Donald Trump's assertion Monday that more airstrikes are needed in Iraq and Syria to prevent terrorist attacks like the mass shooting in Orlando drew rebukes from the Pentagon and others across the political spectrum who have prosecuted the war on terrorism — including some who warned it could make matters worse.

"We have to really increase the bombings," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told "Fox and Friends" after he was asked about the Islamic State's claim of credit for the attack by an American Muslim who pledged his allegiance to the group during the massacre that killed 49 people and wounded 53.


Trump also asserted that unnamed military leaders agree with him. "We have generals who think we can win this thing so fast and so strong but we have to be furious for a short period of time and we're not doing it," he said.

But the position that more airstrikes are the answer to the worst mass shooting in American history was not widely supported among those with direct experience

"I don't see how Orlando would cause us to change our operations. We're already at war with ISIL, and are already working to accelerate that campaign wherever we can," said Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, who was asked about the need for a different war strategy and not specifically about Trump's remarks.

The Pentagon's recent top adviser on the military campaign went further, arguing Trump's proposal could make the homegrown Islamic terror threat worse.

“I fundamentally disagree," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mick Bednarek, who served as the chief U.S. military adviser in Iraq from 2013 to 2015. "The bottom line is [more bombing] has absolutely no bearing on individuals like Omar Mateen in Orlando, who obviously had some mental issues — like his absolute hatred of gays, lesbians and transgender community. Just wantonly increasing bombing against extremist radical groups in Iraq, Syria, etc. is not going to have a bearing on individuals in the United States and change their behavior.”

"It is completely apples and oranges," Bednarek added. "I think the presumptive Republican nominee has really not thought through second-order effects of his perspective of what would truly make a difference to stem the tide of these challenges."

Mateen was killed in a police shootout.

Juan Zarate, a top terrorism adviser to then-President George W. Bush, also questioned Trump's logic.

"There is no question that you have to deny the Islamic State sanctuary and the sense of momentum in order to deflate their ideology and attractiveness," he said.

Yet, "it is hard though to make a causal link," added Zarate, the former deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism. "It's hard to say disruption [on the battlefield] would have mattered. The ideology is already in the ether and just needs to find the right host."

Others who have advocated a more muscular approach against Islamic terrorist groups expressed similar doubts that military action thousands of miles away could have any effect in preventing attacks at home inspired by ISIL or other terrorist groups.

"Nothing we could do now in Iraq and Syria would make a difference right now,” Fred Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview.

Kagan — who was a leading architect of the so-called surge of U.S. military forces in Iraq in 2007 when the precursor to the Islamic State , Al Qaeda in Iraq, was at its height — supports a larger U.S. military role in Iraq and Syria to deprive ISIL of its sanctuaries in Iraq and Syria and unravel the narrative that it's on the march.

But he insists that it must be part of a "global strategy" that also focuses much more attention on other radical Salafist Muslim groups, including Al Qaeda, which in his view has gained strength in recent years.

Others were unapologetic in their criticism of Trump’s tough talk about more military action.

"Donald Trump doesn't understand the first thing about counterterrorism,” said Daniel Benjamin, who was coordinator for counterterrorism at the State Department from 2009 to 2012. "He is jaw-droppingly ignorant. First of all, Mateen was clearly radicalized in the United States. While he appears to have once signaled his support for ISIS in the midst of this attack, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any deeper relationship involving command and control from ISIS."

He argued the Islamic State, which has been the target of an increasingly lethal U.S.-led military campaign for nearly two years involving growing numbers of special forces and military advisers, is "in retreat across many fronts."

"The administration is going after every target it can find,” he added. “If we were to start bombing recklessly and killing lots of civilians that would not help us in the fight against extremism. As we have seen from history, it would only result in the radicalization of more people and if anything heighten the threat."

On Trump's assertion there are generals who agree with him, Benjamin said he believes "there may be some out-of-the-loop generals who are beating their chest. But those who are involved are pretty confident this military action is a pretty wise and responsible way."

"Absent a [U.S.[ force on the ground of major proportions, he added, "this is how ISIS is going to be reduced."

Colin Clarke, a political scientist at the government-funded Rand Corporation, cited reports that Mateen said in a 911 call from the scene of the shooting in a popular gay nightclub that his actions were in retaliation for U.S. military strikes in Syria.

"People say they attack us because they hate us. They attack us because they disagree with our foreign policy," Clarke said in an interview.

He also cited the case of a U.S. citizen born in Pakistan who in 2010 tried unsuccessfully tried to detonate a car bomb in New York's Times Square, claiming he sought to retaliate for U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.

"I don't think we should underplay how much [U.S. military action overseas] drives people to attack or attempt to attack," added Clarke, who recently co-authored a paper outlining how the military success against the group in Iraq and Syria could drive more attacks elsewhere.

"Homegrown attacks are almost a byproduct of military success," he said. "The more you clog up the foreign fighter pipeline going to Iraq and Syria the more likely they are to stay where they are — whether that is in Europe or the United States."

Mike Morrell, a 30-year veteran of the CIA who retired as acting director in 2013, said the simplistic approach put forward by Trump is insufficient.

"ISIS must be defeated in Iraq and Syria and in the other areas where it has metastasized if we are to end its ability to radicalize young men and women in the U.S. and around the world," he told POLITICO. "So, it is correct to imply that the root of homegrown terrorism is overseas and that it must be dealt with there. But it is wrong to imply that bombing ISIS strongholds is sufficient to achieve our aims. This is much more complicated than Mr. Trump implied."