These are not errors of "cultural understanding," as NATO spokespeople are claiming. They are intentional lies meant to allow someone to escape responsibility for killing three women, two of them pregnant.
Even as withdrawal from Iraq becomes conventional wisdom, and we continue to force Congress to end the war in Afghanistan, it's still not over. 104 months into the outrageous War on Terror, it appears we're just getting started.
Following years of official silence, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh's statements on the legality of drone strikes last week were welcomed by many. But Koh failed to address serious concerns over the U.S.'s use of drones to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.
Obama should be withdrawing U.S. troops, not expanding America's force presence in Afghanistan. When considering war, officials should bear in mind the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. We are failing to meet that obligation in Afghanistan.
Congratulations media, you've had a very successful couple of weeks. Your control over the public discourse is strong. So don't blow the whole operation and have everybody actually engaged in civics -- Western Civilization would collapse.
In Pakistan, there are no official figures on civilian casualties, and very little is known about how fighting between government forces and Taliban militants harm civilians. All available indications are that civilian casualties are significant.
The latest twist in our dubious 'war on terror' is that we aren't killing enough civilians. This is the conclusion of several analyses that find restrictions on military operations hobbling our mission.
On Thursday the NYT made an astonishing editorial choice: it published an op-ed by an obscure author attacking Gen. McChrystal for "overemphasis on civilian protection" in air strikes carried out in Afghanistan.