Again - it is risking American lives for no reason. We can just as easily strike them from our existing bases and not expose personnel to attacks.
Or put another way, your idea would be on par with Indiana Jones in Raiders Of The Lost Ark closing in to melee with the huge Muslim swordsman instead of just shooting him with the pistol on his hip. It would be stupid, it would be dangerous and it would publicly be giving the other guy more status than he actually deserves. No, negligently eradicating then from a distance is better.
We’re hitting them with drones. No American soldiers are being placed at risk.
Counter-insurgency warfare has entered a new era. We aren’t bleeding. They are.
And we can take them out whenever we want, at a time and place of our choosing.
We set the rules of engagement, not them.
I'm guessing it's some kid in Randolph AFB Texas with an X box controller.
I humbly disagree, including with your analogy. The strikes that will be at play will be limited and pin point strategic to Iranian operations in Iraq, not trying to “take them out” as in bombing Tehran. But, sitting up in Iraqi-Kurdistan says to Iran we do not concede Iraq to you, it is no longer your playground. And, I have no doubt we can defend our bases in Iraqi Kurdistan BETTER than we can around Baghdad, as the Iranian sponsored Shia militias do not operate there, nor will the Kurds allow them to. Iran would have to use its regular military, which it is not trained and experienced at doing, as well as it would bring retaliation on such units, in Iran.