Good point. However, one of the reasons the terrorists hit us is because they know our tactics. "Oh, they won't do anything, or if they do they will do selective strikes, etc.". They didn't believe that we would go after Al-Quada for the twin towers...wasn't that the belief? They though we would cower or launch a couple missiles (Clinton).
My point about carpet bombing is overwhelming force and destruction. No, we should not nuke any country. We are well aware of jetstream and fallout etc... But there are ways of pounding them so bad that you may have well of used a nuke...Daisy cutter and MOAB ring a bell? We can pulverize someone without MAD.
But we won't do that. There is no threat of overwhelming power anymore. Stay away from military targets and you are safe for the most part. The enemy has us figured out better than we have them figured out in many respects.
True--we are the most studied military in existence. The Army Center for Lessons Learned found that over half the hits on its web-site were coming from non-US origins.
We bet that high-tech, i.e. airpower, seapower, missiles & satellites, etc would be good enough and it isn't. We have more fighter planes in our military than we do infantry squads. And what we need right now is lots of well trained infantry. That's the only military tool that can go anywhere against anyone and it also has the advantage of being individually precise with its fires. The infantry we have is great, there just isn't enough of it in Iraq.
I agree. We made mistakes like letting legitimate targets flee into Pakistan. When we use force we have to use it effectively and decisively. The problem with Iraq is we decided on regime change, not unconditional surrender. Since the regime change is now accomplished, we need a new mission where massive force would be a good demonstration. I don't think Iraq measures up at the moment, it would be like pounding jello.