Interesting logic.
Let’s see if I understand this.
We should never fight to destroy an enemy because the next enemy might be worse.
Just one problem. If you don’t fight them, they then become the next worse thing anyway, emboldened by the lack of resistance.
It’s kind of like how we didn’t finish off Al Quaeda in Iraq, so they then became ISIS once they knew we were out of the fight. The thing we didn’t kill became the worse thing that would have followed it anyway, only sooner.
(Nuclear weapons are so much simpler.)
Logic is not the “language” of the “progressive”...