[SPOILER]why couldn't the girl...

It needed to end that way in order to drive home the main point of the film. This is the cost of this type of warfare, civilian casualties.

There's another thread almost identical to this, and the other responder and I say basically the same things there that we do here: I think the girl should have lived. It didn't have to be a maudlin, sentimental happy ending. Her living would have underscored even more the awful dilemma that *some* military and government leaders feel about war--in particular, modern warfare. If the 45% cheat turned out correct, the irony would have been great.

The fact that she died means the audience doesn’t get an easy pass, by saying, well she was hurt, but she will be alright in the end; it was for the greater good.

That would have watered down the point they were trying to make and they did not want to let us off that easy. In my opinion, it was the right call.

From a literary or movie\tv perspective sometimes the sting really needs to burn to make a point resonate. If she had lived, as a viewer I would have been glad, but I probably would have stopped thinking about the movie by now.

I attended a lecture by Michael Malone (novelist\professor) last fall and he was talking about killing characters when it is necessary. He said modern readers and TV\Movie viewers would prefer that there were no negative racial implications for a marriage between Othello and Desdemona. Iago, wouldn’t really be a villain, he would just be misunderstood. Othello would never raise his voice or be guilty of domestic abuse. Desdemona would never be murdered, during the final argument she would simply lose her footing on some stairs and twist her ankle. Her would carry her to bed, and put some ice on the wound, and they would ‘talk about it.’

Basically, Malone was making the point that if Shakespeare wrote the play like that then the themes, of rage, jealousy, corruption, etc.; aren’t worth serious thought. A good writer doesn't want to make morality that simplistic.

I think it was far more realistic having the child not live. The fact that the targeteer had to lie saying it was only 45% chance of fatality gives that impact that no matter what you say, truth or lie, that there's often the negative consequence.

Brilliant movie in my opinion.

She got what she deserved IMO. Selling the bread after it had already been bought, may have been innocent intentions but ultimately got her killed and was wrong.

Hellfire Missles have a penchant for small defenseless bread sellers.

Of course she had to die. The whole point was to make the viewer decide if the ends justify the means. Where the movie failed is that I could care less about her. The movie didn't do a good enough job making me care about her. If maybe we got to know the girl better I would miss her but she was just a face. And frankly 3 terrorists and a suicide bomber died in the process. The only people I judge in this fictional world is the terrorists. They are the ones to blame for this, they put the life of that girl in danger. I was actually hoping the missile would not get fired and then the suicide bomber would blow up the town killing the girl anyway. Showing there was no way to save her. That would of been an ending that would make people think.