We can, but for some namby-pamby reason, we don't. Note: to me, those are Plans A and B. As I said, I think Obama's going with Plan C. I'm not saying it'll work. I'm simply saying that his motives might not be dishonorable.
None of this president’s objectives and actions are dishonorable when seen in the light of Jihad and the furtherance of its goals.
One might view Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of where the US did strike back at the unruly (and murderous) child. It has met with mixed results...in part because of varying conditions and in part because of lack of resolve and implementation.
When facing a bully the wrong response is to try to talk your way out of it. The bully reads that as weakness and doubles his demands and the beatings. Obama's route increases the danger quotient in the world, not lessens it.
Recall, for example, after the Iraq invasion Libya suddenly announced and gave up it's nuclear program and handed over it's materials. That was a case of one bully seeing another bully beaten up and decided he didn't want to be on the wrong end of that equation. World risk was reduced because a bully was beaten...and that doesn't address the decrease in risk with Iraq having been changed to a less belligerent stance, again, the result of another beating of the bully.
So you say Obama's motives might not be dishonorable, I have my opinions but ignoring those one must at a minimum conclude that at best Obama is ignorant of history and his idealistic naivete puts billions of people at greater risk...and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.