Yemen's 'uninhibited' attacks push French warship to exit Red Sea
thecradle.co
thecradle.co
That's the funny thing about asymmetric warfare: militants gouge your eye with weapons that cost $1k to $10k - you retaliate with a $4m Tomahawk, and repeat this process nonstop until you're exhausted and leave after 20 years (remember Afghanistan).
You may have the watches, but they have the time.
It took the US less than 6 weeks to take Kabul, but the Taliban simply retreated into the villages and continued their insurgency until they drove the US.
As for the statement "there is no military solution", I would say that there is. First, it's obvious that traditional weapons are not designed to be efficient in this kind of guerrilla warfare, where cost vs. benefit is a significant factor. A drone costs only a few hundred dollars. Using a missile to destroy a drone makes as much sense as using a cannon to kill a sparrow. A laser weapon is clearly the way to go.
Another threat is the cheaply produced rebel missiles. Destroying them on target is costly, even for the cost-optimized Israeli Iron Dome system. So I think the most sensible solution is an automatic weapons system with eyes in the sky: constant surveillance, and using AI to proactively strike before the rebels can even launch a missile. The goal is to actively destroy their launch site/base and/or shorten their launch window to the point where they can no longer accurately aim. Or, the enemy may have to implement a more costly and sophisticated launch system (such as remote launch), which again balances the cost-benefit ratio for the defender.
The surveillance part can be achieved by a combination of stationary satellites, drones and EC aircraft. Detecting and launching a proactive attack is not too hard. The hard part is the legality and the danger such an automatic weapons system poses to civilians and humanity in general.