When do you order the airstrike?

A few days ago, I speculated on if and when torture might be "okay."

What about an airstrike on a target where you have indications that terrorists are located in the midst of civilians?

The latest news from Iraq is that several houses in Falluja were hit killing 22. The reason the location was targeted was because some people in the Zarqawi's network were believed to be there.

How do you decide?

If you wait for a totally clear shot, you may never have the shot?

Then given that the terrorists know that the American public and the Iraqi public will be outraged at innocent civilian being killed they will ALWAYS put their headquarters and hold their meetings in the midst of civilians.

So when do you give the order?

How many innocents do we kill going after the guilty?

In our legal system, we have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard which means it is possible that occasionally the guilty go free in order we do not imprison the innocent. Of course, in practice, we now and then hear that news that DNA data revealed somebody was convicted incorrectly. There is no perfect system.

Are the standards different in war?

UBL pretty much hides out in caves in the mountains, but what if one of his top level aides is holding a meeting with two mid-level operatives to pass along plans for the next attack against the USA. They don't want to drive into the mountains and risk giving away UBL's location. Instead, they set up a meeting right in the middle of an elementary school, do we hit the target?

In Iraq, what if we find out some Hussein loyalists are plotting to kill the top leaders of the new provisional government. They hold the planning meeting in the back room of a restaurant. Do we raid the restaurant and risk killing 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. civilians who have no idea what is going on in the back?

Again, I have no answers, just a headache thinking about it.