There is a certain level of "target" that's unavoidable. There is too much history for us to have any choice about that.

I'm still not going into it fully, but I will say we have done ourselves a serious disservice by not settling into a consistent foreign policy. I know this is
eye-wateringly difficult, but that is not what Urza asked. IMHO, using this issue as a political football (and the media using it for ratings) has damaged, and will continue to damage, our ability to diplomatically unpick existing problems with those who could be our allies in this.

So, even though it might be "libtarded", my answer is that we have to elevate the solution above a temporary election promise (with 4 or 8 year u-turns), and stick to it. If I got to choose, it would be to strengthen our diplomatic ties as much as possible, making allies where we need them. I feel that if the neighboring countries were strong enough, and were so inclined, to oppose ISIS properly (and in ways that don't allow them to so frequently and believably point the finger at us), they might have less time/money on their hands to come our way.