>>I only got the first line of of the message, I only found the rest on replying.
>>
>>I agree a very generic definition. I would argue against applying it to much military action, but the stated aim of "Awe & Shock" is to demoralise both the military AND the civilian population - if it was only aimed at the military then I could accept the fact the it was not terrorist in nature, but when deliberately targetting the civilian population as well, then it's a different matter. To that extent, it looks like we almost agree, the point of disagreement seems to be where the person commiting the act is wearing a uniform & acting with some degree of authority (I'll leave out discussion of the legality of the impending action in Iraq).
>

Note I corrected my message - it's "Shock & Awe".

>Where have you seen it stated that "Awe & Shock" is intended for the civilian population? I have seen references made to "Awe & Shock", but it is only directed at the Iraqi military. Can you cite references to this being applied to the civilian population?

Try :
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30.shtml

Note that it specifically states the main target will be Baghdad. It goes on to equate Shock & Awe with a non-nuclear equivalent of Hiroshima/Nagasaki & talks about the affects of those bombs on the "average Japanese citizen" as well as the leadership.

>Furthermore, if the intent was to "Awe & Shock" the civilian population, wouldn't we be targeting civilians with our actions?

Don't get what you're saying, but yes you are targetting civilians.