No, you are missing the point.
Islamists attacked us and killed 3,000 people who happened to be working in the wrong office buildings.
And your strategy would be to attack the people who didn't do it, and create many new Islamists. Thank God the grownups are in charge and not you.
Should we feel bad for having to do the same to them? Yes. Should this stop us? No. Why? Because we have to end this quickly before they do.
It would not end it quickly.
This enemy is playing with a new set of rules. War without the onus of responsibility waged almost solely against civilians.
And our adopting the same strategy would not accomplish our intended goals.
As for your misguided insight to the human psyche, we bombed the Germans and Japanese into submission.
We most assuredly did not. The Germans only surrendered when a GI stuffed a rifle in their face and said "Surrender or die." The Combined Bomber Offensive actually lenghthened the war. The Japanese were starved into submission by mine and submarine warfare. The only things that allowed the Japanese elites to get away with surrender were (a) the novelty of the atomic bomb and (b) a largish dose of luck.
But, as usual, you won't let inconvenient facts get in your way.
I can think of a couple of times when we may want to bomb civilians even if it does galvanize their resolve against us.
When morale at home is sagging and we need a "symbolic victory". Dolittle raid.
Also, when we want to goad the enemy into a rash attack.
I don't think we need the former yet but we might and I don't think our intelligence is good enough to benefit from the latter.
My strategy is more in line with equitable reciprocity.
"It would not end it quickly."
It will end much more quickly if we act now than if we act later and it is naive to think we will not have to act.
"And our adopting the same strategy would not accomplish our intended goals."
Our goal should be to let these nations know that there will be consequences for the action of minority factions that they support and allow to live amongst them. I would be interested to hear what you think our goal is.
"(a) the novelty of the atomic bomb and (b) a largish dose of luck"
I'm venturing a guess here but I don't think the "novelty" of an atomic weapon wears off that quickly. Would anyone think it was commonplace if one went off? (Gee.. what's that? Oh just one o dem H bomb things.)
And what you call luck I call the US armed forces gritting their teeth and sacrificing for a way of life they believe in.