The hype surrounding "precision guided munitions" is one of the reasons Americans feel so free to go to war in civilian areas, and it's one of the most pernicious pieces of misinformation spread by the pro-war crowd.
A bunker-busting academic data bomb has just been dropped on the long suffering Congolese people after the release of a report by the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.
The US is rattling a saber about killing people in Quetta, despite all the inevitable civilian death and mass outrage. Such a move would show the shallowness of the "just war" talk in Obama's disgraceful Nobel paean to Mars.
A UN report concludes that insurgents killed three times as many Afghanis as the international forces did in 2009. Yet protesters in Jalalabad last week chanted "Death to America," not "Death to the Taliban." Why?
More troops are not the answer in Afghanistan. We need to lower the overall level of military conflict as quickly as possible, and the only way to do that is to sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops.
Citizen journalists must not give in to the urge to un-take a photo, to click delete and banish the evidence for the parts of a story that shame them, their cause, their friends, their country, their species.
With Taliban control present in large swaths of Afghanistan, the question is less where is this situation going, but where has it already gone? And the critical follow-up: Is there a way to turn it around?
Some say that the use of IEDs in populated areas might be reduced if elders respected by the Taliban spoke out against these tactics. However, given the personal risk entailed, it's easy to see why they don't.
U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have increased every year since 2001. In every year since systematic civilian casualty data collection started, civilian casualties caused by pro-government have increased.