'Collateral damage' or a dead child?

The official purpose of military intervention is 'to protect civilian lives at any cost'. Does that mean literally thousands of civilians should perish as 'collateral damage' when bombing a handful of enemy combatants who plan to kill a few dozen civilians?

Of course not.

But if the cure is worse than the plague? Much, much worse?
Shouldn't the attacks be reconsidered?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/opinion/isis-syria-iraq-civilian-casualties.html?smid=tw-share

The families of those casualties...will they be pleased with the 'help' they receive or will they turn into really, really angry people who themselves will turn hostile towards their 'liberators'?

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B00K4007NG