The key to reducing the backlash effect is to only use force when it is broadly viewed as legitimate, which means when it is based upon moral principles in which all parties believe.
In other words, force must be more than an excuse for pursuing purely selfish objectives.
The second argument is that these emergence revenge politics cannot be seen except as part and parcel of the emergence of a form of “revenge capitalism” marked by a horrific illogic that compounds the routine cruelties of capitalist exploitation with new pathological tendencies.
I offer a genealogy of revenge as a tool of the powerful, but one that consistently displaces the accusation of sick vengefulness onto those whom it oppresses and colonizes.
The likely result would be widespread resentment and hostility toward the police and government in general.
Similarly, because the use of military force for conquest is widely seen as illegitimate, it is likely to produce an intense backlash effect.
Even if the target group submits to the threat or use of force, they are likely to become resentful, and will work to build up their power so they can resist or challenge their opponents at a later time.
This is what we refer to as the "backlash effect," the tendency of the victim group to lash out against the threatening party once it has gained the power and means to do so.
If this sort of cycle continues, conflict is likely to become increasingly destructive, especially if both sides have military force at their disposal.
In May of 2004, a group linked to al-Qa'ida released a video showing five of its members beheading an American businessman in Iraq, in what it said was revenge for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail by US troops.