I see your view of the wounded...and with this enemy, I understand how we end up the care givers. FWIW, I am of the take no prisoners mentality...
well I don't know about that... I think all the talk about how "mean" we are and how we torture folks and killing the wounded is in fact helping the muj and hurting us. Please just follow this....
If you (the enemy) think we are pussies and treat prisoners with kid gloves and they get 3 hots and a cot plus a koran...well in the middle of a fire fight or after seeing a couple of the houses filled with their buddies blow up. They're (the weaker ones or the ones sitting on the fence)not going to mind giving up to us. But if we're painted as torturers and kill 'em all types then they've got no reason to quit or surrender. Thus making it necessary to actually kill them.... all of them.
As an example, think about this. How many Marines have surrendered in combat in Iraq. The reason they won't is bravery, honor, and also way back in their minds they know if they give up... the Muj is going to put them on the Internet and slit their throat for everybody to see. So I'm guessing every single dude at a forward position has made his mind up to go down slinging lead, grenades and a knife rather than be captured. I know that's the only way I'd go down.... cause I'm chicken sh#t when it comes to having my throat slit for the viewing of the general public.
That's why we (the US) treats it's prisoners fairly well once captured. Of course, sometimes we don't...... or as the great philosopher Patrick Swayze said in "Roadhouse".... "be NICE.... until it's time to NOT BE NICE.".... of course that's only my opinion and I could be wrong.
But while we're in the debate, what about the FMJ requirement contained in the treaties our enemies routinely ignore? Politically that restriction is etched in stone surrounded by a force field. I'd suspect our "allies" would challenge some of the modern ammunition being discussed here, if not on technical grounds then on the spirit of the Convention.