the leaders of both countries should meet in an arena with socks filled with horse manure and beat each other over the head. Whoever is left standing is the winner.
I prefer the Marxist* approach: Cream Pies at two paces.
* As in Groucho, Harpo, etc.
Seriously, though, "leaders of both countries" may not apply since an army may not have a particular country. Are Al Queda troops attacking an Afghan Army base soldiers or civilians? Since they have no uniforms, does that interfere with their soldier/civilian status? Are Blackwater "consultants" actually soldiers or civilians when they are reporting and taking orders (suggestions?) from a US officer?
Is the Commander-In_Chief of the US Armed Forces a soldier or a civilian? Does he even have a military uniform? If so, did he design it himself (like Chief Justice Roberts) with some extra bling to signify his special role?
The lack of uniforms exception was used by Yoo and Gonzalez to allow the taking of 'enemy combatants' -- defined as anyone over 16, male, and relatively able bodied, and then removing them to various legitimate and not so, prisons, for torture, questioning, or unlimited and unending imprisonment, because they 'might be' fighting the military that invaded their country.
The exception was also adopted by the rest of the Bush group, and many of them are now not traveling in Europe for fear of arrest for war crimes indictments that have been voted and are legitimate charges that do not have a statute of limitations, due to the underlying murder counts within them.
Now, the unilateral choices involving drones and death may bring many more than 30 to face charges for war crimes.
It sort of makes one wonder about the Peace Prize in prior years, and even the selection of the EU for this year's award.