I'll probably be in the minority here, but I agree with an open ended war. No, I don't think ISIS is a direct threat to us right now. But their ideas and their radicalization campaigns are. I doubt they'll be outright quashed within the next two years. We should certainly prohibit them from gaining anymore momentum.

Should we constitutionally declare war on the caliphate and legitimize them to the rest of the Muslim world? Will a bombing campaign attract more jihadis to their cause? It's a gamble either way, but in this kind of gamble taking action puts you into a more prepared and active position.

Fear-mongering has always been an important aspect of warfare. War is not successful without the support of the people. Let people put up the blinders, make them accept that civilian casualties are an unavoidable cost of a good cause -- insurance for the future. Allow the decision makers to make more controversial decisions. Slowly increase our involvement because freedom from fear is right around the corner.

I don't know if you can be forthright in communicating this kind of thing to a nation. It's a very old tactic, and maybe it's a bit outdated in the modern age. Are people more rational now? Can you tell them the facts as they surround the potentiality of war or larger conflicts in the future, or will their aversion to the 3 letter word make them instantly say NO? Should we object to war solely because the government is taking icky steps to garner support for it, and let those steps distract us from the bigger picture?

I don't know, that's all I got. Just some musing and questions.