The only strategy that can defeat ISIS is one no Republican would ever embrace

SSG Michael Hartsfield Human beings change their view of the world very slowly with the exception of when a specific event causes the change. The things that we value are the same things we hold out to be true. Are we really fighting to exterminate Daesh or are we fighting to save the Middle East? Daesh is as representative of the Middle Eastern culture as the KKK or Black Panthers are to the United States. The difference is that conditions in the Middle East allowed it to spread like a wildfire out of control.

Seems like the article's point is pull out of an unwinnable fight(because they're just that stubborn), cut them off financially(because money is their true lifeblood), and let the region burn(because the various cultures are heading toward that direction) until we get people we can work with. While I agree ISIS is not as dangerous in the overall scheme, there is still the perception/narrative/perspective issue of letting them run wild unchecked. Sure the countries we have intervened in were not up to the initial task of dealing with them effectively, but that doesn't mean we give up. It's not like all the blood and treasure will come back if we stop now. There are no simple solutions, so I would rather have candidates that stop giving simple answers with no real military/economic/cultural foundation.

While his message of isolationism and defensive tactics may sound appealing they never work. The assumption that if we pull out the locals will work their problems is ludicrous. There is too much wealth in the region (oil) to keep players like Russia out of the fight. Secondly the notion of WWI national borders is nonsensical. This isn't a civil strife it's a global jihad, they aren't interested in taking over Syria, they are interested in taking over the Islamic Core areas then conquering the world. If you think for a minute that they can be destroyed by hitting supply lines then retreating you are foolish, supply lines can be rebuilt and without drones, boots on the ground, you can't find the new supply lines to destroy them. Appeasement (which is exactly what the article is pushing for) has never worked and will never work when you are dealing with radical tyrants bound of conquering. Initiative, Attack are basic tenants of war that are as sound of military principles today as they were when they were first written about, thousands of years ago. Defense cannot win wars.

So let me end with what is going to happen, our nation will continue to non-committally piddle around with ISIS, currently it looks like they are loosing ground which will dramatically hurt their recruiting, especially since someone told us where their money was at. ISIS will either implode and a new Radical Terrorist group will rise in their ashes, or they will regroup and continue the fight, either way our piddleance will embolden them until they attack the US in devastating manner 9-11 or similar. Then our nation will finally commit to their irradiation.
Please watch the video for clarification to these points. Macarthurs points are exactly what is wrong with this article and its author's mentality.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45A4E80A0CF16C10 The end of part 3 and part 4 are very applicable when MacArthur details the political non-commitment to the Korean war how it can only end in a long and indecisive campaign with high attrition. That the political commitment needs to change before victory will happen.