Sure, we can disagree. I'm not trying to change your mind, just illustrate my opinion given your comments to my original post.

He is IMO, making a statement that the law can get brushed aside, momentarily, in the heat of combat. In my experience that is absolutely correct.
I see nothing he or I have said that even suggests such a thing so I'd be appreciative if you could illustrate precisely what he or I said that gives you the impression.

Neither do I agree at all that Captain Kelly tacitly suggests that such behavior should be permitted. Could you also tell me where he does this? If you're going to cite his penultimate paragraph, may I suggest you take it in context with his final paragraph?

your own statement reflects my impression that he (I never attributted any opinion to you or sought to refute any opinion offered by you; my thoughts were directed solely to the article) advocates that such behavior be permissible. After all, if we're going to overlook it momentarily, precisely when do we consider it? Are we creating a slippery slope? How do you convey to the troops in the field when they are subject to the law of war and when they are not? If they are confused now, I wonder what this will do to help? By allowing this behavior, we as a nation become complicit. This is a stain upon our honor IMHO.

Once we've institutionalized this behavior by brushing it aside "momentarily," we permit the torture and/or mistreatment of Iraqis (or other nationality in some future country). But where is the line drawn? The author indicates that we should overlook mistreatment and torture. What about rape and murder? What side of the line is that on? Is it a slippery slope? As everyday Iraqis witness or become the subject of this treatment, they turn hostile to the US and its allies. Quite simply, we validate the insurgent propaganda. This creates insurgent sympathizers and, indeed, insurgents; meaning more US troops are killed. Can it seriously be argued that Abu Graihb prevented American casualties? I vaguely recall reading something about that incident creating more insurgents and attacks picking up in the aftermath. However, I don;t need a study to tell me that if that happened to my friends, neighbors, or family, I'd be planting IEDs too.

I suspect that he, like me, knows that no one is going to 'win' against an Insurgency; all one can do is achieve an acceptable outcome. His comment is focussing on the action of individual fighters, not on the conduct of operations -- or strategy -- thus when he says "win" what he means is that the kid wants to stay alive.
And here's another point on which we disagree. I happen to think we can win against an insurgency, but not with the rules the author seeks to establish. Also, writing about the kid simply wanting to stay alive is tactical. Whether magazine space permits it or not, opinions must survive a strategic view. In other words, if a tactic undermines the strategy, we should think before acting. We certainly need more of that.

One last thought, you are correct that society hires butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, but there is a difference between those jobs and a soldier's job. The soldier is a professional and should act like one. Sometimes this mean overcoming your most primal instincts. Its why we train the way we do.