Cultural genocide

I'll make a few observations:

https://randalrauser.com/2018/01/1-samuel-15-paul-copans-middling-compromise/

The Christian committed to recognizing the plenary inspiration of all Scripture now faces a dilemma:

Option 1: retain our moral intuitions that it is always wrong to slaughter non-combatants and thus deny that the plain reading that God commanded mass civilian slaughter is correct.

Option 2: accept the plain reading of the text that God commanded mass civilian slaughter and thus deny our intuitions that it is always wrong to slaughter non-combatants.

The Plain Reading of 1 Samuel 15: Mass Civilian Slaughter

i) According to whose moral intuitions is it "always wrong to slaughter non-combatants"? Did it violate the moral intuitions of Bible writers? Did it violate the moral intuitions of the soldiers who carried out those commands? Historically, is it universally or even generally true that killing noncombatants violates our moral intuitions? 

ii) The word "slaughter" is prejudicial. I don't deny that there are cases in which that's an appropriate word. But is killing noncombatants always equivalent to "slaughter", with its pejorative connotations?

iii) Notice Rauser's indiscriminate category: "civilians/noncombatants". But do all individuals covered by that umbrella term have the same moral status? Is it morally permissible to kill a combatant who uses a biochem weapon, but impermissible to kill a scientist who designs the biochem weapon? What makes civilian scientist sacrosanct? Isn't he morally complicit? 

What about a civilian who gives the orders? Why is it morally permissible to kill a combatant but impermissible to kill a civilian leader who issues orders to combatants? Isn't the leader more responsible (or culpable) than a footsoldier–who may well be a conscript? 

Rauser's dichotomy is morally arbitrary. He's taking intellectual shortcuts. 

You could argue that killing some types of noncombatants is morally wrong without arguing that killing all types of noncombatants is morally wrong. Or you could argue that killing some types of noncombatants is normally wrong, but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

iv) There's a difference between what's morally repellent and what's emotionally repellent. An action may be morally justifiable even if it's gut-wrenching. Sometimes it's morally licit or even obligatory to do things we hate. Take human shield situations. Or amputating a gangrenous limb. 

You see, the concept of genocide is a precisely defined legal concept which refers to any systematic attempt to destroy a cultural, religious, and/or social identity. And one can seek to destroy an identity without ever killing a person. Needless to say, it is small consolation that Copan’s abandonment of the plain reading still commits one to God’s commanding a legal genocide.

Is there something intrinsically wrong with destroying cultural identity? Take cultures that practice human sacrifice. Is it wrong to destroy their cultural identity?

What about the Third Reich? Was it wrong to destroy Nazi cultural identity? 

Some of my ancestors were Vikings. Vicious, ruthless pagan marauders. Christian missionaries destroyed their cultural identity. How unethical!