"terror is as terror does"
Basically you're taking the morally craven position that the end justifies the means.
The military always has a choice of weapons. Choosing a terror weapon as the means clearly implies that the desired end was terror. The military's own doctrine says that napalm is the only choice only in exotic circumstances like incinerating biological weapons, where explosives risk dispersion:
Incendiaries are the only weapons which can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets such as biological weapons facilities which require high heat to eliminate bio-toxins.
Incendiary Weapons @ GlobalSecurity.org
There was no indication then, back in March, and none now, that the military was going after biological weapons. The target was an observation post near the border with Kuwait. As the man said, "The generals love napalm. They love the psychological effects".
It's obvious that the Pentagon's conscience isn't clear on this matter. When the Sydney Morning Herald broke the story in March, the Pentagon's immediate response was to lie:
But a navy spokesman in Washington, Lieutenant Commander Danny Hernandez, denied that napalm - which was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 - was used.
"We don't even have that in our arsenal," he said.
The navy admitted to using napalm as late as 1993 in training exercises on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, but the last cannister of a vast US naval stockpile was reportedly destroyed in a public ceremony in April 2001.
...
The Pentagon subsequently issued a statement to the Herald:
Your story ('Dead bodies everywhere', by Lindsay Murdoch, March 22, 2003) claiming US forces are using napalm in Iraq, is patently false. The US took napalm out of service in the early 1970s. We completed destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm. - Jeff A. Davis, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
'Dead bodies are everywhere'
Seems, gb, that not even the Pentagon would defend its use of napalm as shamelessly as you would. They'd rather lie than admit to it, which is to their credit, in a twisted way; but what's your excuse?