Charlie Noble said:

It's just another sad case of collateral damage.

Despite the way that phrase is thrown around in the media, the term "collateral damage" is a term of art in the US military. It does not refer to damage or wounding or death of personnel; it refers to damage to real estate and/or infrastructure, incidental to military operations directed to actual military targets. Thus, damage to a museum, say, beside an attacked strategic bridge would constitute "collateral damage", whereas the wounding or death of someone within the museum is NOT "collateral damage".

It's is a very specific and useful term which, like to many other useful words and phrases in the language, has been thrown around so carelessly that it is likely to cause misunderstanding.

Dave Oesterreich