No doubt. In their world, minimizing collateral damage is a sign of weakness and cowardice.
Personally, and this is a values thing, there needs to be a call in warfare when it comes to collateral damage. I admire and look to Winston Churchhill in these matters. Churchhill was very distressed as he made the decision in WWII to for total warfare. (Total warfare, meaning the bombing civilian targets.) He did come to the conclusion that it was required. I'm sure he was helped along by the Germans indiscriminately targeting London. All the same, the value judgement is how much humanity do you need to lose, not the enemy, to defeat the enemy. Think about that for a moment, because a corollary to this is, if you are unwilling to lose enough humanity you will not defeat the enemy.
I am completely willing my humanity when it comes to Muslims in warfare. The reason being is I want them defeated, and that is what it requires. I am helped along by the fact that Muslims have a brutal history of genocide, slavery, and oppression. They do not have the values of Western Civilization, and as such I believe they are completely able to understand being victims of "collateral" damage. Certainly, they have grief in losing a child or a wife. But they have no empathy when they kill one of ours. Some would reflect on this. This is their jihad, their struggle.
So using dumb bombs, napalm, cluster bombs and other weapons that somewhat indiscriminately target, are economical and effective in warfare. This is particularly true if it doesn't put our soldiers, Marines and airmen in harms way. As for world opinion against us, they are against us no matter what we do. Perhaps if the world shuttered in fear because of our tactics they would keep their damn mouths shut.
Ask yourself the questions, "Why has Afghanistan never been defeated?" or "Why didn't we win the Vietnam War?" and "What would it take to do so?" The answer has nothing to do with our weapons, technology or the training of our soldiers.