It’s actually against the Geneva Conventions if the body in question is that of a lawful combatant under the terms of those conventions.But since the Conventions’ prohibitions are treated by terrorists as a manual on what to do rather than what to eschew, that shouldn’t be an issue.
was a uniformed "lawful combatant" according to
the Geneva Conventions.
7
There were no lawful enemy combatants in AFG from the outset, and no one to note in IRQ after the reduction of the Saddam Regime. All were non-uniformed, non-Hague or Geneva Convention combatants. They all are terrorist criminals, any found to be bearing arms against US personnel were are and always ought to be eliminated with prejudice.
We play by restrictive rules our enemy consider the norm.
We are the better for it, but it costs more.... Seeing the results of kinetic action on the field, being part of it is mentally survivable IF you know in your heart you did right.
The reason ( in my personal opinion) that we have so many PTSD diagnosis is that the institution wants it so, but that is off topic and for another thread.
The blood on (most) US combat troops’ hands is fully justifiable and most of the rest is excusable.