Okay, so what level of detriment do you think that collateral damage has?Moreover, this misses another point I was trying to make e.g., collateral damage is not as detrimental to our strategic objectives as everyone would like to think.
Strategic? Or do you mean tactical? I'd agree on tactical, but not on strategic. Especially if you are considering COIN in terms of economic development. Killing lots of civilians to the point where they will not work with Americans in economic development does not achieve strategic goals.And since we know collateral damage does not preclude the completion of strategic objectives, considerations of such should not jeopardize the safety of our troops.