So, if I understand this argument correctly (and it may be that this is not what is intended), the best way to rid the world of a tyrant and put an end to gross human rights violation is to carpet bomb his population into submission.
Well, I expect that Bob meant this more as an observation than a policy decision, but I've heard him make this argument a couple of times before. And it certainly seems like he wishes we'd been quite a lot less precise.
Of course, such arguments are arguably spurious anyway. A disparate terrorist movement isn't the same as a nation state. Our problem isn't really with Iraq, it's with large chunks of the Mid East. I wonder what would happen if we chose instead to threaten Mecca with annihilation should something bad again happen? Nothing good, I expect.