This kind of crap clearly illustrates why you do your best to stay out of wars. BUT — if you decide that war is necessary (and I believe it WAS necessary in Iraq) —
You defeat the enemy utterly. Completely. You humiliate them. You make them understand, and believe, and KNOW, that you are in total control and they are powerless. You kill as many and destroy as much as is necessary to achieve this, “collateral damage” be DAMNED. If protest arises, armed or otherwise, you put it down IMMEDIATELY with extreme prejudice.
If you let your state department rather than your military fight your wars — particularly if you let your state department (or your supposed European “allies”) tell you when you are finished fighting — you end up with this crap.
Any president not 100% committed to WINNING a war ought not to START a war.
Some might view your position as cruel. But history shows that your position results in the least loss of life on both sides and minimizes community damage. Your philosophy was the same as Reagan’s.
I’ll add to your comments that it should be done quickly (thus with overwhelming power). The Iraq war shows that the general public has a very short period of patience, no matter what kind of progress is being made.