D-day would&#x27;ve have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my &#x27;century&#x27; mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles.<p>Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a &#x27;Eurocentric&#x27; view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don&#x27;t condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I&#x27;m sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn&#x27;t care), in which case a ground war was more effective.<p>Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.