Like I said, I know it’s certainly and technically possible for it to be applied correctly, but it’s almost never done that way, so it’s like how the meaning of the word “literally” has changed over time, which is why I think the fallacy in general and how it is most commonly applied is false. Also, I think time invested needs to be considered at the very least. For your example, if you actually think the bombing alone is what caused ISIS, it wouldn’t be worth it, but for another example where bombing has been ineffective but not produced directly negative results, you might as well keep bombing in the hope that it will or might accomplish what you want because the population is going to hate you for bombing them even if you were to stop anyways; this obviously assumes a small enough cost associated with the action.