ISIS must be destroyed. And the day after?

Sanders outshone Clinton on foreign policy at the debate. But who watched?

Hill and Bern agree ISIS must be destroyed.

Are we even sure of that?

As Bern so monotonously asks about Hill's neocon enthusiasm for regime change, what about the day after?

On 9/11 GW decided al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that gave them safety must both be destroyed.

Once Chaney caught a breath GW told us Saddam Hussein was wicked and his regime must be destroyed.

So all those things were destroyed and the Jihad evaporated and all over the world Muslim terrorism came to a halt before GW's first term was over.

Yes, I remember that.

Everyone lived happily ever after.

Once in a while, somebody observes that the Jihaders want the chaos that gives them their opportunity to remake the world to their own design, and interventions by the Occident since 9/11 have provided plenty of it.

Why are we to think that providing still more, crushing this and that bad guy or evil organization, now one and now another, day after day and decade after decade, will now have the reverse effect and diminish and perhaps even eventually snuff out Jihad?

Still, it is likely wise to prevent the consolidation of the nascent ISIS state within the territories of Syria and Iraq.

The brutal ferocity and menace of these guys make the Taliban seem like schoolboys.

Joke.

Iran's seems like a constipated regime of hate-filled old men by comparison, though the Islamic Republic remains the greatest threat to America, Israel, the West, and Jews anywhere thanks to that.

If they lay hands on nukes or radiological weapons there is a real chance they would, out of common hate, supply one to some Jihaders for use in terrorism in Israel, in Russia, or more likely somewhere in the EU or the USA.