Depends what you mean by "punitive op."Assume for a moment that instead of staying in Iraq, we launched a punitive operation. In other words, we pushed to Baghdad just like we did in OIF I, but instead of staying, we pulled out and left.
The reason why the war was opposed by so many across the globe was largely because Iraq was not viewed as a legitimate target at all, not simply because the world was against an occupation of Iraq. The world could not see a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda / Sep 11, and indeed there was none. Thus the war could be easily characterized as, in the words of Milton Friedman, "aggression."
Now an attack as you describe might have resulted in a better situation than the one we are caught in now, but I doubt the political realism of launching such an attack.
If you have in mind the sort of op that the Brits used to run in Afghanistan, what Churchill called "Butcher and Bolt" --- I think it depends on the situation. Frankly, unless properly targeted, I think this sort of thing is ultimately self-defeating, especially as pursued against non-state actors. Who exactly is being punished? A "punitive operation" of that sort differs little from what AQ did to the U.S. on 9/11.
Bookmarks