The body may not have been buried in its' entirety.
I wouldn't consider it unusual to have kept a hair or blood sample on record. And as it has been said before, better to just close this chapter in history than to parade around a corpse and drag out all these negative emotions.
(Also. A 5.56 round to the eye WILL do a lot of damage. TvTropes knows.
As an American and a member of the armed forces, I was disgusted to see people getting drunk and celebrating a death. That's not justice, it's bloody revenge. We should have had a moment of silence for the victims of 9/11 and felt relief that we made such a step forward into doing them right.
As for American soldiers massacring civillians?
The majority of civillian deaths in any conflict downrange nowadays comes from the insurgency. A bomb goes off, maybe 20 people die. Only one of them was an American. That's pretty routine.
Plus, the Insurgency likes to situate themselves among women and children.
Until you've had to deal with life-threateningly frustrating ROE and an enemy disguised as civillians (also remember a good portion of the male population carry an AK over there for personal safety), I don't want to hear any crap about how reckless the soldiers are being.
If you want a clean war, fine... We'll send in ground troops instead of bombing the whole building. And then you'll complain because the war is too costly and fatal.
"In "Counterinsurgencyís Impossible Trilemma," Dr. Lorenzo Zambernardi, an Italian academic now working in the United States, clarifies the tradeoffs involved in counterinsurgency operations. He argues that counterinsurgency involves three main goals, but in real practice a counterinsurgent needs to choose two goals out of three. Relying on economic theory, this is what Zambernardi labels the "impossible trilemma" of counterinsurgency. Specifically, the impossible trilemma suggests that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve: 1) force protection, 2) distinction between enemy combatants and noncombatants, and 3) the physical elimination of insurgents.
According to Zambernardi, in pursuing any two of these three goals, a state must forgo some portion of the third objective. In particular, a state can protect its armed forces while destroying insurgents, but only by indiscriminately killing civilians as the Ottomans, Italians, and Nazis did in the Balkans, Libya, and Eastern Europe. It can choose to protect civilians along with its own armed forces instead, avoiding so-called collateral damage, but only by abandoning the objective of destroying the insurgents. Finally, a state can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants while killing insurgents, but only by increasing the risks for its own troops, as the United States and ISAF did in Afghanistan under the leadership of Gen. Stanley McChrystal. So a country must choose two out of three goals and develop a strategy that can successfully accomplish them, while sacrificing the third objective.
Zambernardiís theory posits that to protect populations, which is necessary to defeat insurgencies, and to physically destroy an insurgency, the counterinsurgentís military forces must be sacrificed, risking the loss of domestic political support."
Can we just agree to disagree?
U.S. policy is to distinguish enemy and civillians and the physical or political elimination of insurgents. This leaves the troops more vulnerable. More U.S. deaths cause loss of public support, which means the entire operation is more likely to fail. (The Tet Offensive was a spectacular military failure on the Vietnamese' part... but it shattered the morale of the home front, leading to U.S. withdrawl.)
Some would rather we protect our soldiers and eliminate the insurgents, often at the civillian's expense. It'll get the job done, possibly... but it's not very ethical. It also runs the risk of creating more insurgents with our ham-fisted approach. In such a case, you gotta kill 'em all. They can't avenge their fathers if the sons are dead. Not an effective tactic unless you go all out with it.
My opinion? The public needs to stop being so ignorant about the conduct of war and our capabilities. The assumption is that we always have positive ID of our enemy. That accidents don't happen. That the insurgency isn't the most underhanded and evil group of bastards on the planet, sacrificing their own children and wives for the cause and literally forcing us to kill innocents. That the insurgency isn't
deliberately misleading some of us into believing a family reunion is really a terrorist cell get-together so we conduct operations against innocents.
I hate censorship... but I think sometimes the public is better off not knowing what they can't understand.