LOL sue it is. So I suppose the manly way to approach a war on terrorists is to go in to a country that is cooperating with us and bomb their people. That should bring about a good reputation for the US, like the way it did when Bush went to war. Oh, and it's ok to have our men and women killed in the process all so Obama can appear more manly. I don't see how Obama has violated the constitution. Maybe you can enlighten me?
And using UAV strikes has helped us with these countries how? In some cases, instead of a UAV strike, you use a special forces strike team. Exactly how much has using them improved our image and popularity in these countries and how much does it contribute to recruitment for the enemy?
Bush's problems were not how he handled war, it was how he handled occupation and rebuilding. The invasions went fine, could of been better in some areas, but overall, not to bad. The problems came in later.
During the invasion we bombed out bridges and roads, power plants and many other things necessary to achieve victory, but only plan that Rumsfeld had for after the conflict was "ok, we deposed him, everyone go home." Then it became, "ok, we need to help them, how. Yeah, lets use the same policies we used in Germany in '45. Never mind that Generals like Patton ignored many of the dictates of those policies. All Bath party members are fired from their positions and all members of the military/police are also fired for supporting Sodamed Insane. Never mind that many of them were only party members because it allowed them a job. Never mind that a lot of the military/Police were drafted or weren't politically active.
As a result, large areas we left without power, water, food or law enforcement for long periods of time. Gee, I wonder why the quit cheering us and started shooting and throwing things at us?
We imprisoned some without them ever having committed a crime and no evidence that they were hostile. And then we put poorly supervised Reserve/Guard Combat troops in charge of the prison instead of properly trained personnel and torture/humiliation occurred. Gee, again, I wonder why some of the ones once cheering us were not fighting us?
In Afghanistan,
We force farmers not to grow poppy for heroin (or is it Opium? I don't know a lot of specifics about illegal drugs), but we don't give them an other means to make a living and support themselves. Gee, why in the world would the start supporting the other side?
We use bombers and UAV strikes to kill individuals, also killing all those around him. We blow up a whole wedding party to kill one guy because it is safer for our troops that way. Gee, I wonder yet again why people would turn against us? And did we actually make it safer for our troops than if we had sent in a couple squads and just took the one guy instead of killing so many?
etc, etc, etc...
No, it was not Bush's war efforts but his recovery efforts that were flawed. The US has never, to my knowledge, trained a force for the purpose of occupation. We do not have a corp that goes in following the troops and provides law and order, or the recovery of systems for helping the citizens meet their fundamental needs in a country we invade. The recovery and occupation of any country will always be a problem for us until we establish a trained, disciplined force specifically to meet that task.