We had special forces in Vietnam and that didn't do us much good. Guerrilla warfare prevents conventional methods of making war from being effective. ISIL is only a threat to isolated Americans in the Middle East, very far from the vast majority of Americans in the Continental US. I don't see why we would willingly fight a war of attrition if ISIL isn't a threat to the vast majority of Americans at the moment.
I'm not saying spec-ops supporting standard troops. I'm talking about copying the very tactics ISIL uses and taking advantage of their resulting failure to focus attacks on a significant portion of the counterinsurgents, following with conventional tactics when the concept of Guerilla warfare is no longer possible for ISIL.
However I'd like to clarify that I'm neutral on whether or not America should declare war on ISIL; I'm simply stating how I think ISIL could be culled. Throw systematic takedowns of ISIL leaders in and they start to have issues commanding their men and training their recruits. Suddenly it's hard for ISIL to use Guerilla tactics when their tacticians are being thinned and their infantry don't get the concept. Only then would you even consider a conventional offense with the army or the marines.
And you could also argue that without confrontation by a significant power you can be damn sure the sloppily thrown together governments in the middle-east aren't going to ward off the insurgency dedicated to uprooting them. ISIL has also threatened with acts of terrorism within American borders, and it's obvious what happens when such claims are dismissed.
But, again. I remain neutral. The middle-east is a forgetfest and my entire argument for dealing with ISIL is just theoretical. I'm not a military doctrine expert and I don't claim to be one.
