More Troops In Syria. And Then What?

Although I agree with my class mate, Stephane Coker's, position on the fact that something more need to be done to stop the growing global threat that is IS, I do not believe in the opinion that President Obama is appearing weak to our enemies. Whether he increased ground troops to 30,000+ in Syria (which he just sent 3,000+ "advisors" to Iraq) it would not matter to the enemy. Death does not scare them. The West is weak to them regardless. In 2009 I was a part of a 30,000 troop insurgency in Afghanistan, which the majority went to the southeast region of the country, and for the most part the mission did nothing. It led to more soldier deaths in a 6 month period than the entirety of the campaign up to that point. There were 3 Medal of Honor recipients and their campaigns occurred between June and November 2009. It was the equivalent of sticking a branch in a beehive and shaking it. You stir up more recruits and actually make the force stronger, you CANNOT eradicate these forces by sheer bombs and troops. We did not eradicate all of the German, Italian, and Japanese people on the way to our victory in World War II. What we did do was make them surrender. The IS, Al-Queda, and Taliban will never surrender.
So what do we do? Well it takes a global effort and it is extremely delicate. It's not as easy as just saying, "Our president is weak and we need more bombs and troops." It takes a global effort from a growing core of allies. I don't have the answers, but as you can see we have had thousands of troops, tanks, air raids, drone strikes, and lives spent, and the result has been nil in Iraq and Afghanistan.