And where's the consideration for the fact that desperate measures are used by desperate people (e.g., the Palastenians, the Iraqi insurgents) against far better equipped, trained, supplied troops? Nowhere to be found.
When US forces have a battle with 250 insurgents killed and 0 US killed, people say 'good', and say the insurgents are immoral if they use the only tactics that have any chance. This comes from not seeing things from the other side's point of view; Americans in their shoes would suddenly see the justification for desperate measures.
This comes from tending not to question the underlying morality of the conflict. It's easy to assume that it's the equivalent of a SWAT team against a criminal; no one's too worried about the lack of 'fairness' of the good guys (police) being overpowered compared to the bad guy, say a hostage taker in a bank robbery. But when the conflict isn't so clear morally, it's about our simply going after power for us for its own sake, about fighting many people who are just defending their home from foreign occupiers, it's another issue.
Another bias that exists for many Americans is the double standard - when the 'other side' has a unit do something, it reflects on that side; when our side has a unit do something, it's 'bad apples'.
Can any right-winger here point me to a single place where they defended an enemy by saying that wrongdoing by a unit was 'bad apples'? I doubt it.
That bias keeps them hating the other side and considering ours justified regardless of the facts. We kill 2 million Vietnamese who want freedom from occupiers? Oops. An 'enemy' does a fraction of that? They're evil!!