I was a yes. But then I thought, in 1916 the Irish did the Easter Rising when they knew they were going to fail, because they wanted a 'blood sacrifice' in order to stir the Irish up into all out revolt against the British. And it worked.
I think ISIS might be doing something similar, trying to provoke an all out war between Muslims and everybody else. Trying to make Muslims rise up and take on the rest of the world, which made me pause for thought, because why would we give them what they want?
But then I thought, well it's not going to work. I genuinely doubt they'd be able to get all Muslims in the West over to their side. Most of them probably just want a quiet comfortable life.
And I do worry as well, if we beat them in Syria, what's to stop them popping up elsewhere? They where neutralised somewhat in Afghanistan, then they just popped up in Syria. What if they just flee Syria and pop up in Somalia or Eritrea or Sierra Leone or anywhere else which is poor and has a tendency to instability?
I really don't know. But I do thing we should either do it properly or not at all. If we do it, do it like WW2. We all agree that there is a great evil we need to rid the world of, so we put aside our differences and cooperate with Russia, Assad, etc, etc. then just deal with the rest of the problems when he's gone.
And no half measures, full on boots on the ground war. What I've been reading is that ISIS know that when they do attacks like Moscow, Paris, ISIS know the attacks are coming and run away, and so we are mainly bombing civilians. I would feel more confident that ground troops could differentiate between civilians and Jihadis than bombs.