If the military cannot be trusted to use their toys within the agreed guidelines then the only option is to take their toys away
Lets just work this point up a touch. There is something in it, to a point.

"The military" are collectively under civilian control. No one thinks the army should be allowed to decide what country to invade (although, now I mention it, would this be such a bad thing?) So far so good.

Then there are some weapons that by general agreement need to be under civilian control, most obviously nukes. Also good. Thank god Curtis Le May never had nukes released to him.

But there comes a level of detail beyond which the civilians (ie politicians and lawyers) cannot reasonably expect to be able to go. Having set the objective (invade Afganistan) and specifed some very broad parameters (and no nukes, you naughty generals) you've got to let the military get on with it as they see fit.

I mean, where does this end? No shooting, unless you can see a solid backstop behind your target? No using helicopters at night in case it keeps civilians awake?

If you are going to tell the military that they can and can't use certain weapons which, broadly, seem perfectly sensible to me (eg the airfield denial thing), then, that's fine, but I think they should be allowed to refuse to go if they think your rules expose them to unnecessary risk. You can't have it both ways. The politican, can always decide to use military force, or not. Using force has consequences. I don't think you should be allowed to decide to use force, kid yourself its somehow been sanitised, and expose more of your own forces to harm than need be. That is having your cake and eating it.