That's not going to happen anytime soon, so whatever. Since we're going to try to stablize some of it, this whole thing is a damned if you do/damned if you don't clusterfuck. If we stay there and try to provide some stability to the region, it reacts like an unruly patient going into convulsive shocks. If we try to take a step back, and do the best we can with these remote strikes, then everyone goes up in arms when the surgeon hits a wrong nerve.
You say you want to see more spec ops missions - well, for one, that'd be hundreds of spec ops missions (over 350 drone strikes, I think, in Pakistan alone). We don't have enough "spec ops" to do that much work, in this amount of time, at that quick of a turn of a dime. Those so called imminent threats are monitored by the NSA via sattellite and line monitoring - and when they see a window for mission readiness, you can't fly in soldiers, then infiltrate deep in enemy territory by foot, and expect the situation to remain the same. A drone strike is more efficient. Secondly, people will end up crying foul anyways when these soldiers end up getting dragged through the streets, or having their heads cut off. Nothing is going to be ideal, but some things can be less shitty than others.