I could take offence to that, given I have friends in the US Army. They do give a damn. But that's not really what you mean. You mean the organisation. However, as I've just explained, there's a massive organisation which tries to minimise civilian casualties. moreover you can bet that if you could come up with a way to entirely remove civilian casualties they'd buy it immediately. You'd be a millionairre. Whereas a terrorist would have no use for such a device. They NEED to kill civilians to scare the bojangles out of people.
I should also point out that according to the Syrians, the attack wasn't an air strike. It was a special forces team. Makes it rather less likely that those killed where civilians (although clearly far from impossible).
Ref n00bo's question, I don't know what constitutes an unlawful combatant, but I think it is something to do with wearing a uniform, and not including persons wearing the red cross or red crescent.
Sounds like a nice device, but really isn't that a rather childish hypothetical. War, military operations, they costs lives, innocents lives too. You do what you can, but accept it as the price of achieving an objective. If you were merely trying to show that they weren't as bad as the terrorists, well, it's not that hard being better than a terrorist, no browny points for that achievement alone.
Of course it's in Syrias interest to prove that the US slaughtered a kindergarten to achieve its aim, but one would be just as foolish to accept an official US military version of what happened.