(UPDATE: Today's Times includes a story about the WikiLeaks Iraq cable, under the somewhat strange headline "Cable Implicates Americans in Deaths of Iraqi Civilians." Still very little in the rest of the press-- nothing on television, according to a search of the Nexis database).

One of the main media tropes regarding WikiLeaks' release of State Department cables last year was that there was either nothing new to be learned, or that private conversations they revealed were remarkably consistent with what U.S. officials were saying publicly. That was totally misleading, but for many pundits the story seemed to end there.

Now comes the release of thousands more documents. If you've been reading the New York Times, you know these cables exist. But you don't know much more than that. On August 29, the Times focused on a dispute over whether some names in the cable weren't properly redacted to protect these individuals--"a shift of tactics that has alarmed American officials." WikiLeaks disagrees.

In today's edition of the Times (9/1/11), reporter Scott Shane gives a few examples of what's actually in the cables: criticism of former Philippines President Corazon Aquino, something about the Australian air safety system, human trafficking in Botswana.  The rest of the article discusses the controversies over redactions, and whether or not someone has gained access to the entire trove of cables.

Shane adds: "News organizations in dozens of countries are panning for nuggets in the latest and largest dump of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks."

One "nugget" the Times seems to have trouble finding: A cable that details how U.S. forces executed 11 civilians in a night raid in Iraq in 2006. The victims appear to have been handcuffed. U.S. forces apparently destroyed the evidence--the house--in an airstrike.

McClatchy has a piece by Matthew Schofield (8/31/11) summarizing the matter ( "WikiLeaks: Iraqi Children in U.S. Raid Shot in Head, UN Says"). He reports:

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

Schofield adds:

At the time, American military officials in Iraq said the accounts of townspeople who witnessed the events were highly unlikely to be true, and they later said the incident didn't warrant further investigation. Military officials also refused to reveal which units might have been involved in the incident.

The Daily Mirror (9/1/11) also has a piece today on this incident ("WikiLeaks Reveals Atrocities by U.S. forces"). John Glaser at Antiwar.com wrote a piece on August 29 detailing the contents of the cable--the first account that I can find, so he deserves credit for that.

But at this point, major U.S. papers like the New York Times are still searching for this nugget.

FAIR editor Jim Naureckas tweeted recently, "NATO's installation of an Al Qaeda-friendly government in Libya is one of 2011's most underreported stories." He's got a point. The Washington Post today published a pretty interesting look at how the Libyan government viewed the jihadist threat, thanks to some documents recovered in Tripoli:

The documents were uncovered days after the regime fell to rebel fighters led in part by a self-proclaimed former Islamist, Abdelkarim Belhadj. He has declared himself the leader of the "Tripoli Brigade" that spearheaded the defeat of Gadhafi loyalists in the capital. Belhadj is the former commander of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist organization that fought alongside Afghan insurgents against Russian occupation in the 1980s.

So what does the U.S. government have to say about this? Plenty--but you can't quote them by name:

U.S. officials on Tuesday did not dispute Belhadj's Islamist roots but played down the connections.

"Some members of LIFG in the past had connections with Al-Qaeda in Sudan, Afghanistan or Pakistan, and others dropped their relationship with Al-Qaeda entirely," said a senior U.S. official who closely tracks Islamic terrorist organizations. "It seems from their statements and support for establishing a democracy in Libya that this faction of LIFG does not support Al-Qaeda. We'll definitely be watching to see whether this is for real, or just for show."

The official insisted on anonymity in discussing sensitive case files about terrorist organizations.

That seems like a pretty flimsy rationale for granting a source anonymity.

Fareed Zakaria cheers the Libya War in Time magazine this week for not following the Iraq model:

It has been prosecuted with the memory of the Iraq war firmly in mind. Only this time the approach has been to view the last war as a negative example. The international coalition--and even the Libyan opposition--is doing pretty much the opposite of what was done in Iraq.

Zakaria explains that Obama "was clearly trying to avoid the mistakes of Iraq." Among the mistakes the Bush administration made:

Had UN weapons inspectors been given more time in the spring of 2003, the UN Security Council might well have endorsed the plan. Countries like India were seriously considering sending tens of thousands of peacekeeping troops, but only if there was a UN-blessed operation with a U.S. commander who also wore a UN hat (as was the case in Bosnia). But these were seen as petty, legalistic annoyances, and the operation felt like an American one from start to finish.

Zakaria can write these things because his message during the run-up to the Iraq War was, "Let the inspections do their work!"

Not exactly.

In the December 2, 2002 Newsweek, Zakaria warned that the inspectors weren't likely to find weapons because Iraq had gotten so good at hiding their WMDs:

Having gotten the inspectors back into Iraq with unfettered access, the Bush administration had better brace itself for the most likely outcome--they will find nothing. Don't get me wrong. Iraq is surely producing weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations and the United States have accumulated powerful evidence of this over the past decade, including testimony from Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, about Iraq's biological weapons. But Iraq has become increasingly expert at dispersing and hiding these facilities, which are often small enough to fit into a bathroom or a van.

Zakaria explained that "the administration must force a crisis"--using the inspections as a way to force the war to begin:

Washington's hope is that in one of these many tests, Iraq will reveal that it is not cooperating and thus pave the way for military action. The inspectors will not find weapons but they might well find noncompliance.

Time is short. If events do not come to a head soon after December 8, the pressure for action will dissipate and the weather will make conflict impossible until next fall. And you cannot replay this movie.

