sorry Jeff, i disagree- i think the illusion of understanding and clarity is precisley what has put guys in green in situations that are far more gray than B&W.

i don't think that your buddy is "wrong"-- he's speaking as a NG NCO-- precisely the sort of fella in green who should NOT be overseas serving in internecine warfare; his mission should have remained stateside.

without condoning the US presence in Central Asia [i don't], if the COIN strategy is to work then it needs to be administered by the very sort of professional military men who conceived it-- again, COIN has in the past been part of SF's portfolio, not that of the citizen soldier.

they are the ones who have been trained to parse the COIN risk/ reward ratio and are paid to exercise tactical 'restraint' in pursuit of the strategic objective

and if the US COIN's strategic objective is to make the case to the Afghans that the US is on their side and that the AQ/ Talib are the bad guys, then lighting up innocents in perceived self-defense is playing precisely into the bad guys' hands.

BTW-- as to being 'threatened'?

whose country is it anyway?

This was a very clear, understandable explanation. Obviously, American soldiers want to avoid unneccessary injury to anyone. (I've heard this is not neccessarily true with the private security firms out there). However, when directly threatened, it's only common sense to repond in an appropriate manner. To do otherwise is not only unfair to expect of the soldiers, but also reflects badly on the authority of the American forces, and encourages further aggresion against the soldier.

as their mission is currently COIN, winning hearts and minds are possibly THE most important key to that mission.

and restraint is exactly what is needed.

perhaps COIN is contraindicated for Infantry troopies-- it is more of a classic SF task-- but if every dead innocent means another AQ/ Tal fighter recruited, then restraint serves the mission if only by NOT INCREASING THE OPPOSITION FORCES

perhaps we can agree that it is a bit more complicated than a video game?

Your teaser misspelled the word - it's medal, not metal. But putting that aside, let me express my disagreement. Soldiers, Marines and, to a lesser degree, sailors, are trained to fight. In an ideal world, there would be no civilian casaulties and only the "bad guys" would be killed. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. It would be terrific if our fighting forces didn't have to kill civilians but in many cases, the bad guys use civilians as traps. So please - no talk about medals (not metals) for restraint. These are FIGHTERS, not LOVERS.