Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
If I had a point to make (beyond that one), it would be the way in which tolerance of collateral damage has narrowed, to the point that much smaller numbers of civilian casualties are now cause for condemnation, investigation, press coverage, etc. That, I think, is generally a good thing, however much it sometimes impedes war-fighting.
The Human tragedy of D-Day was never an issues because it had no political consequence. France was liberated, and that was worth in French eyes.

Civilian deaths in war is only an issue in so much as there is a political effect. The view in Israel right now is that killing a Sri-Lankan, Afghan and Iraqi civilian is entirely acceptable, while injuring a Palestinian is not. The reason for that is political.

And I will confess my views on this have altered radically. Back in 03/04 I believed that avoiding civilian deaths should be central to campaign planning. I no longer do. You should never target civilians, for sure. You should attempt to be precise, proportionate and discriminating, but fear of civilian deaths, should never impede actions of military necessity.