The only problem I see with the combined forces of the US and "friends" 'destroying' ISIS in Iraq, and in Mosul, per se, is that ISIS is actually Iraqis...in Iraq...so when attacked by overwhelming forces, they do exactly what the Sunni Iraqis did with the US invasion, they simply go back into the Iraqi general population until the US has gone home again. Then we will get the Son of ISIS...even more embittered and more radical and a worse outcome after trillions of dollars are blown up. That's what comes from meddling. More terror. The only way to destroy an enemy is to impose yourself on them forever, even the Romans knew that. If you aren't going to do that, and if you can't afford to do that, well then invasion and war isn't really a reasoned decision. Dialogue is better. Interesting that bombing a city of a million people in Mosul...men women and kids... is called 'liberation' if we do it; but is called mass murder of women and children if the Russians do it in Aleppo...when the outcome, the massive killing of men, women and kids, of entire communities, is the same outcome. Then come the refugees. Never a good idea even if it makes Obama and the Democratic Party look good for a brief minute before a Presidential election. As with the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is a very hard thing to kill a whole third of the population due to their beliefs and say, somehow, that it is good for them. That it is somehow a good thing for Afghanistan that the median age of the population is 17...and all fired up (radicalised and brutalised by you) to hate you for good reason. You want it darker?