In truth, "every situation where we want the authorities to employ military force" can be, by definition of "military force", designated an "armed conflict" (formerly known as "war"). Not every "military operation" involves "military force"; and so, some military operations cannot involve an "armed conflict".

The major disconnects in our policies have come from a refusal to state openly what is going on in fact - the employment of military force - and, therefore, a situation of "armed conflict". Your arguments throughout this entire area are based on your own derivations from what you consider general principles. Sorry, but all of this is not science; it's art and general principles are at best a fuzzy outline, which must yield to the specifics of the given case.

The question of what "strategic risk" should be taken is up to the policy makers at that level. It sure as hell should not be up to some operational lawyer, no matter how brilliant or not.

Regards

Mike