http://dearraed.blogspot.com makes it very clear that the US should have probably not killed them in the first place, choosing instead to surround and capture them, instead. This point was further driven home by Robert Fisk in the press conference in Iraq yesterday.
Fisk: The Americans are specialists in surrounding places, keeping people in them, holding up for a week, if necessary, to make them surrender. These guys only had, it appears, AK-47s, and you had immense amount of firepower. Surely, the possibility of the immense amount of information they could have given coalition forces, not to mention the trials that they could have been put on for war crimes, held out a much greater possibility of victory for you if you could have surrounded that house and just sat there until they came out, even if they were prepared to keep shooting.
GEN. SANCHEZ: Sir, that is speculation. Next slide...
Fisk: No, sir, it's an operational question. Surely you must have considered this much more seriously than you suggested.
GEN. SANCHEZ: Yes, it was considered, and we chose the course of action that we took.
Q: Why, sir?
GEN. SANCHEZ: Next slide -- or, next question, please.
The military had time, the element of surprise, special forces troops, and nonlethal weapons -- so why did they attack with rockets and TOW missiles?
Where is Saddam? Could we have learned more about Iraq's WMD programs? Is it better for the Bush administration to not have some questions answered?