Unfortunately innocent kids died. I wouldn't call that a moral hazard as much as...maybe adverse selection? It's a tough thing, war. It's especially tougher when you are fighting a rogue, guerilla enemy without institution and fuzzy boundaries.
IMO Biden has been a true leader and showed some true grit the last week. I get that it's easy to bag on him and the intel and whatever, but when people he is charged to lead died, he took it personal and owned their deaths and a response. And he did it in a way that neither jeopardized the retreat (unman drone strikes) and didn't present horrible optics and moral hazards (In my opinion) by not responding and signaling that the deaths were an acceptable outcome in the calculus of war (and thus giving ISIS-K a moral victory with a multiplier effect on morale, recruitment, and emotional buy-in to the terrorist movement and the underdog sensibilities of being a David to Goliath).
With the benefit of hindsight, I would not have retaliated in this way because innocent people died. I would have sought another way to retaliate or tried another day or location to try and have 0 innocent deaths. But, I resolve that retaliation was and is still the right call.
You still must retaliate. If you don't, in this instance, with this context (in retreat and against this enemy and with the deaths of our own), then my opinion is Biden would have failed as a leader. I'm glad for American's that he responded; I'm sad for the innocent families.