Terrorism

From continuing the status quo to deploying limited ground brigades, the next administration will inherit a range of feasible options, but only some would serve U.S. interests, and all of them come with formidable postwar questions.

An exclusively hard-power approach to stopping ISIS could embolden its followers, while soft power alone is no match for the group's theological pull, so the U.S. government will need to look more closely at how its strategies are interpreted abroad.

Small-scale attacks by homegrown radicals are out, complex plots to maximize carnage are in, and the long-term domestic threat to Europe is stark.

Because the Islamic State and other terrorist adversaries have become increasingly disciplined and well-coordinated, Western governments need to be even more so to prevent further attacks.

Whatever the outcome of the State Department's latest deliberations, protecting civilians through safe zones or other initiatives must have a more prominent place in the coalition's strategy.

Strong ground support for moderate rebels would be needed to keep any buffer zone in the northwest from falling under the control of al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate.

The following is an excerpt from Aaron Zelin's contribution to the Carter Center report Countering Daesh Propaganda: Action-Oriented Research for Practical Policy Outcomes . To read his full chapter, download the PDF. The Islamic State provides an unprecedented amount of documentation on its own nature and the messages it hopes

The Kurdish issue in Turkey stands on the precipice of becoming an international problem, involving all sorts of nefarious actors from the Syrian civil war.

The establishment of jihadi governance projects is becoming the new normal as ISIS and al-Qaida learn from past mistakes, but the long-term sustainability of these efforts remains unclear.