Then you destroy their projection platforms and immediately return home. None of this requires occupation and rebuilding.
If I stated at any point that the role of the military was occupying and rebuilding, then I'll promptly apologize if anyone can point this out to me in one of my previous posts. I don't think I ever said that though.
I think what started this inquiry was my suggesting that perhaps warfare should not approached with a universal strategy; in other words, we don't necessarily just need to bomb the hell out of people all the time anymore. By people, I mean civilians, not the direct enemy, although I recognize that sometimes civilians can either be or can empower the enemy. But not always.
Now, if an opposing nation demonstrates a commitment to attacking and killing your own civilians, then, assuming the primary ethical duty of a govt. as an entity entrusted by the people to protect it foremost, I suppose it's appropriate to wage a full-scale war of attrition against the other and its populace. I don't know, however, that the Afghan War ever quite qualified, especially considering that neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda represented a civilian populace.
And I get the "you either go and blow everything up or you don't go" argument, but what exactly were we going to do with bin Laden and the gang? I just think the situation was too iffy to say definitively that we shouldn't have acted at all or that we should have blown them all sky high. I think it was somewhere in the middle.
Just my two cents, and that's the last I'll say about it.