Barack Obama talked to the media last week about U.S. action against the Islamic State and went off-script, saying offhand that the U.S. didn't have a strategy yet for defeating the fundamentalist dirtbags muscling in on Iraq. But what would a good strategy look like? How do you solve a problem like Sharia?

"I don't want to put the cart before the horse, we don't have a strategy yet," Obama told the White House press corps, in response to a question about whether the U.S. had a plan to put troops in Syria. It was a crappy choice of words, but probably better than committing Americans to jump into the middle of a civil war in which there are something on the order of 200,000 dead victims and no real good guys.

Be that as it may, it's given all the armchair generals an opening to fart their divine strategic winds into the Beltway ether. There's been this lovely piece of Churchillian fan fic titled "Choose Enemies Carefully But Be Less Picky About Allies," and also this roundup of "six strategies" from "experts" on how to fight ISIS, most of which aren't remotely strategies: "fighting evildoers" and "defeating our enemies" don't really count, certainly not when one of your "experts" is an Iraq War architect whom a top general at the time called the "dumbest motherfucker on the face of the earth."

But you, dear reader, are at least as smart as that guy. So how about it? Without being flip about the prospect of war, or of disengagement, what would be your golden plan for dealing with these tools? Isolate ISIS? Go into Syria, or Iraq, or both? Fix 'em and kill 'em, civilian casualties be damned? Go it alone, or do the alliance thing? Fire drones and forget? Or pull a Ron Paul and just say screw it all, let's balance this budget?

Geopolitical concerns, questions, and unifying solutions in the comments.

[Photo credit: AP Images]