I'm surprised the idea of the unnecessary killing of civilians means nothing to you.
I've thought about this all day. It could be that the definition of civilian has either changed or needs to change with respect to war.
@RLD I'm not calling you out; this quote serves to help me work through my academic thought exercise. I'm speaking from the US first-person perspective. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
It could be that the killing of civilians IS necessary in the modern arena of warfare. Disclaimer: I'm a civilian and a layman when it comes to militaria; I'm making this up as I go along. There is no conscription anymore. In the time of conscription, civilians were drafted into military service. The killing of "our boys" would have been enough to influence the hearts and minds of the people to continue or cease a war effort. Why? The boys at war and the families at home were all personally invested in the war effort. This ended after Vietnam (to my GenX way of thinking) Now we have an unconstitutional, standing, professional army whose job it is to remain war-ready and to go to war. War efforts are detached from the civilian's heart and mind; all we see is a video game on TV. The soldiers know what they are getting into, they volunteered, and they are paid to be full-time warriors. There may be general outrage at the prospect of war, but those with the outrage rarely have anything personally invested.
Likewise, the face of the enemy has changed. There no longer exists a united front against a singular individual enemy (King George, the Kaiser, Hitler/The Axis Powers, the NVA, the USSR, etc.). Even in great world wars with multiple countries and leaders in play, you cut off the head, the enemy dies. You deplete the enemy's resources, its ability to fight is curtailed. That is no longer true; the enemy is an ideology and the enemy is among us- the enemy is no longer "over there"; the enemy is here and we're not allowed to point a finger at it, speak against it, bully it, fight it, restrain it, or imprison it. We're told we have to accept it, show no bias against it, embrace it, co-exist with it. When you are not allowed to rally against your opponent and when there is no united front, the battle can't even begin.
During the "Cold War" (I use that term loosely) Rocky fought the greatest battle against the Soviets and the US was united as one in that fight. A loose band of high school Wolverines fought a Soviet invasion on US soil and prevailed. Jack Ryan stole a Russian submarine. Even if it was only fiction, the US beat the Russians at everything and we were united in those battles. When you know for sure who the enemy is, you can fight the tiniest, insignificant of battles and win the war of HEARTS AND MINDS.
I'll conclude and limit my thought to the current Iran crisis since that's the topic of the day. Iran has been a problem for the US since the hostage crisis of 1979. I was a 3rd grade Cub Scout in those days and I remember vividly that issue affecting me and all my young friends at the time. We were politically charged by the likes of Mad and Cracked magazines; we watched the news with our parents and we knew what was going on. Seriously, almost 50 years of putting up with Iran and Afganistan and whatever-stan.
War is no longer a board game for the leaders of countries to move pawn armies around a geographic board like it's a game of Risk. Today, everyone is involved whether they want to be or not. There should not be a military distinction between civilian and combatant. The old rules of soldiers and civilians don't apply anymore; this isn't a football game where some play and the rest watch. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out IF you're saying you're going to war.
OTOH, I quote my favorite philosopher of the 1990s:
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids? … It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. [ …] Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out." -Rodney King
Conclusion: Making no distinction between civilian and military combatant might bring conflicts to a more decisive end more quickly in the modern age. I close with this image to rest my weakly argued case; why do you think the baddest MF'n knife Spyderco makes is called the Civilian?