You’re confusing our track record of expressing combat power at distance to our own will, not at fighting a war. Go read a history book focused on the first series of months/year of any of those “take the gloves off” wars. I’d suggest Dr Shawn Faulkners lecture on WWI 1917, or when it comes out Jon Parshall’s book on 1942. WWI was us buying a place at the peace table through sacrifice. WWII was literally us letting the other team score for the entirety of the first half with little to show for it while we got our feet under us and learned the vital lessons that led to all those 1944 victories. If you don’t think we will do a lot of that in the next one I’ve got news for you. We have a hard enough time getting commanders to actively digest the lessons learned in Ukraine without playing the “well we’ve always done it this way,” card. Does anybody honestly believe we could in an era of social media and instant access survive something akin to 1942. One battle of Savo Island or those first years of B17 raids worth of casualties. Do you think likewise we could just carpet bomb a city to attack a port or bomb to rubble a co-use airport. What do you think our societal demand for leadership heads or stopping the war would be? Would it be more distracting to a political class seeking only to remain in leadership than say actively prosecuting a war? We haven’t had a no holds barred full gloves off war because we haven’t had an existential crises for our own survival to accompany it. Even with one by 1945 Americans were largely over the war, and Japan was seeking that for a negotiated peace to drag it to 46. It’s one of the reasons the Navy wasn’t allowed to seek their preferred option of blockade and starve. Even in modern coin it’s bred into us to maximize the CDE discussion to applying force. Anybody that wants to see that contrast go watch a Ranger Raid and then compare it to a raid run by the SAS or Grom. One group is executing call outs, the other is “knocking” with a Gustav. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk