"... but is it any more humane to starve civilians than to bomb them?"
That was my original question. If we set out to kill, the method, it seems to me is unimportant, and therefore, one method is not "cleaner" or "morally superior" to the other. I keep coming back to "Thou shall not kill" and "What you do to the least of my brothers.." I'm an agnostic, truth to tell, but I still believe there is a lot to be said for that philosophy.
As a former military man (and the descendant of military men) I understand the need for war and realize that it's not a very nice business.
But, since we live in a nation that was founded upon the principles of Western Civilization (prime amongst them the Judeo-Christian ethic mentioned above, and the Geneva and Hague Conventions on Warfare), I think we have a duty to ask those questions, even if the answers merely raise more questions.
I see, and thus we come back to the original point of the article. If you don't agree with the use of the term "moral", would you agree that the method that kills the least number of people to achieve the desired result is preferred? That's what the bombs did and I agree with the author that their use was indeed moral.