I recently read "Kill everything that moves" which is about Vietnam (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0805086919 http://www.amazon.com

I recently read "Kill everything that moves" which is about Vietnam (http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0805086919 http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/0... ). Apparently in Vietnam there was contempt for local life, massacres like My Lan were almost policy, fueled by the need to present bodycounts. But policy and incentives alone wasn't what caused this - courts martial were ineffective, even if they had plenty of evidence and the military culture encouraged massacres. I'd have to wonder what part of this remained. Is it possible that drone strikes operators also have bodycount incentives - kill n number of terrorists, get a day off a raise and maybe a promotion. But more importantly how much of its just "war", the real one, not seen on TV. Maybe the president of the US is right: exposing atrocities and punishing the perpetrators will expose US troops to risk; but in that case isn't the case for war even weaker? How can you claim to prevent crime when you are doing it yourself?