One year ago yesterday President Obama ordered the bombing of ISIL.
That's enough time to take stock of what we have and haven't accomplished.

There's been 5,946 coalition airstrikes, almost all of them American, nearly evenly divided between Iraq and Syria.

As of a month ago, the cost of the operation was $3.21 Billion, and costing $9.4 Million a day.

There was 400 U.S. forces in Iraq a year ago. There are more than 3,500 in Iraq today.
It needs to be noted that when President Obama first announced airstrikes a year ago he said, "as commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be fighting another war in Iraq."

7 U.S. servicemen have died in non-combat operations. That's more Americans than ISIS has executed.

At least 459 civilians have been killed by our airstrikes, including at least 100 children.

Pentagon claims to have killed 15,000 jihadists, although with no ground verification for these numbers.

ISIS has been pushed out of roughly 25% of the territory it has controlled at one point.

So what does it all this add up to? Surprisingly little.

According to officials familiar with the situation, US intelligence agencies have offered a new assessment of ISIS, cautioning that a solid year of US airstrikes against them in Iraq and Syria hasn’t left ISIS any weaker than they were when the strikes began.
Surprisingly, even though the military has been bragging about how great the war is going throughout the year, military commanders aren’t disputing the assessment, and are simply saying that they believe progress will come at some point in the future, when Iraq retakes Ramadi.

That's a lot of time, money, and blood for no real progress. Generally if you aren't winning a war against an insurgency then you are losing it.

Some will say, "At least we are doing something." But that thinking only works if you don't count the 100+ dead children from our airstrikes.

Like every quagmire that the United States finds itself in, the solution is always to ratchet up the killing. A full-scale ground invasion? Why not. Maybe we need to kill more civilians? (no really, that is something the war-mongers are considering)

There is another factor that also needs to be considered: mission creep.

A month ago, with some hoopla, the first Pentagon-trained 60 rebels entered Syria to fight ISIS (at a cost of $4 million each). It was a far cry from the 3,000 rebels we were supposed to have trained by now.
They were promptly ambushed and nearly wiped out by al-Qaeda. American officials were taken by surprise. The rebel force was only saved by American airstrikes, but that brought up another question: What if our Pentagon-trained rebels came into contact with President Assad's forces?
The Obama Administration promises to defend this tiny force against whoever it clashes with. But under what legal justification?

“If Syrian government forces attack the Syrian fighters we have trained and equipped while they were engaging ISIL, the President would have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend those fighters,” a senior administration official told The Hill, using another acronym to describe ISIS.

The fact that the Obama Administration isn't claiming the 2001 AUMF is important, and also puts this war on shaky legal grounds. Claiming Article II for a war of choice in Syria is stretching the consitutional definition until it screams.
And that doesn't even address the expansion of the war to Libya.

Meanwhile, Congress is no closer to voting on an ISIS AUMF than it was six months ago.