The Islamic State's threat expanded considerably beyond Syria and Iraq in recent weeks. Now that it has claimed responsibility for last week’s tragic assaults in Paris, downing a Russian jet, and attacks in Egypt and Lebanon, the demand for a way to stop ISIS has become even louder and more urgent. Today we bring you a cross-section of political opinions on how to defeat these terrorists.
Snippets from the Left
“The United States should help launch more airstrikes in the region, give U.S. military advisors there more flexibility, and deploy the special operations forces Obama has authorized with the option of deploying more, Clinton said. Most notably, she stressed that the U.S. needed to lean on its Arab and Turkish coalition partners to share the burden…
‘Local people and nations have to secure their own communities,’ she said. ‘We can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. … Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from Arab partners.’
Clinton chastised Republicans for their fixation on characterizing terrorist groups in a way that broadly indicts other Muslims. ‘The obsession in some quarters with a 'clash of civilizations' or repeating the specific words 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' is not just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve and it actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side,’ she said.
Snippets from the Right
“To defeat radical Islam, the United States should bring together all of Western civilization, combining our economic, political, ideological and diplomatic weapons, our intelligence and cyber capabilities, and our armed forces. No one country acting alone can defeat radical Islam. Everyone has his own role to play. But it won’t happen without America taking the lead.
First, assemble an alliance of nations that are threatened by radical Islam. We may have to hold our noses and work with leaders and countries we have differences with, as we did with the USSR during World War II. But we can put aside those differences temporarily to deal with the immediate threat. Putin, Assad, even the hacktivist group Anonymous could play a role.
The president insists the U.S. won’t send ground forces back to the Middle East. But this is still a military campaign. There is collateral damage in war.  We can try to minimize it, but not at the expense of losing this war.”
Snippets from the Center
“After Iraq and Afghanistan, an indefinite military occupation of hostile territory is unlikely to sit well with the American public -- however viscerally satisfying an idea it sounds to politicians on the stump.
Airstrikes and special operations forces strikes do eventually wear down insurgencies, as we saw in Afghanistan. Some Western officials accepted that the nightly raids against the Taliban were actually too effective, destroying the command structure and ensuring there were too few leaders left to talk to and calm down the young insurgents doing the fighting.
Obama says it will take time, and that is unacceptable to both Parisians seeking retribution and Americans wanting the U.S. to retain its leadership role in vanquishing terrorists.”

- John and the AllSides team