00 - with respect, you appear to be suggesting that the US Army would have been happy to have seen the perpetrating of what would appear to be prima facie war crimes... Just because the US went in on a humanitarian mission and found local opposition far greater than anticipated does not justify using CBU against civilians and non-combatants, of whom there were more than a fair few in close proximity to the fighting.
The destruction of evidence, or its lack thereof, would've been a political disaster for the US and the US armed forces, not least since the US had capabilities that would have been just as likely, if not more so, to achieve the desired effect of supporting the troops on the ground.
Those of us disagreeing with your perspective are not saying that the Rangers and 10th MD didn't need support; we're saying that your projected solution would have been vastly counter-productive not least since a much better option existed in the form of the assets requested by, but denied to, the US commanders who appreciated the capabilities these assets offered in the sort of environment in which they were operating.
This is in real danger of taking us waaay off thread, though, so might I respectfully suggest that it might be time to agree to differ on the hypothetical merits or otherwise of the use of AV-8Bs or other CV-based assets 15 years ago?