Obama says he wants to destroy ISIS, but will not escalate until there is an Iraqi army that is strong enough to win with help.

This means he is rejecting the pressure to do something rash and foolish.

However, he is straining the limits of the War Powers Act to the breaking point.

ISIS propaganda videos are designed to recruit individual supporters by making ISIS look tough and harsh.

It is a mistake to go to war because ISIS killed two Americans, or because ISIS kills people in a barbaric way. As has been pointed out, Saudi Arabia frequently kills people by beheading, and the practice is just as barbaric there.

The murder of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians, and religious oppression of those that live, are much bigger reasons to fight ISIS, but only if that is likely to be effective.

Could it be effective? This article, although it frames the issue in terms of "what do we need in order to win" rather than "does the approach make sense", points out that defeating ISIS is unlikely unless it is done by a more powerful army which is determined to fight and defeat ISIS, and which can cut off ISIS from its supply of recruits.

A foreign army would tend rather to boost ISIS recruiting as a reaction, while the Iraqi army lacks the commitment that could enable it to win.

The blue whales of California have recovered their numbers almost to pre-whaling levels, thanks to lots of protection efforts.

However, globally the blue whale population is only around 2% of what it was 140 years ago.

Boko Haram has seized towns and held them, and the Nigerian army is not fighting back very well.

The cease fire in Ukraine is holding so far.

The ICC case against Uhuru Kenyatta has collapsed because Kenya's refusal to cooperate has prevented collecting evidence.