First of all, consider how hard it's been to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Having technological superiority doesn't mean you can root out an army that has local support and has trained under the exact local conditions you're facing. At best you force them underground and then you face a guerrilla war of occupation in a foreign land. (See also Iraq.)
Second, ISIS might be demonized in the media, but from a geopolitical standpoint, it's useful to some groups. It may or may not be a proxy of Saudi Arabia in the region, for one. Second, they're undermining Syrian power and preventing al-Assad from consolidating his hold on the country. Together with al-Assad, they form a status quo that is better than either side winning. Finally, Turkey is quite content with letting them run amok south of the Turkish border, because those who are getting the brunt of their assault is the Kurds, whom the Turks categorically oppose.
Third point, ISIS is a useful boogeyman. Canada and the US like to claim that ISIS is a direct threat, but this is clearly bullshit. They're a threat to regional stability, but the link between ISIS and terrorist attacks abroad is debatable. However, it's convenient for governments like Canada's who want to toughen up surveillance laws. So you have a group whose existence is convenient, but who poses no actual threat. Would you take that out?
The truth is, the propaganda around ISIS is useful to both ISIS and Western governments. That's why you'll see, say, the Canadian government straight up use ISIS propaganda images: they're useful to both. But the realpolitik of taking out ISIS is way more complicated. So you end up with a lot of posturing and very little actually done.
First of all, consider how hard it's been to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan. Having technological superiority doesn't mean you can root out an army that has local support and has trained under the exact local conditions you're facing. At best you force them underground and then you face a guerrilla war of occupation in a foreign land. (See also Iraq.)
Second, ISIS might be demonized in the media, but from a geopolitical standpoint, it's useful to some groups. It may or may not be a proxy of Saudi Arabia in the region, for one. Second, they're undermining Syrian power and preventing al-Assad from consolidating his hold on the country. Together with al-Assad, they form a status quo that is better than either side winning. Finally, Turkey is quite content with letting them run amok south of the Turkish border, because those who are getting the brunt of their assault is the Kurds, whom the Turks categorically oppose.
Third point, ISIS is a useful boogeyman. Canada and the US like to claim that ISIS is a direct threat, but this is clearly bullshit. They're a threat to regional stability, but the link between ISIS and terrorist attacks abroad is debatable. However, it's convenient for governments like Canada's who want to toughen up surveillance laws. So you have a group whose existence is convenient, but who poses no actual threat. Would you take that out?
The truth is, the propaganda around ISIS is useful to both ISIS and Western governments. That's why you'll see, say, the Canadian government straight up use ISIS propaganda images: they're useful to both. But the realpolitik of taking out ISIS is way more complicated. So you end up with a lot of posturing and very little actually done.