Could be a strategic miscalculation on my part, but it doesn't seem like there would have been much geopolitical risk involved with using drones, Tomahawk missiles, etc to light up IS troop convoys when they started scurrying around the desert in Iraq last month...
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/08/gen-allen-destroy-islamic-state-now/92012/
You can't destroy and insurgency with air assets.
Wow he makes some blunders in that piece. IS is not a group of former Saddamists, for instance Al-Douri was a Ba'athist who worked with ISIS. Ba'athists are a fairly secular group, especially when examined along the lines of theocratic based regimes in the region. The bigger group which makes really terrifying are the Chechens and other Eastern European groups which Russia fought, the Al Nursra Front and other associated regional Sunni hardliners (Salafists), and radicals from the west who have an immense amount of experience in fighting and traveling. I do like his point about AQ and the Taliban looking rather backwards compared to IS.
"American and allied efforts must operate against IS from Mosul in the east across its entire depth to western Syria. In that regard, “sovereignty” in the context of its airspace and territory is not something we should grant President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Syria is a failed state neither capable of acting as a sovereign entity nor deserving the respect of one. We cannot leave IS a safe haven anywhere or a secure support platform from which to regroup or enjoy sanctuary across the now-irrelevant frontier between Syria and Iraq. " like that part.
"The Kurds, the Sunnis and the Free Syrian resistance elements of the region are the “boots on the ground” necessary to the success of this campaign...." not right now they aren't. That would require a lot of U.S. support that I'm not sure the U.S. is willing to give.