Since World War I, airpower advocates lauded punishment-based strategic attack strategies as the proper use of airpower. This study makes the case that technological advances, concerns over eroding international support caused by collateral damage and civilian casualties, and the cost of rebuilding infrastructure make denial-based strategies focusing on fielded forces, in some cases, a more effective and efficient means of attaining desired objectives. In some circumstances, the target set that strategic attack has so adamantly avoided in the past-fielded forces-links the mechanism to the desired outcome more effectively and efficiently than targeting infrastructure, leadership, or enemy resources. Airmen must release seventy plus years of institutional protectionism and realize that the targeting of fielded forces can mean more than support to ground forces; in some cases it can constitute the most effective strategic target.