There is a sibling comment that was flagged to death that makes a reasonable point. The word "enemy" is used in political rhetoric as if enemies are a force of nature, like hurricanes or earthquakes. But "enemies" are just people, and there's very little discussion about why those people want to kill those other people, or how their existence is blowback (or even an intended result) from yet another operation against some previous enemy.

I would be much happier with US strategy if the discussion always began with metaanalysis of the motivations and origins of a putative enemy, with the focus on social and humanitarian means to prevent the formation of new problems.