Hmm, here's no-one from the "peace!" faction, so let me fill this role.

Civilians should be treated as humans, not different from your own fellow citizens.

There's no need for dedicated COIN doctrine or strategic insights to find the right path in this case. Simply don't treat foreign civilians as sub-humans and you'll avoid stupid mistakes.

- - - - -

About the high level of carefulness in infantry actions:
Infantry is not meant to fight in open terrain. It's not the infantry's element. I think that should have been understood by the late 19th century.

ISAF/OEF-A are using infantry in open terrain because of logistical restrictions. I'm sure everyone there would be happy to use IFVs for almost everything.
The infantry may be more risk-averse than appropriate for the mission, but that's in my opinion just an emulation of the degree of necessary carefulness in conflicts against enemies with proper firing range training.

We better don't expect the infantry to show more aggressiveness and daring in future conflicts - it would in my opinion be inappropriate.
Support has taken over most personnel slots in modern armies - for a reason. It's there and it will stay. Such a force structure would be insane if support wasn't important.*

I remember the discussions of 2002. It wasn't air power or nothing. The discussion was about the neglect of artillery and mortars. This aspect has strangely lost attention. Sure, there are mortars and there is artillery, but it seems as if the log problems still keep these assets from becoming the primary source for FS.
Or maybe the infantry doesn't place much emphasis on mortars because higher HQs want to have control over support fires and thus keep mortars relatively unimportant?




*: I'm in favour of a greater infantry share, but not so much that it would alter the argument.