"Ignoring the extent of civilian casualties and the damage they cause is a moral failing as well as a strategic blunder."
True, as far as it goes (and it could go a lot further on the not killing people in the first place front) but better to have run it back when the Times was waving the pom poms for war, no?
The more the war recedes into the past, the more we will forget. It's always that way with wars.
Posted by: justcorbly | Jan 04, 2012 at 05:05 PM
It might help us to understand better how they view their civilian casualties when we look at our own passions over the three young hikers who strayed over the border into Iran.
Our double standards seems to be that their civilian casualties are "collateral damage" (horrible term), while our's are the innocent and wronged victims of a belligerent and heartless enemy.
Posted by: Bill Yaner | Jan 04, 2012 at 09:00 PM