To bomb or not to bomb. That is the overly simplistic question.
Daesh or ISIS or ISIL, or just that gang of murderous thugs are an odious bunch who deserve to be bombed into oblivion, but will bombing them actually accomplish anything? If I were convinced that bombing would either destroy ISIS (I'll stick with that name) without causing an unacceptable level of innocent victims, or it was part of a well planned and coherant set of policies to defeat ISIS then I would support bombing.
But I'm not convinced. And I don't support bombing.
Bombing has rarely if ever managed to defeat an enemy – bombs didn't stop Britain fighting in WWII, bombs didn't stop Germany fighting in WWII, etc. The example bombing fans always point to is the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan at the end of WWII; I would argue that those bombs didn't by themselves stop Japan from fighting on.
Bombing has been tried against ISIS before – just look above – does it look like a place that hasn't been bombed? And does ISIS seem like an organisation teetering on the edge of collapse? I'm inclined to agree with those who argue that ISIS is made stronger by bombs because of the propoganda they can make of it. They certainly make a better case than those who just shout "Bomb 'em".
Come up with a reasonable strategy to defeat ISIS with a beginning, middle, and an end, and I'll support it – whether it includes bombing or not.
We have seen before that the West does not always plan these things very carefully – the second Iraq war was militarily well organised (as far as I'm qualifed to judge), but the aftermath wasn't planned for at all. We need a proper strategy.