Isis is under attack in and around the last three big cities it holds in Iraq and Syria – Fallujah, Mosul and Raqqa. It is likely to lose these battles because its lightly armed if fanatical infantry, fighting from fixed positions, cannot withstand air strikes called in by specialised ground forces. They must choose between retreating and reverting to guerrilla war or suffering devastating losses.
Not to worry once Clinton is elected ISIS will be back - as a proxy army to fight Russia - remember Vietnam - and to sustain the endless wars that have been promised to military contractors.
The names and loyalties may change, but as long as the region remains destabilized, there will always be another ISIS as a target for the U.S. War of Terror and plenty of willing buyers to continue the flood of arms shipment into the area. That is the bottom lime for American foreign policy in the region. Destabilizing the region is not blowback as so many claim; it is intentional and the foundation for endless war.
Cockburn produces an interesting and informative piece here, but stops short of producing the largest piece of the puzzle: the US (and to an extent its allies) has an interest that the battles continue--or, to be more precise, certain elements of the US ruling class have these interests.
By now, recent history should leave little doubt, in this case particularly the financing of ISIS and other factions to destabilize the area, with funds running through the CIA and the Saud family