Hmm I don't know why you think this is the case but that's not how it works. If I get attacked I'm going to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat... regardless of where the enemy is.
I think the better thing to focus on is the lack of reliable attribution. For example, during the russiagate hysteria I actually dug into the data, and noticed all the command ips listed where anywhere but Russia, and I found no evidence that tied those command ips to Russia in the past but that's the key factor in the report because crowdstrike claimed "these are all known Russian command ips" but they back that up with nothing.
State level actors are good at pretending to be someone they're not (anyone remember vault 7 attribution manipulation tech?) So the real issue with this kind of hack back attitude is attribution. Otherwise good actors will likely be fooled into attacking the wrong target...
And that's the different between that and mout. When I get shot at, with few exception, attribution is undeniable!
For example, the entire problem with the Iraq invasion was one of attribution was it not? We were lied to about it and it got us into a war we should have had no business in... for example Cheney manipulating Intel reports to push the Yellowcake angle.
Another good example is Iran. I took the time to read all the IAEA reports up until 2007 in about 09, and all indicators were that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons nor was it seeking 2yr breakout within sub 2035 time-frame... except for the 2007 one where a lot of Intel was found on a laptop... that we later learned was mossad planted evidence in an effort to get us to beat the drums of war against Iran... (this is relevant given this silly recent story from Israel about Iran and Boltons/pompeos appointment...)