I agree with you Jack, and I also largely agree with the unnamed guest who posted before you. But in addition to the moral aspects of this, I do think that both sides are cognizant of the public relations implications as well, and the fact that PR has a substantial impact on the financial and diplomatic support they may expect in the future. Call this "cynical" if you will, but I think this is a factor; not the only factor, but certainly one that is being considered.

For me, the bottom line in a lot of this is that the quest for justice through retribution is generally futile, particularly when the cycle of revenge killings continues for decades (as it has in both of these conflicts). The longer such a thing goes on, the muddier the questions of "right" and "wrong" become, until eventually the core issues are buried under the weight of all the scores that need to be settled. This does not mean I believe that the use of force is never justified -- I continue to feel that a carefully managed military campaign against the Taliban is appropriate and necessary at this stage, just as the war against the Nazis was appropriate and necessary. But it should not be pursued solely in a quest for retribution; rather, it should be designed to achieve specific objectives, with a priority placed on limiting the actions to those necessary to achieve the stated objectives, and an awareness that the conduct of the war will continue to shape the world we live after the hostilities have ceased.