I am only an amateur of military theory, mind, and it is obvious military should just be a mean to a political end... And the "political end" has been the lacking part in Afghanistan, Irak and Libya and consisted in pie-in-the-sky dream of nation building and propping up guys which never had the means to insure what we expected them to do. Not that I want to be a monday morning general : those failures happened because we have to compose with the reality of what is there and none of that will ever be a perfect fit.
However I would say that ISIS assuming the form of a state may make a good case for increased military action (...but that's what we are doing yet). At the very least, it would deny them some of the medium to heavy ordinance, funding and political traction. I fear that if allowed to grow, this brand of Radical Islamism may become a very grave threat (short of "existential"), and I suspect we would be better off with a decade long low level warfare than dealing with a collection of radical theocracies*. But the short term political implication of that is playing ball with Russia, Kurds, Iran and/or Bachar el Assad (Asshole must be gleeful as of now) which comes with its own massive set of problems as far as culling the impetus between all those terrorist Sunni movements.
Hell man, if I had a solution, I would have run for elections.
* The counterpoint to that is that to some extent Iran has normalized its status as a nation-state. Some reporters who have met ISIS leaders says that some of them have hinted at that. Have a hard time feeling comfortable with the idea.
EDIT : Would maybe more fitting in the politics thread indeed. Will further respond there.
