“Ya can’t “occupy” from the air. ...”
You’re thinking too small.
If we kill enough of the enemy, occupation doesn’t matter.
Many other approaches are possible, and some very good ones are not even especially new. Forum members ought to read up on the RAF’s doctrine of air control, as developed in the Middle East in the 1920s.
Yet traditionalists repeat the “can’t occupy from air” phrase as if it were a timeless truth. It’s just something they say over and over - which doesn’t make it true.
One hundred years ago, the advent of armored vehicles put conventional infantry on the skids. Today, the development of remote control, high-resolution sensors, digital devices, robotics and AI, miniaturized components of every sort, are only beginning to transform ground combat.
Instead of complaining about loss of honor and glory, traditionalists ought to thank the technologists. Fewer lives will need to be put at risk. Unless, of course, traditionalists find that too demeaning.
Ummm, there might be good reasons to occupy one place or another. I do believe that military doctrine must be ready to shape the strategy to whatever situation arises. That could range from very low intensity surgical operations to slagging the place. Wouldn’t each situation come with its own demands?