. How hard could it be to take large groups of them out permanently?

If it were up to me we would drop the entire 82nd Airborne division on top of them, followed by a mechanized assault by our armor divisions. Wipe every last one of those worthless SOBs off the map. Perhaps impractical, but it would get the job done.

On a more serious note, I agree that we need a joint force to reclaim the country and eliminate ISIS. Our bombing campaign, in my opinion, is simply a half-hearted effort to show that we're doing "something." We need boots on the ground in cooperation with our Arab allies to bring the fight to ISIS for a change.

Tough question. But to answer, I must ask a question is return... Are we the World Police or Earth's Defender's of Freedom? If yes to either, we should be in Syria... and The Ukraine, and Somalia, and Nigeria, and Yemen, and...

If not, should we be an isolationist state or only delve into conflicts in which we, as a nation, have a national interest? If we are not isolationists, could there be a conflict in which we do not have an interest?

Keeps getting more complicated as we peel the onion. A great question to ask yourself is, "do we have a vested interest in The Ukraine?" I would say yes. Could the unlawful expansion of the Russian Federation encroach on the interests of NATO? If you say yes, then we are morally, ethically, and legally obligated to stand with them as an "affront to one is an affront to all" under the NATO charter.

As for Yemen, they are located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and we all know what the Gulf means to our national interests.

As for Somalia and Nigeria, is it not our belief that any terrorist organization allowed to flourish is a perceived threat to America and her citizens?

In my heart I would love to revert our country to that of the early 1900's. Those times required a "direct treat" (e.g., Pearl Harbor) to our nation or sovereign land.

We have moved beyond those times and we have accepted the role Freedom Police since the Korean conflict. We have also became an all volunteer military since Vietnam. We have a surplus of hero's who value the beliefs and concepts of freedom beyond our geographical borders or national origin.

I am honored to have been one. I also believe that freedom is an objective worth sacrificing for regardless of location.

Strengthen the budget for our military and those who serve. Commit the needed funds for their care and wellbeing upon their return. And ease the transition to civilian life when they are ready as opposed to when they are no longer needed.

I am very tempted to take this position: If the residents of the middle east cannot get their own s*** together and put ISIS in their place, then they can live under the rule of those angry teenagers. The Kurds seem to have their s*** in a sock, so I don't see much reason why other groups can't also have their s*** in a proverbial sock. I am not inclined to send young Americans to suffer and die for the ineptitude of those on the other side of the world.

Out of empathy, I do wish to support those resisting ISIS, particularly those with great potential to succeed and who have also demonstrated trustworthiness (Kurds come to mind). I also feel further empathy when I consider that ISIS would likely not exist if we had not invaded Iraq in 2003 (thereby inviting Al Qaida to Iraq, from which ISIS spawned). From that last perspective, ISIS is indeed our responsibility to take care of. But overall, the situation is extremely convoluted, and the middle east itself is very convoluted. I think inserting ourselves into the conflict is to step back into a clusterf*** that will not be resolved by external actors. Middle eastern people need to solve middle eastern problems, no one is better suited to that cause, and no one has a better chance at ultimately succeeding.

We could theoretically destroy ISIS, but who knows what middle easterners will let replace them. You can provide someone with food, but you cannot make them eat it. We make them too dependent upon us for stability, which is their responsibility.

I guess I've ended up forming my opinion rather than outlining a temptation...

They are doing the damned best to commit genocide. Something must be done....but what?

We have allies in the region that would likely support an expanded and coordinated air campaign. We just need to use more "dumb bombs" to keep the cost down. A $200k+ JDAM on a $100 tent or $3000 Toyota just doesn't cut it. Jordan hates them, Saudi certainly doesn't like them either. So get back into your jets, pilots...and start killing them any way you can. Strafe them if you feel up to it.

Then a ground campaign must happen. However, we need to let the US friendly allies in the region lead the fight. We just provide the power to overmatch our enemies. Once done, we can go home for the most part. Let the allied Arab countries handle the COIN/Stability fight. We can just keep certain assets in the area to ensure they maintain control.

Now for both campaigns to work, ISIS controlled territory MUST be declared a free fire zone. Leave them with as little to hide in as possible. At this point, anything down range is either a collaborator, or passive supporter. "If you want strawberry's, don't plant onions."

Last...and absolutely last option....Nuke the [bleep] out of them. But to do that, we will need Russia and China to understand the we aren't aiming at them. Otherwise, it's gonna get really warm outside for everybody.

This question makes me glad I was too stupid and unambitious for politics.

We left Iraq because the Status of Forces Agreement claimed Iraq hade judicial jurisdiction which became a sticking point.

We destabilized Syria by backing the Free Syrian Army. The other two factions were the governmental forces, and ISIS.

Our war paradigm for success is creating a democratic government, training, and equipping the military. Then we say goodbye and leave.

I will now endeavor to paint the picture of what happened. Carl Von Clausewitz developed his paradigm of war call the Trinity: Passion of the people, Rational approach of the government, and the Military Genius. Lets use this to define Iraq.

1. Passion of the people is hatred between the Sunnis, Shia, and the government. Currently ISIS occupy Sunni controlled cities as a safe have.
2. Rational approach of the government failed as it was corrupt and it discriminated against the Sunnis.
3. The genius of the military never was. It was fraught with corruption, poor leadership, fake soldier accounts to siphon money, and the general lack of understanding that equipment, vehicles, and weapons systems need maintenance.

Given these factors, the Iraqis were unable to defend against a fast moving army of 30,000. It did not help that we failed to implement a strategy. An example of this ineptness are the Kurds who fought ISIS with a few hundred people and asked us for weapons. They were on their last breath until we armed them several weeks after the ISIS invasion. Now they have several thousand fighters.

I think the next phase is to create a giant noose around Mosul to trap ISIS, however, I don't know who will do the grunt work in Mosul.

Not a damn thing, from the air protect the minorities, Christians, Kurds etc. Let this , that, and the other Muslim have at it, as they have for over 1,000 years!!!

Knowing what "should" be done, what "could" be done, and what "can" be done are two different things.

What "should" be done is to have an Iraqi government which doesn't treat its Sunni minority as third class citizens which the majority Shi'ites are at liberty to kill if they feel like it.

What "should" be done is to have a competent and honest Iraqi government that the Iraqi people can see is actually attempting to better the conditions of all Iraqis.

What "could" be done is to re-mobilize the US military, go back to Iraq, and blow the crap out of every place which anyone thinks might possibly be harbouring anyone who could possibly be a theoretical ally of anyone that the US government doesn't like.

What "can" be done by the US military is "none of the above" - the first two because that simply isn't the job of the US military and the third because the American people simply won't stand for it and that means that any political party which advocates it is going to lose the next election.

The third option is also the least likely to succeed.

Let's just say that the situation in Iraq is like trying to make bricks without straw while using peat moss for mud (and trying to do so outdoors in the pouring rain).

We need to attack ISIS when they are in the desert and discernible targets in the city. The open desert should be our ally. We can help create a corridor from Baghdad to Ramadi for reinforcement, equipment, and supplies, and possibly a corridor for the Sunnis to escape Ramadi. We can assist them on how to best defend the city. If ISIS captures Ramadi, I think we will see genocide.