Now… Before I begin, note that I’m not saying Ethics doesn’t have a place in warfare, just honor.
Now then, the Age of Chivalry is dead, and when it comes down to it, the enemies of America are no longer the sort of people we can afford to treat honorbly. This means using every cheap and dirty trick and tactic we’ve got, including, but not limited to, mines (self-defusing), cluster bombs and lots of air-bombardment, and using combat drones, and so forth.
The object of American invlolvement should be to accomplish our objectives at a minimal cost in US lives. All other considerations start at #2 and just start getting less important from there.
Now, you may wonder why I’m writing this. I have noticed that a number of posters have on occaision derided the very effective American military for being dishonorable. For example, in recent threads about Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the point (if I may lossely call it that) was made about one big bomb being dishonorable, as opposed to “soldiers fighting soldiers”. While its not something a noble Paladin might enage in, the twentieth century has no place for battlefield honor. This isn’t the civil war, and your enemies aren not also your bothers. In this case, given the Japanese government’s proclivities, “soldiers fighting children, old people, and the few soldiers left” would be more accurate.
Another thread featured a discussion about Afganistan. To use this as an example, we have used very powerful and nasty weapons of soldiers (cluster bombs, I mean). And why not use these weapons? A dead Taliban soldier is as dead from a cluster bomb as from a bullet.