I am not "anti-military". Quite the opposite. I fully support the idea of a memorial - but it should not hide under the carpet the reality of history.
As the original article cited
Although many of the aircrews would have preferred otherwise, there was little choice".
So they themselves realised the inhumanity of what they were doing.
Maybe you should re-read Major Tim Collins' Iraq speech, or Archnbishop of Canterbury's post Falklands sermon, if you do not understand the importance of respecting and remembering the victims of war.
I'm also being practical. A memorial just to the crews will inevitably be subject to vandalism. The reason there has been no memorial until now is because it is politically controversial. What was regarded then as necessary would be regarded as a war-crime now. If we put up a memorial that can be interpreted by some as glorifying a war crime, it will be repeatedly vandalised.
So I suggest that it should also remember the victims, so that it becomes a memorial to a passage of history that demanded great heroism from our side and enormous suffering to the other side.
And I am not being "revisionist" about the number of victims - I got that figure from November4's posting:
However, by the end of the war the tactics of 'area bombing' cities - estimated to have caused up to 600,000 civilian casualties - had become increasingly controversial, particularly after some were reduced to rubble.