Why should civilians be insolated from war?

Question

In Lebanon, Hezbollah enjoys membership in the government and has support of many locals – I've heard dozens interviewed on news clips, including NPR.

In the pseudo state of Palestine, the popular vote went to HAMAS – they own the government.

The modern altruist rules of engagement: (1) proportional death on both sides, (2) sacrifice your own soldiers, (3) discriminate between militants & civilians whilst firing from tanks & planes, risking your own men, and doing it when you don't necessarily have the technology of the US precision munitions, (4) have some overarching mission [democracy, freeing the people...] that justifies your own defense, and (5) never actually declare war; are as suicidal in practice as you would expect in theory.

Should war, once it [unfortunately] comes to that, be all out fight to win, decisively & swiftly?

Answer 1

I agree with some of your arguments but there are, selfish reasons for sparing civilians. Here are a few:
1. If civilians can visibly see that you are targeting their leaders and not them they will be less likely to be loyal to the government.
2. If you spend money on "smart bombs" you actually save money in the long run even though the bombs cost more. You need not use as many.
3. "Clean-up" is not as costly as less of the infrastructure will have been destroyed.
4. You have a greater likelihood that the end result will be a civilized society that does not hold huge grudges against the former enemy.

Answer 2

Neither Israel or Lebanon are superpowers so the UN and other nations can tell them how to wage war. I don't see much relief going to Iraq.

Answer 3

Are you an Israeli cyber-warrior?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2289232,00.html

Answer 4

Yeah.....with few civillian casualties as possible.