Hmmm.

In the United States, warfare is undertaken incident to an act of Congress or an order of the president acting in his role as commander in chief of the armed forces, according to the U.S. Constitution. Law enforcement can also take place at the national level, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation providing the means, and it can be effected at other, lesser levels right down to the community level by local police departments. Waging war, however, lies within the sole province of the president. The objective war is victory over an opponent by securing strategic goals; the objective of law enforcement, on the other hand, is justice through apprehending and punishing violators and giving safe haven, solace, closure, and comfort to victims.

In law enforcement, a crime is committed and the enforcers say: "Who did this? We must find them and apprehend them." In warfare, an act of war is committed, and the warriors say: "We must kill or capture those responsible." So, when a national leader of a country whose homeland is attacked on a massive scale with weapons of mass destruction interprets this as an act of war, he says: "We must attack the perpetrators of this act, and either kill or capture them." "Dead or alive" is the appropriate sentiment in response to an act of war. If, on the other hand, a violation of the laws of the land is at issue, one says instead: "We must bring the perpetrators of this act to justice."

...In law enforcement, responsible officials seek to use the minimum force possible in resolving the crime; in warfare, one seeks to the use the maximum force permissible so that the conflict can be won as quickly as possible with the least amount of destruction and carnage.

- Roger Barnett, Navy Strategic Culture