Well... based on the article, it sounds like the war is being waged for the right reasons (ISIS is dangerous)... but it just looks like we are losing, despite manipulation of intelligence reports to make it seem otherwise.

Nuking a territory of another state really isn't an option. How about to send us marines to die in there by fixing us goverment mess?

Yes, unfortunately the U.S gov prefers to make bad decisions, like how they created fertile ground for ISIS to sprout to begin with the Iraq war and later supporting Assad's opposition. They want to recreate the "success" of Libya instead of doing the sensible thing.

Most states do when convenient

What happened in 1979?

Better the devil you know... but the US Gov. and frankly that of the UK and EU states are too blinkered by liberal insanity to grasp the pragmatism of the situation. Walk in, break shit, then when the shit hits the fan they're surprised things didn't come out smelling of roses and shocked the country descends into civil war. They did it in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lybia, bunch of incompetent bureaucrats... this is what happens when you put Neo liberals in charge, they fuck up but don't have the humility to admit it or learn. Next time will be different, they always believe.

This is the situation we've come to, Putin is stepping up and getting his hands dirty by supporting the Assad regime and trying to bring stability to the region. The Conservative government in the UK seems to at least pulled it's head out it's arse and using airstrikes on the Islamic state, although it already has been, unofficially. 

This thread is such a fail.

We're fighting ISIS for the right reasons, and we're kicking their ass.

My source? Well I did serve as an Intel Officer in Baghdad for the last year...

Most of the stuff civilians hear about ISIS happened about 2 years ago. You know that right?

And the Daily Beast? Really? They're not a credible or legitimate source.

Yes.

Most of the actual sources are classified. If you want to read them, get a Security Clearance. If you're not American, you're SOL.

Otherwise: NYT, The Economist, The Chicago Tribune, and The Washington Post.

For International or Internet: Al Jazeera, most German papers, the Russian RT, etc.

My advice, budding intelligence analysts, is to read offshore, and read as many sources as possible. Look at scholarly and analytical readings, not the stuff made for the masses. Take your own national slant into consideration. I have an American slant. Don't be afraid to look at other views that might contradict this.