I'm thinking of the many deaths that are "collateral damage". Usually women and children...
The death of civilians is always bad, but one has to consider what it would have been like in Iraq etc. if we were still using the same tactics as in WW2 and Vietnam. Area and blanket bombing killed tens of thousands for the sake of a few facilities destroyed.
I, unfortunately, know how much work went into ensuring that munitions did their job in the most efficient way back in the 80s. Bombs were designed to "exclude" the use of airfields for 24 hours at least, going off at random times. But, by the rules, those bombs had to
explode within that 24 hour period. We effectively did our best to design weapons that would not
kill people, not even enemy military personnel (unless, of course, they happened to be on the runways at the time of the attack.) They showed films on TV of RAF planes coming in at about 100 feet to ensure the munitions were pinpoint aimed. That is pushing it! Luckily most of the Iraqis ran for the shelters rather than man the AA guns when they saw the planes coming.
Unfortunately this enemy will hide amongst civilians deliberately, to ensure that non-combatants are killed to give them maximum propaganda, to make the rest of the locals angry at us and make people like us feel bad about the actions of our forces. That is a battle that is virtually un-winable.
Cross posted with animist, animist I think this problem has arisen in Syria where the IS seem to fight a more static war. As (if) they establish more in Iraq they will also become less mobile and it will become a problem. But we are still fighting the "collateral damage" war from the last lot.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."