if wounds are reopened or scabs are ripped off. I'm good at doing both.

Secondly, my point, apparently lost in the shuffle, was the difference between (1) targeting civilians with no strategic (military) target involved; and (2) targeting strategic (military) targets where civilians are proximate and are hit (killed or wounded) by the strike. A legal distinction clearly exists between the two situations even though the same number of civilians are casualties.

The multiple Korean incidents you link did involve a real military problem: that of combatants mixed in or controlling civilians for purposes of infiltration - or, in the case of an attack, using them as classic "human shields. How big a problem you perceive that to be, and what measures you take, will depend on your resources available and your views on military necessity and proportionality.

Along the same lines, you have situations like blowing bridges where combatants are mixed with refugees. Or a village where combatants are spread throughout. All of these are variations on the basic theme of combatants and civilians mixed together.

COL Rogers of the memo was a bit confused as to terminology - "large groups of civilians, either composed of or controlled by North Korean soldiers, are infiltrating U.S. positions." If the infiltrators were North Korean soldiers or controlled by North Korean soldiers, they were not "civilians", but combatants or persons acting in aid of combatants (perhaps involuntarily).

A worthwhile topic for discussion because the problem has not gone away since Korea.

Regards

Mike