Fighting ISIS/ISIL/IS: Will the human shields be written off?

ISIS has allegedly managed to shoot down an F-16. Evidence ‘clearly indicates’ ISIS did not, in fact, shoot down the aircraft; but that it came down for another reason. Given the terror group’s track record, I suspect the unfortunate Jordanian pilot will be murdered by his captors.

A journalist visited Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, and Mosul.

ISIS basically has people imprisoned within cities. While people ‘actually like the stability that the Islamic State has brought them’, I doubt they’d be allowed to simply leave if they didn’t.

Do you think at some point the coalition will decide to go all ‘Rolling Thunder’/‘Dresden’ on ISIS’s collective ass, sacrificing the human shields and the people who like the stability in order to obliterate the ISIS command locations? I don’t see how they can. The only country capable of doing that is the U.S., and we’re not going to do it, though we could argue that we’re only attacking ISIS targets with smart weapons. But Jordan, for example, has about seven dozen F-16s and F-5s, a couple dozen AH-1 Cobras, and a couple of CASA gunships. Australia, Canada, France, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have conducted airstrikes against ISIS, and may contribute to a campaign.

But recall that the firebombing of Dresden, which killed horrendous numbers of civilians, has been, and continues to be, condemned. Would the coalition rick the condemnation of future historians, and current and future ethicists, in an effort to destroy ISIS?

I don’t know about history, but bombing the heck out of a bunch of civilians would certainly help ISIL and their ilk save on recruitment costs for the next few decades.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was a good idea. Just wondering if the coalition or some of its members will ‘snap’.