Folks take for granted that warfare before WW2 and up to that point was done with the goal of annihilation and the complete submission of the enemy. It was only after WW2 and people suffering the worst of humanity and pain, that they decide to implement things like "War crimes" or "Rules of war". Before that there were no rules. There were no ideas of "collateral damage", and in fact terrorizing civilian populations was another tool of war to force capitulation of the enemy through ultimate pain and suffering.
Funny enough, the only countries actively trying to bring us back to that paradigm globally are some of the authoritarian countries around the wolrd, including countries like Israel which by no coincidence, also was backsliding into authoritarianism before this whole war popped off and they were in the process of possibly getting Netanyahu the fukk out of there. The US is a cause of a lot of suffering around the world for some countries but there are also some countries that got enjoy decades of stability and growth and protection of US military/economic power. It helped keep other big players at bay out of fear and respect. If the US is removed as the lead power from the world stage, that isn't going to be some peace on earth. Another power will simply fill in the vacuum. Its very much zero-sum. The biggest irony is the US biggest adversary right now, China, only got to its position because of US investments and cooperation. If it was not for the US and the west, China would still be a country of dirt poor farmers and no middle class like they have now. China is only able to challenge the US because of we empowered them and built their welath up enough to allow them to do so. A great irony of the situation.
Also, some people have allowed political labels to fully control their moral and political beliefs. There is more effort by them to conform to political labels instead of just viewing each individual situation on its own merits and going from there. A lot of the voices who sought to reign in US military policy often argued that the US should not be invading or starting conflicts and that the military should only be used in a defensive capacity. However, when the military is used in a defensive capacity such as responding to Houthi attacks on global trade ships, they still cry "warmongering" even though this response is completely defensive. I don't even think the attacks by the US even killed people in that case. They just attacked their logictic capability but bleeding hearts were still crying about it.
IMO, despite identifying as a liberal, I still believe the military has a role to respond to attacks at least in defense. If it was up to the above individuals, the military would do nothing and just sit by and let every and any attack be carried out against them without resistance. That seems ridiculous to me. So if the US decides to eradict and wipe out people who attack US troops, I see nothing wrong with it personally.