I pretty much agree. The bigger problems are the civilians killed in the houses.
I agree, that is a big problem.
Question: Being a young girl has admitted that she was aware that an IED would be detonated, under the UCMJ can every person that was in the home be considered to be an insurgent or a collaborator?
And that's no problem if they were receiving fire from any of that row of houses. An infantry troop who wants to live doesn't knock on the front door and ask "Are there any civilian garbed enemy in here?"
Obviously, for anyone who knows Geneva/Hague conventions, the blame for all of this rests with those who dress as civilians and fight amongst them. The requirement for forces to wear identifying uniforms or insignia is a legal measure by nations to protect civilians. I taught any number of classes on battlefield ethics for the Army, and I'm sure of this one.
If there was EVEN ONE civilian-garbed enemy, then this entire case should be thrown out. It's not reasonable to ask soldiers to distinguish in the heat of battle between civilian-garbed enemy and civilian-garbed civilians. That was the POINT of that Geneva protocol.
The culprits in the killing of the civilians were the INSURGENTS, who intentionally violated the safety of those civilians.