&gt; The targets are often not combatants; in fact, many of the targets have no known identity at all.<p>I&#x27;m genuinly curious — do you honestly think that the fact that attack X killed civilians means that it was supposed to killed civilians? That people who make this kind of decision had reasons to believe that they actually made the right choice?<p>We&#x27;re all very wise in hindsight — but I find it very hard to believe that military officers in this situation often have access to 100% solid intelligence. You could argue that they should increase their standards for given intelligence, but that brings us to the second point.<p>&gt; If anybody strains to minimize civilian casualties, they&#x27;re doing a piss-poor job of it.<p>All analysis I&#x27;ve seen on the matter only looks at casualties from the airstrikes. Where&#x27;s the other side of the equation: where&#x27;s the same analysis about completed military objectives in campaign as a whole, and where&#x27;s analysis about lives that were saved as a result?<p>&gt; In fact, often it looks as if non-combatants and civilian structures were deliberately targeted.<p>I have heard such claims, but I never saw them being backed up with data that would suggest that decision-maker in this particular place actually had solid reasons to believe that he was targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Once more: we&#x27;re all wise in hindsight.<p>I honestly feel that people who are making this kind of arguments aren&#x27;t even trying to imagine what&#x27;s war is, with lack of information and awful choices that you have to make. Do you honestly believe that there are ways to solve this kind of situation without innocent people dying in suffering?