Some odd things happening in our ISIS War, including taking out ISIS-held refineries. That will hit them in the pocketbook if they don't rebuild what was damaged.
However, we're in some odd territory in Syria where a multi-player civil war is ongoing. A group of non-ISIS jihadis, the Nusra Front, are being struck as well.
The U.S.-led campaign in Syria has drawn a mixed response from the country's multitude of rebel brigades, many of whom cooperate with the Nusra Front and have been locked in a deadly fight with Islamic State militants since January. But the rebels' ultimate goal is to topple Assad, while the U.S. is focused on defeating the Islamic State group.
That coalition gives one pause about backing non-ISIS rebel groups, since you might wind up helping create a ISIS-junior in the process if the folks the Obama team are helping are either allied with al Qaeda or have their weapons snatched by them once the dust settled.
One news site this morning had an article hyperlink "Does attacking ISIS help Assad?" (this might have been it)- Yes, next question.
We were this close to bombing the Syrian army's chemical weapons locales a year ago; that would have helped ISIS and could well of had them running Damascus by now had a crippled Baathist regime been picked off by their primary foe.
Attacking ISIS does change the dynamic of Syria's civil war. Not that such attacks are a bad thing, but it will make it easier for some other party to defeat ISIS in due time; that other party could well be the Syrian government or a rival jihadist group like the Nusra Front rather than more civilized folks that we would like to see in charge.