Two days ago approximately 1,300 people died in the United States to a single cause, and accurate numbers aren't available yet.
The cause was tobacco. Same thing yesterday. And today. And tomorrow. And so on.
Meanwhile, everybody who makes it into TV nowadays seems to lose his or her mind about Daesh, a.k.a. IS / ISIL / ISIS because some U.S.-born man with a huge internal conflict has committed a mass murder and apparently chose Daesh, the terror group du jour, as his label.
This fits to a generally excessive attention on that group, which is a losing civil war party in Syria and Iraq and a weak civil war party in Libya.
It appears that my excessive reading of history and military history doesn't allow me more than one perspective on Daesh:
Daesh is doomed by its own arrogance and strategic idiocy.
Nobody but Asian steppe people, Napoleon and Nazis were equally proficient as Daesh in regard to making enemies. The Asian steppe people got away with this most of the time due to their mobility. Napoleon and the nazis showed what happens if you cannot simply run away after inviting almost the entire rest of the world to hate you.
Daesh is doomed, and neither Europe nor any American country needs to lift but a little finger to seal Daesh's fate. The continued intervention may accelerate Daesh's ultimate failure as a wannabe state, and that's about it.
All that background in history and military history reading completely obscures the more common perspective to me, in which Daesh is supposedly a grave threat.
Sorry, I totally cannot see this. It's a ludicrous idea in the context of what mankind remembers about organised violence. Maybe Daesh can cause 20-200 deaths per year (average) in NATO or EU countries for two or three years, which would put them somewhere low into the top 100 of mortality factors. Daesh simply has shown no potential to become a real major problem. It sure is entertaining enough to be perceived as one, though.