Michael Hiteshew at Whine and Jeez
has an excellent post on the moral and military aspects of killing civilians during war.
The only qualm I have with this well put together article is in the following excerpt:
So we, the 'civilized' world, are faced with an interesting strategic situation. We have it within our power, and let there be no doubt that we do, to kill every single member of our enemy's 'tribe'. Whether we define that tribe as all Muslims, or just all Arabs, or just all Saudis. We could start tomorrow and be done in a few weeks, maybe a few months, a few years at the most. Every - Single - Muslim - On - Earth. Dead.
I think we'd all agree that's not necessary. It's not even, I would argue, in our best interest since the totality of that level of warfare would wreak havoc across the globe and set back civilization at least 100 years, maybe far more.
So that leaves us with more difficult and challenging problem. Dealing with these mass killers ruthlessly, yet dealing with them as groups of individuals. And it will actually be a far easier job than killing them all. It will require fewer resources, but will take much longer to accomplish.
Now I'm not condoning his first statement above, I am however of the belief that it would be cheaper and use less resources to do the former than the latter.
Let me state again that I don't condone genocide. I'm simply commenting on his assertion that it would be cheaper and use less resources to handle it the way we are now.
Hat tip: Armies Of Liberation