Human Shields and Choice

[Moldran]

More to the point, accidental vs. intended matters to this extent: If the collateral damage is accidental, then these people are accomplishing absolutely nothing by going over there except to waste their own lives. Once conflict starts, the targets picked will have military significance (at least, according to the intelligence availabe), and if western protesters are sitting on those military targets it is going to be their tough luck. If a wrong target is picked or there is a communications fubar, having westerners on the ground can't do anything to deter it, and it's still going to be their tough luck.

You are making it a bit too easy.
What you don´t take into account is that the US forces know quite well which type of attack has which probability to miss its target and cause "collateral damage". In general, air attacks have a greater risk of causing collateral damage than ground attacks for example, but a smaller risk for your own soldiers.

Now, if there is a relevant number of western civilians in Baghdad for example, the US might simply decide to use attacks which are less likely to go wrong (use more of the expensive high-precision bombs, use ground forces earlier than they would otherwise). While the presence of the protesters cannot do anything when a wrong target is picked or a communication problem happened, it can maybe lessen the probability of such errors.

Moldran