“a problem the US must now respond to.”

Why?

Hasn’t the US done enough bombing and killing people back to democracy?

Perhaps if they minded their own business for once, and used the defence forces for defence, they might actually do better?

There is no reason why the state of Iraq should be preserved, and no-one ever gives any reason why it should. They just assume that the USA should do something, which always means, killing people.

Also, it is laughable to talk of the USA government as some kind of force against terrorism. It is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/back-in-the-ussr-3/ , it has killed far more innocent people than all the jihadists combined.

And note the cognitive dissonance of the statists in observing the rise of a new state. ISIS was a “terror” group. But watch. Just like those videos showing a volcano forming a new island, we are witnessing how a new state is formed. States are not these cuddly toys that the statists keep thinking they are: the social institution par excellence.

The state is just the institutionalisation of aggression. And when ISIS has established its monopoly of aggression, the monopoly will be called jurisdiction, its threats will be called legislation, its extortions will be called fiscal policy, it’s mass murders will be called defence policy, and it will be entitled to a seat in the United Nations like other states

To Chris Wilson:

It would help consideration of possible options available to the international community to address the problem of ISIS if you could expand upon the suggested potential responses indicated in your article.

Merely pointing out the ill-advised contributions of various parties to the establishment of ISIS, and the inadvisability of the 'normal' or traditional U.S. response (being to bomb the hell out of 'em - as some in Congress are already proposing) gives scant guide to the actual nature of potentially successful alternative response mechanisms you may be proposing.

It would appear that the worst anticipated potential resultant from the U.S. engagement in Iraq has eventuated upon the U.S. withdrawal - the rise of a radical fundamentalist force founded upon the former Sunni regime's military and political power-base.
So much for the U.S.' development of Iraq's internal security capability - a total disaster.

Can anyone negotiate successfully with the likes of ISIS - any more successfully than Israel has been able to negotiate with Hamas? Particularly given that ISIS is not bound by any borders or any blockade or any shortage of 'means' or of 'will'? And as ISIS appears well capable of attracting manpower (and potentially monetary) support from many outside avenues - including UK and Australia, among others?

Is the establishment of a broad 'Sharia' Sectarian State acceptable to middle-east neighbours, or to the international community at large?
Under what conditions might such be acceptable?
What real alternatives are available? What limitations feasible?
Might such a State eventually be expected to moderate its demands upon its constituency, and eventually develop workable relations with 'the West', as has happened in and with Iran?

Negotiate in the interests of world peace; or let loose the dogs of war?

Chris

Some parallel suggestions about the limitations of military options in dealing with the Islamic State are in "An Alternative to Fighting Radical Islamism for 100 Years " on my web-site. This suggests that (as should have been done a decade ago) discrediting the ideology of Islamist extremists would be a far cheaper and more effective option.

http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/discouraging_extremism.htm#9_8_14

We bombed Japan with nuclear bombs on the grounds of not killing, [lessor of two evils,] people.
These marauding mass murders are killing people, in a killing frenzy, that only has correlations with the Holocaust or the crusades.
And if not stopped now, will eventually include the whole world, as these mass murdering monsters, seek to impose their fundamentally flawed false rigid religious regime on the entire world.
Can you imagine what they might do if they turned their current capacities on Israel, and the number of new recruits and allies that would give them.
And take from a defeated Israel army its weapons and munitions! ALL OF THEM!
I'm not for interfering in other nation's business, or putting foreign boots on hallowed ground!
But rather assist those that have a perfect right to be there to deal with this patent genocide, and by all means possible!
At the end of the day, ISIS will face final judgement and Allah, who will positively roar; WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO KILL; MURDER MILLIONS IN MY NAME, FOR I SURELY DIDN'T!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty

Good-oh. Will you be funding that with your own money?

Well J.K.J, when the movement spreads and threatens you and yours personally!
Then it's London to a brick, you will risk all you own and all our young Australians, to hang on to as much as you can.
When WW11 was threatening all civilized culture, with the annexation of first Austria, the Czechoslovakia, there were people who railed against taking on the axis of evil!
Because they had investments in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia!
Personal wealth and property, (money) can never be allowed to trump freedom or natural justice!
Nor can we of all people, turn a blind eye to the genocide now taking place in the M.E!
Had just one nation had the guts to take on Herr Hitler, with the very first annexation, and before he was able to invest other nation's purloined wealth in his war machine; we may have reduced the twenty million lost/sacrificed lives, to say just a million!
And given thirteen of my own Kith and Kin made the ultimate sacrifice, I believe I am entitled to have a view.
My family have already clearly paid with their blood for that right!
And if we need to defend freedom again?
I will not object to a wealth tax of say 10% levied against all property and holdings!
I take it a dyed in the wool patriot/proud defender of freedom, such as yourself, could never object to that?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, "I will not object to a wealth tax of say 10% levied against all property and holdings!"

So you will not be funding your idea, or at least you hope to contribute a lesser amount?

Well, given I was never ever consulted over the creation of foreign debt now totaling four trillions, yet along with 95% of Australians, are expected to pay or service it!
And that being so, without mine or their consent ever being sort; I think the idea that I should also pay for foreign military adventures on the part of my government are completely farcical!
Besides, we already have a military budget! And I and every other, fair-minded Australian or ex-serviceman, have a right to voice an opinion, where that budget should be spent and what for!
I do however agree with the PM and think that if we stand idly by and do nothing whatsoever to end or limit this genocide, where we can.
Then we will be judged accordingly, as little better than the medieval murderers committing these crimes and atrocities.
For evil to prosper, good men need only stand idly by and do nothing!
I think it is very interesting that those conducting their inquiry into my willingness to pay for my ideas, ought to be looked at much more closely!
If only to understand, where the fifth column is, (ISIS sympathizes?) with regard to future conflicts, we have little other choice but to engage in.
If those taking a pro ISIS view, think I should put my money where my mouth is, let it be known I have already done so, and for all of my working life.
Moreover, I never received beneficial tax treatment, given my super was taxed on the way in and the way out.
Besides, as an ex-serviceman, I feel I have already paid more than my dues, as attested by the shrapnel and bullet scars on my body!
Feel free to voice a different view, given many have paid the ultimate blood sacrifice, paying for your right to do so!
Rhrosty.

So are you going to fund it voluntarily with your own money, or not?