Based on my own reflections and study of history, I deeply agree that relying solely on airstrikes for regime change is a dangerous fantasy. The idea that one can use air superiority to overthrow governments without deploying boots on the ground has repeatedly failed throughout modern warfare history. For example, in the Korean War, despite massive aerial bombardments, North Korea's regime held firm and suffered horrendous civilian casualties. Similarly, in Vietnam, even with heavy U.S. air campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder, the conflict could not be won without extensive ground troop involvement—and even then, ultimate victory was elusive. More recently, interventions in Yemen and Iraq clearly demonstrate that air power alone is insufficient. Yemen's fractured conflict showed that without ground forces to secure and hold territory, airstrikes had limited strategic effect and often contributed to humanitarian crises. Iraq's regime change came at a significant human cost, especially with hundreds of American service members losing their lives in ground combat. An overlooked but critical aspect is the human cost and political complexity that airstrikes alone cannot address. Bombing campaigns do not dismantle the social and political fabric that sustains regimes. Ground forces are necessary to engage directly with local communities and achieve lasting change, but this also dramatically increases the risks to soldiers and civilians alike. Many political narratives oversimplify war by promoting the illusion that bombs from the sky can decisively solve complex geopolitical challenges. This propaganda fosters a dangerous disconnect in public understanding, ignoring the sacrifices and realities on the ground. It is important to critically recognize that air power, while a valuable tool, cannot substitute for comprehensive strategies that include diplomacy, intelligence, and ground presence. In summary, the persistent myth that airstrikes can independently achieve regime change ignores historical evidence and underestimates the human cost involved. Anyone hoping for quick results through air campaigns must reconsider the complexities of modern conflict and the necessity of boots on the ground.