מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי, תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת

Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry recently claimed he would fight "a more sensitive war on terror". In the abstract, that's a frightening prospect. Because in reality, President Bush is already taking too sensitive an approach. Right now in Iraq, we're allowing the cultural and religious aspects of the Imam Ali shrine to protect murderous cleric al-Sadr from our full powers. It's said we're doing so to avoid "alienating" the dominant, Iraqi Shiite population. But how much will we alienate the population from respecting us if we keep handling killers like al-Sadr with kid gloves?

more at coxandforkum.com

My take on this:
Shemot 21:14
וְכִי-יָזִד אִישׁ עַל-רֵעֵהוּ, לְהָרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה--מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי, תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת.
"And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die."

The Torah here is making a distinction between someone who committed accidental manslaughter and one who deliberately killed another. The deliberate killer is not protected by an Ir Miklat, a city of refuge. Even if he were on the altar of the Mishkan or Bet Hamikdash, either seeking refuge there, or else serving as a priest doing the service, this will not save him from his deserved punishment.

This seems to address the tension between the religious nature of the site (the altar of the Temple) and the obligation to wipe out evil. I think that in an instance like this, the moral thing to do is to attack and not pay heed to the fact that a mosque is there. (On the other hand, there are other factors at play here, such as whether this course of action would alienate many Iraqis and make winning the peace more difficult.) The same issue is at hand as regards the standoff between the terrorists and the Israeli Defense Force in 2002 at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. People were concerned that in the fight the church would get damaged, and felt this would be morally wrong. As a result, the Israelis conducted negotiations and let the terrorists leave the church in peace. I feel that the morally correct action would be to kill the terrorists, and if the church is harmed, it is harmed. Lives of the innocent are more important than architecture, even if it has some historic/religious significance. Similarly here, it looks like the Iraqis are willing to allow al-Sadr to escape if he leaves the mosque peacefully.

Idealogian seems to take the opposite opinion, also referring to psukim, making the case that we should be "sensitive warriors." I do not entirely agree with him. He claims we should be merciful in war, and refers to certain precedents. However, I would point out that the precedent is to propose peace first, but once you fight a war, you fight a war to win. Mercy in war, especially with those who see this mercy as a weakness and take advantage of it, is self-destructive. Overwhelming force serves to end it quickly and demoralize the enemy so that they surrender, at which point you can have peace.