In this TIME essay, Elliot Ackerman reflects on the 2015 Paris attacks and argues that defeating ISIS required treating the organization not only as a terrorist network, but as a territorial state vulnerable to conventional military force.

ISIS as a Territorial Enemy

Ackerman argues that by seizing and governing territory, ISIS gave itself a visible military structure. Unlike a dispersed terrorist network, it controlled cities, oil infrastructure, borders, and armed forces that could be confronted and dismantled.

The Limits of a Light Footprint

The essay criticizes a strategy built primarily on airstrikes, targeted killings, and local surrogate forces. Ackerman contends that killing individual leaders could not substitute for defeating ISIS units, retaking territory, and destroying the organization’s ability to function as a state.

What a Real War Would Require

A serious campaign, he writes, would demand a capable multinational coalition, substantial ground forces, cooperation with difficult partners, and a plan for post-conflict governance. Even battlefield victory would not eliminate extremist ideology or prevent instability without a durable political settlement.

The Personal Cost of Recommitment

Ackerman frames the strategic argument through a fellow veteran’s wedding, where news of the Paris attacks intrudes on a celebration of civilian life. The moment captures what renewed war would mean for veterans who believed they had finally moved beyond it.

Read the Original Essay

Read “Iraq Vet: What Real War With ISIS Would Mean” at TIME →