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

Seems like it might fall under the Global War on Terrorism heading. There's a medal for that.

I think we hear the answer to your question about why the USA is not doing more just about every day, 1SG Mark Rudolph: It's that we're a war-weary nation. The President says that all the time ... and I agree with that assessment.

I think we should equip and advise the folks in that region who should be taking it to ISIS, and not allow ourselves to get dragged into another war. But by all means, equip and advise the Arab countries over there to snuff out ISIS.

ISIS is not a country; they are a Terrorist organization. War can only be declared on a country...

The genie has to be put back in the bottle. To do this we have to step back away from the rhetoric and propaganda, forget politics and ideology, and get honest.

First, we have to name the enemy. Nothing will be accomplished by averting our eyes and being "diplomatic". ISIS is a terrorist organization. They are Islamic. Take their word for it. And they are very extreme in their attitudes. They do not fear death. Rattling sabers in their direction without any intent of using them is a futile exercise. They welcome death. Thus, they must be destroyed. Totally annihilated.

Second, who must do the deed? If not men of good will, then who? Sadly, most of the world has functionally disarmed preferring to save their treasure while America spends its to protect them. Many would be hard put to muster enough troops to put on a decent parade. I believe it was two years ago that Britain sent its whole Army on Christmas leave to save a few Pounds. Their navy, once the rulers of the seas, now possesses just 19 surface warships and 10 submarines. Is that enough to protect the English Channel? Maybe, but hardly enough to project power anywhere else in the world. How about the UN? Yeah, right. That's why, I suppose, the world is waiting with bated breath to see what we will do.

Third, how should we accomplish it if we accept the mission, not just to subjugate ISIS, but rather to destroy it completely. (Leave but one iota of this cancer and it will grow back.) Airstrikes? Drone strikes? Are there any who yet defend strategic air power as the complete answer? If we don't have the will to commit totally, then we should do nothing. There is no sense in wasting lives and treasure on another half-hearted mission. We've already have had enough of those to understand that we only leave a festering sore that infects the world with even worse terror.

Four, who is with us? I'm sure there will be some. Jordan sounds ready. However, most will abstain. I don't think there's much we can do about that. However, any nation that interferes must be considered an ally of ISIS and treated as a hostile. Otherwise, they will provide a safe haven where the remnants of ISIS may once again rise.

Five, do we have the leadership for this mission? Obviously the answer is no. That is why I do not expect any good result.

War should always be the very last option. We've seen the aftermath of OEF and OIF. Well, all wars in general- casualties, mental health issues, expense, civilians being displaced from their own homes, etc.

Since ISIS has no official nation, I think it's best to take them out from their roots. It has been said that ISIS is the most richest terriost network, therefore, crippling their finance would help slow them down (lots of Intel). Also, getting rid of ISIS top leadership would help in spreading their ideas. US involvement and as well as other nations is crucial in making this happen. A "mini war" where other nations are involved because their helping pull some of the weight
would help minimize a "major war" footprint. I'll quote President Obama- this isn't just US problem but the world's problem.

The root cause is really ISIS's idea- how do you get to the root cause?

The U.S. Has not declared war in half a century. I personally don't think we should be involved with the ME at all at this point.

You can't win a war against an ideology when you're actions would inadvertently support their cause.

That said I would go again of caked on.

If I were Commander in Chief, based on what I know about the threat and my limited understanding of all the moving parts pertaining to that region, I would roll up my sleeves and inform the world that the full might and power of the U.S. would be unleashed upon our enemies who torture and kill our people (and allies, and innocents, and civilians, etc.).

I would fully enable our special forces to gather intel, target, and annihilate the enemy. Period. No rules of engagement. No nice-nice. No kiddie gloves.

I would also work hand in hand with other allied nations to support THEIR efforts to battle this threat. Joint operations. Sharing intel.

This enemy does not respond to words.

They respond to power. Might. Fear.

And I'd give it to them.

Is it actually (legally) possible to declare war on an NGO (non-government organization)?

The world should declare war on ISIS.

This gets really tricky.

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP brings up some great points.

I'm going to approach it from a different angle.

Only Congress can Declare War. However, once war is declared, there is no formal mechanism in the Constitution to "Un-declare war." The best we have is Surrender Treaties.

The act of Declaring War, grants the President huge amounts of additional powers in his capacity as Commander in Chief.

The AUMF model adds a Check & Balance for "expeditionary operations" which I think are needed. If this were a National Defense issue, I'd be 100% for declaring outright war. If this were an actual State/Nation invading other states, I'd probably be at the 85% mark. But being a "stateless organization" and not directly related to our own National Defense, I thin the AUMF makes the most sense.