The links you posted reference Iraq, which was not a very nice place over the last decade. In many cases, a strong personality would emerge as a local leader. H

The links you posted reference Iraq, which was not a very nice place over the last decade. In many cases, a strong personality would emerge as a local leader. He'll usually have access to several small arms and enough money to feed and pay several dozen militia fighters. To legitimize his power he'll coordinate attacks on US personnel, usually ambushes, and make deals with people who have connections to global "terrorist and extremist" organizations who can provide him with resources to pay for more weapons and manpower. This hypothetical leader isn't beholden to the law and makes up the rules for the people in the areas that he controls based on his interpretations of religious teachings and personal views on justice and proper conduct. The government has so many problems to deal with that they aren't in a position to oppose him or restore any kind of rule of law to the people that live in his sphere of influence. As his power increases, he becomes a more useful piece on a larger chess board, controlled by leadership in Mosul, Yemen or Saudi Arabia. To the US, the solution is clear: Kill that guy. The force of his personality is what's holding his local power structure together, and if he's dead there's a good chance that the whole thing will collapse. This will take a piece off the board for a global opponent and give the national or regional government one less problem to deal with. Given that he lives in a remote area that he knows like the back of his hand, getting close to him would be difficult. But if they can pay someone to tell them where he is at a specific time, all it takes is one drone strike to solve a lot of problems for a lot of people. It's not a perfect system. Sources will frequently give false locations in order to kill their own enemies or settle personal scores. Sometimes the intelligence is out of date by only a few hours, the target leaves a house and innocent people move in to it behind him. Or the weapons just plain miss. The question is, do you have a better plan? Because the guys at the Pentagon would really like to hear it. Ceding large swaths of a country to random strong men doesn't seem like a sustainable solution. It's not good for the people in that country, it's not good for global security and it's not good for business. Civilian casualties are always regrettable and make for compelling headlines. But at some point, someone has to have an eye on the bigger picture. If there's a better course of action, then it should be taken immediately. Until then all the US government can do is to use the tools that it has available to deal with the current situation.