A real consideration that seems to have been left aside here is the issue of risk. When folks put on a military uniform and get the privilege of being able to lock and load on a subset of other human beings with near impunity, they also agree (whether they know it or not) to accept a high degree of risk that they may also get themselves caught in the crosshairs. When you happen to be low crawling through a firefight, the non-combatants around you recognize the risk to which you are subjected. Seeing the risk to some airplane driver who lets fly a 500 pounder from 10,000 feet is pretty difficult for all concerned on the ground.

Tom Odom made an important point about kill radii. A related point about risk is in order. The folks not wearing uniforms (the folks our forces are supposedly protecting/liberating/saving/etc. from the bad guys) who happen to be in the area where the combatants are engaged have not agreed to put themselves at extra risk to have themselves blown away. They are living their lives and just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The combatants (at least those who are wearing the "white hats") have a special responsibility to minimize these civilians' risk. Compare the CEP and blast radius of a 2000 lb bomb delivered from a fast mover flying at, say, 2,000 feet with that of a single round of 5.56 (or even a controlled 3-round burst)delivered at 100 meters with eyes on the target. I think all would agree that the risk to the non-combatant is much less in the second case.

There is nothing like being right in front of the good folks one has come to help in order to demonstrate dedication to their cause. TAC AIR does not seem to provide as much of a warm fuzzy feeling to those folks, IMHO.