Wars are not won by precision bombing.
To win a war, you kill enough people and break enough things that the enemy stops fighting rather than take any more.
Not to contradict but augment what you said,
Don’t you win a war by creating conditions on the ground where the population will not tolerate those fighters in their midst who cause them to be harmed by forces on the other side?
However, I am not convinced that any muslim would give a crap about their family being bombed into oblivion. So I question the effectiveness of carpet bombing them. I am more of the “kill them all” school.
I say that because, who would strap a bomb on a child and sent them into a crowd to be detonated remotely? Who does many of the things that we see in the muslim world, done by muslims, against other muslims.
Genghis Khan had very exact rules of how to deal with his enemies that he had conquered. They were brutal but scientifically applied brutality. Its purpose was to instill fear in those that may resist, gain allies and support from those that will not resist.
Brutality for the sake of brutality is counterproductive. Selective applied brutality works. It is effective. We carpet bombed the Iraqi soldiers in the desert during the first Iraq war. We bombed them for weeks. When we finally invaded, they could not surrender fast enough. They did not want anymore carpet bombing.