There is a very long history of that in the region and 300 advisors from every other country on the planet won't change that. When you put a couple of years of military training against 1200 or so years of sectarian antipathy, guess which one is going to come out on top.

Borders are going to be redrawn throughout the region. We can't stop that, nor should we.

Humanitarian aid for the refugees should be it. The military isn't going to do anything but make more enemies until it's mowed down in the crossfire.

Oh, yeah, evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/world/meast/iraq-violence/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27809051

And on and on and on. While the first casualty of any war is the truth, too many of the stories are sourced differently and from different parts of the country to be a centralized propaganda effort.

About a parade of ISIS military vehicles, many American supplied....

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/06/isis_holds_military_parade_in.php

It made me wonder how the vehicles were "captured" if the army fled. I mean, wouldn't you flee in your humvee rather than on foot?

After all, it's a lot easier to hit an APC of Humvee than it is a scared shitless soldier running in a zigzag as fast as his legs will go. Besides, they've got plenty left over. This is likely to be a combination of civil war and ethnic cleansing at its worst before firm boundaries are established.

This is also why we need to concentrate on humanitarian aid.

One article I read said a lot of the people who fled Mosul spent only one or two nights outside the city and went back, saying they are much happier with ISIS than they were being cobbled into Iraq.

That might change if ISIS starts acting like the prewar Taliban in Afghanistan.