WWII was mostly a conventional war. Iraq/Afghanistan is not. They are both counter-insurgency operations. The same line of thinking does not work.
War is about breaking the enemies ability to make war or their willingness to fight war. Sometimes both. I believe that in Islam countries ONLY power is respected. If we had Roman rules from the start of this there would be NO "civil war" in Iraq. The price for raising a gun on the wrong side of the line would be too much for anyone to pay.
Also, as a member of the Southeast Asian War Games (Second Place) I fully believe that the North VN's ability to make war was broken at Tet. We just let them negotiate too long after that. Had we taken the FULL battle North in 1969 VN would now be free. The Soviets and The Chi-cons could of whined but we would have freed the all of the country.
I'll believe you -- AFTER someone has tried the "stomp" approach in the modern era with modern means..
Until them -- your "theory" doesn't convince..
Wars can not be won -- overly concerned with winning "hearts and minds"...
Wars are won by killing the enemy or severely kicking his ass in the direction you wish -- his heart and mind will follow.
Wars shouldn't commence until all diplomacy and attempts to be "rational" have failed... Once war commences, we should not then burden or endanger our warriors by asking them to be "diplomats".
Until we are 100% committed to killing ALL who oppose us or supports those who oppose us -- we should keep our warriors HOME...
Semper Fi
Perhaps a more conventional approach would work. Such as bombing the major cities of any country who harbors these folks. Bombing in WWII didn't have much effect until we started on population centers.