Why no choice. Think outside your Infantry box General.
In recent wars, he writes, infantry soldiers have suffered four of five combat deaths even though they make up less than four percent of U.S. military personnel. In wars waged with armor, airpower, and other heavy armaments, the kill ratios were skewed in America’s favor: In the World War II Pacific campaign, 13 enemy soldiers died for every American killed; in Europe against the Germans, the ratio was 11 to 1; in Korea, 13 to 1. But in the second battle of Fallujah, in November 2004, the ratio in close combat nar rowed to 9 to 1, and for soldiers fighting inside buildings, the ratios were “much closer to parity,” Scales writes.
So General Scales wants to continue fighting the way the enemy chooses to fight? You don't win wars fighting on the enemies terms, or if you insist on fighting that way, and winning, the cost in lives will be high.
Much better to kill the enemy wholesale rather than retail. That doesn't meant you don't use infantry, it means you support them with as much heavy weaponry that you can bring to bear on the problem. Today that means using the infantry to find the enemy, and then using precision guided munitions, either artillery or air delivered, to kill him, preferably in wholesale lots. Just as in previous wars, you attack not only the enemy fighters with your troops, but his logistics "tail". And even guerrilla/jihadist fighters have a logistics tail. The current one leads straight to Iran. When we have not gone after the emeny's rear area and his logistics tail, we have at best fought to a draw. I'd just as soon avoid that in this case.