this is an angle i haven't heard, previously, but it makes sense.

there's been this kind of befuddlement over how to react to sunni civilians accepting or facilitating isis rule. you don't want to carpet bomb villages, of course. but, you also have to come to terms with the reality that if the citizens are aligning with isis then they are designating themselves as valid targets. you can run off root cause analyses all day, but none of them justify facilitating this kind of regime. if the civilians support isis then they are isis, and must be treated like isis. the consequences of this are very grim, but inescapable.

that said, it leads to an inevitable escalation because if you start bombing villages then you create tribal enmities. europeans discarded the tribal order many centuries ago, but it is still the reality in the middle east. what that means is that if nato kills members of tribe x then tribe x will need to fight against nato as revenge. it's the code they live in; there is no cheek-turning, but plucked eyes exchanged for plucked eyes.

so, you can't avoid fighting the civilians. but fighting the civilians means you're fighting the culture. it's an algorithm for disaster - but one that seems necessary. so, we need to dig deep and draw analogies to the dresdens of the world as we justify our inevitable war crimes - which i'm willing to do.

but, by the same logic, the longer isis operates, the more enemies it makes. even as it claims it is enforcing some kind of warped justice, it is nonetheless producing tribal reactions. and, with every victim it strengthens the uprising against it and seals it's own fate.

maybe we're best to sit on our thumbs with this, focus on containment and wait it out.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-revenge-idUSKBN15Y0ET