D-day would'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

D-day would'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 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles. Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don'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'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't care), in which case a ground war was more effective. Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.