So ? It doesn't change anything about the fact that when you get down to the fundamentals, the role soldiers fulfill in a community is to fight, kill and if necessary die when needed. That's the basic reason of existence of the whole profession. All the rest is really just additional paraphenelia such as how exactly they go about fulfilling these duties, when, where, why, with what tools etc etc, or if they can make themselves useful during peacetime too.
Particularly in a professional (which in practice means mercenary; soldiers serve in return of financial benefits) army like the American one (indeed, particularly the American one which has fought about one war per decade since WW2...) this adds up to their lives being as-such worth less than those of the civilians; after all, they have on their own accord, for whatever reason, entered into a profession where getting killed in combat is an expected health hazard, and thus don't really have too much in the way of complaint coming if it happens. Conscript armies, based on the legal obligation of the citizens to serve under arms, are a bit different issue, but with them it can be argued that the risks of military service are a part of the "membership fee" the community demands from its inhabitants.
Civilians, conversely, have not conditionally rented their lives away in such a fashion. Hence, it is morally unsustainable to argue for tactics that incur considerable risks to civilian populations with the safety of one's own soldiers.
Bookmarks