Well, we did try saturation bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia.
We bombed the jungles, we did not saturation bomb Hanoi.
The Soviets also tried saturation bombing in Afghanistan.
They bombed the desert outpost and the mountain cave, not the cities where the leaders of the opposition lived and people they cared about lived.
"They don't listen to words. Maybe they will listen to explosions."
Then the alternative is to make your explosions louder, more plentiful and easier to hear.
You do it the way we are doing it. By slowing building government capacity-including police capacity- and co-opting the bad guys.
Don't look now Bubba, but it ain't working. We train them; they sell their weapons or turn them on us. We arrest them and they let them out of jail. Is that what you call progress or winning?
I have not found explosions to be an effective communication tool.
The Germans heard them. The Japanese heard them. And after they heard them for awhile, what happened? They quit. We won. We haven’t won a war since we stopped using this tactic. They are beating us by destroying our treasury, they are beating us by lasting long enough for most to lose interest expect for those few minutes of terror that get everyone’s attention.
WE ARE LOSING, AGAIN!
You can argue that it might be cruel, you can argue many things, but you can't argue that we did win using certain tactics and now that we have stopped, we are losing over and over again.