> I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in

> I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. Targeting doctors would be flat out illegal, if marked as doctors. But recovering wounded (which is what's being described here) is not a job performed by doctors or medics in these specific cases. Even for U.S. forces, the initial extraction of wounded soldiers is almost always performed by other soldiers on the battlefield so that the the medic (normally only one) can work in a somewhat safer spot while they stabilize the casualty for MEDEVAC. If there are cases where a second shot is launched without militarily actionable intelligence that reasonably indicates the follow-up shot is also against military targets (i.e. not doctors, chaplains, civilians, etc.) then that would be a crime too. I'm not trying to say second shots are always permissible just because there have been times when Taliban have committed perfidy, you'd still need good intel each and every single time that tactic is used for it to be legal. But what I am saying is that often the story you read about actions in war are completely one-sided to make you believe that people are really going around doing things "equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food".