The 'Courageous Restraint' Medal appears to be putting the lives of allied forces in danger. This was the fear of people who apposed it. The problem cited below was not from the person in danger themselves, but how support responds to requests for help.
No one is advocating for indescribably killing innocent bystanders for no reason, what, what people are saying is that coalition forces should not act in a way that incentives the terrorists taking human shields.
"ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz was allowed to fly in an Air Force F-15E fighter jet on a combat mission in Afghanistan. The plane was loaded with 500-pound bombs and ready to protect coalition forces on the ground. But the guiding principle of the mission, Raddatz writes, was to exercise “courageous restraint,” that is, to not fire at the enemy if there were the possibility that civilians might be hurt or if buildings might be damaged — even if that meant that American or coalition forces were in great danger.
“Sometimes not firing can be tough,” Raddatz writes. “Pilots say it’s hard to watch their fellow soldiers on the ground taking fire.”
But that’s what they do, under orders from top American commanders. On this mission, when a French officer on the ground requested a bomb be dropped on the enemy, the U.S. pilot said no, opting for strafing instead because it would be safer for those on the ground — except, of course, for the coalition forces."