"If you are trying to defeat an insurgency who is hiding out among the "good guys", you do it surgically."
At times this not possible. Its called collateral damage.
And I'm sure that had Patten NOT been able to get around those Germans in any other way than going straight through them, he would have done exactly what I stated.
Yes, collateral damage occurs. But targetting is done with a careful eye to MINIMIZING it. I heard an interview just the other day with a targeting specialist in Iraq. Part of the process is to estimate the potential number of civilian deaths in any given strike; if that number is too high, a different method of reducing the target is chosen. Our weapons are specifically designed for a particular effect, not just to destroy the largest area.
Deliberate, unnecessary damage, for the sake of punishing civilians DOESN'T happen anymore, at least not by design. I won't claim that every soldier plays by every rule all the time - I'm sure that there have been isolated instances of soldiers overstepping the bounds. But no commander worth his salt would order that. And shouldn't.
Your allusions to "political correctness" in our training and doctrine is a dead give-away that you don't understand the way wars are fought. He who does the most damage doesn't win; he who does the best job of defeating the enemy does. Protecting civilian infrastructure and lives isn't "political correctness", it's the best way to prove to the population that you are on their side. When they believe that, they will help you. That's the way you win against insurgents - you take away their support from the population.
Going around an enemy, and leaving him in fighting form but able to attack your flank is a stupid maneuver. Now maybe Patton would do that, but only if another unit could secure the area bypassed.