In this interesting article "human shields" are ascribed agency they do not have in reality, thus I think the theories spun from there-on amount to over-rationa

In this interesting article "human shields" are ascribed agency they do not have in reality, thus I think the theories spun from there-on amount to over-rationalisation. People in war zones do not make neat decisions as separate, well informed Bayesian utility maximisers. They have families to leave behind or protect. Mixed alliances. Unspoken bonds and threats. Levels of denial, hope, and fear. They are immersed in mixed messages, propaganda and deception. To protect them, they may not know their own sons and brothers are insurgents, or that they are proximate to a weapons cache and so on... So they cannot fall into neat categories like voluntary, involuntary, coerced etcetera, and I worry that over-analytical ideas expressed in the article become justifications for action like bombing a position because the "human shields" there are deemed willing. I hope I am not misreading the piece in a shallow way.