I believe "hearts and minds" is a valid term to the extent it implies having the good will and sentiment of a people.

The old idea of "if you have 'em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow" is completely accurate, as long as "you have 'em by the balls". With enough bodies to occupy the countryside, to offer safety and security to the population if they don't resist, if the occupying force is leveraged through the local police forces you can win "hearts and minds". Obviously, the population has to be able to work, farm, buy, sell, and feel safe having coffee at the local sidewalk cafes.

If you just kick 'em in the nuts and wander off, you will lose their hearts and minds. If you have a small force, if you disband the police forces and require people to depend upon insurgents for safety, you have created havoc. And good will for the insurgents or religious militias who offer security. If your occupying troops simply ventures out to harass and then disappears into enclaves, offering no support to the people, you will have lost the good will necessary to win a guerilla war.

Which is what has happened, and there's no going back.

In physics time may run backward under some circumstance. In human affairs it does not, and what is done on a scale this large cannot be undone.

The "hearts and minds" which have been lost are gone. Any change will depend upon other "hearts and minds" being treated differently.

Arf