The prohibition against directly targeting civilians in war may be the strongest norm in all international relations. Nevertheless, civilian devastation remains a hallmark of today’s armed conflicts. Terrorists and zealots and “unlawful enemy combatants” routinely kill and maim innocent people. But so do state militaries that profess to follow the laws of war, also known as international humanitarian law, or IHL. The image of modern humanitarian law is the judge advocate in the war room surveying the battlespace and advising the generals on the legality of particular tactics and targets. It’s not the war room of Dr. Strangelove with its jingoistic antics and blinking “big board.” Far from it. Humanitarian law genuinely strives to limit the destructiveness of war, particularly as regards the treatment of noncombatants. The legal notion that civilians should be spared the hard hand of war is not absolute, however. It is designed to mitigate civilian harm while upholding, within limits, the prerogative of states to pursue military necessity and strategic advantage. It weighs the lawfulness of war from the standpoint of the state’s actions and intentions, not from the standpoint of war’s collateral victims.