A few weeks later (2/17/03), Zakaria was worried that the United States might lose face. He asked Newsweek readers to imagine what kind of world it would be if inspections were allowed to drag on just because some other countries demanded solid evidence:

But right now with Iraq, the need to maintain resolve seems obvious. Whatever one's initial views about taking on Iraq--and I have been for it--I cannot see how America can back down without damaging its, well, credibility.

Imagine the situation. A week from now, pressured by France, Germany and Russia, the United States decides to give the inspectors more time. It announces that, come to think of it, Saddam isn't that much of a threat. Though the president of the United States has said repeatedly that he would have "zero tolerance" for Iraqi deception, he didn't really mean it. When Colin Powell persuaded the United Nations to pass a resolution telling Saddam that he had a "final" opportunity to disarm or face "serious consequences," it was a bluff. (The "serious consequences" turn out to be that the United Nations sends in a few dozen more inspectors.) What would happen the next time the United States makes threats?

Luckily for people like Zakaria, damaged credibility isn't a concern for them. He'll still be considered an A-list foreign affairs pundit, no matter how wrong he's been about things that really matter.

The coverage of the Israeli attacks on Gaza is following  some predictable patterns. The New York Times has a headline today (8/26/11), "Israeli Strikes in Retaliation Kill Nine Gazans."  Readers should ask: Retaliation for what?

It's widely understood that this violence stems from the attack last week in the southern Israeli town of Eilat. As the Times puts it:  "The recent round of violence started a week ago, with a terrorist attack on southern Israel in which eight Israelis were killed."

The real question, though, is who committed these acts.  The Times says:

Israeli officials said the perpetrators and planners of the terrorist attack were originally from Gaza, and Israel has retaliated with strikes that have killed at least 23 Palestinians. Gazan officials say they know nothing about the source of the attack.

That's a massive understatement.

To date, no armed Palestinian groups have claimed responsibility for the Eilat attack. Israeli officials claimed the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) were behind it, but have offered no proof to back up these allegations.  And there has been almost no critical coverage of the weakness of the Israeli case.  On NPR (8/18/11), for example, listeners have heard Israeli ambassador Michael Oren claim that Palestinian militants carried out the attack, and five days later London Times reporter James Hider (8/23/11) stated the same thing as if it were a well-established fact.

A handful of journalists have been persistently pointing out that the weakness of this case. One of those writers, Yossi Gurvitz, explains in his latest piece at the Israeli website +972 (8/25/11) that Israeli media are beginning to raise serious questions:

Since Monday, there have been a few more reports in the Israeli media, casting more doubt on the official story. Yediot reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that nameless people in the security apparatus doubt the PRC were responsible for the attacks, and raise an interesting question: If they were responsible, why was the PRC's entire leadership in the same place?

According to Yediot’s anonymous intelligence sources (bear in mind that such sources should always be viewed with skepticism; by their very nature they cannot be corroborated, and they tend to be unreliable even when speaking openly), the attribution of the attacks to the PRC stems from one somewhat incoherent comment on some Jihadi message board.

Ha'aretz reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that at least three on the attackers were Egyptian Jihadis. American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here--told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.

Two days ago, the IAF attacked the Gaza Strip again--naturally, it does not consider itself bound by the ceasefire; only the Palestinians are, and only them can be blamed for breaking it--and killed some Islamic Jihad apparatchick. Yesterday, the IDF claimed (Hebrew) that he was in charge of funding the Eilat attacks. Hold on a minute, I'm confused: I thought you said the attacks were carried out by the PRC, and now it’s the Islamic Jihad left holding the bag? As of yesterday, reported Amira Hass in Ha'aretz (Hebrew), there are no mourning tents in Gaza. As of today, one week after the attack, the IDF refrains from exposing the identity of the attackers it killed.

This is a remarkable story that deserves serious coverage. Two dozen people in Gaza have been killed in "retaliation" for an attack that very well could have originated somewhere else.

Today's New York Times has a story by David Kirkpatrick and Rod Norland running down the exaggerations and misinformation that have been spread throughout the Libya War. There's been "spin from all sides," they report. Gadhafi's exaggerations are well-known, but this passage is rather striking:

Still, the rebels have offered their own far-fetched claims, like mass rapes by loyalist troops issued tablets of Viagra. Although the rebels have not offered credible proof, that claim is nonetheless the basis of an investigation by the International Criminal Court.

And there is the mantra, with racist overtones, that the Gadhafi government is using African mercenaries, which rebels repeat as fact over and over. There have been no confirmed cases of that; supposedly there are many African prisoners of war being held in Benghazi, but conveniently journalists are not allowed to see them. There are, however, African guest workers, poorly paid migrant labor, many of whom, unarmed, have been labeled mercenaries.

So stories about African mercenaries are a racist mantra? If that's the case,  then point a finger at media outlets like the New York Times. While the warnings about mass rapes and mercenaries  fueled the supporters of the NATO bombing,  few reporters have detailed--mostly notably Patrick Cockburn in the Independent--that there was never solid evidence to support them.  They were nonetheless a regular part of the media coverage of the war, as I pointed out in a recent piece in Extra!:

A February 24 Washington Post editorial thundered, "Mr. Gadhafi has unleashed an orgy of bloodshed in the capital, Tripoli, using foreign mercenaries and aircraft to attack his own people." The day before, the New York Times editorial page (2/23/11) announced that in Tripoli "pro-government forces, relying heavily on mercenaries, were massacring demonstrators." The Times added that "there were reports of warplanes and helicopters being used to attack civilians"--though the paper did note that "authoritative information was difficult to come by."

"Gadhafi's brutal side has emerged once again," reported ABC's Martha Raddatz (World News, 2/22/11). "This time, flying in cargo planes full of African mercenaries, who don’t even speak the language, to do his dirty work. Trained killers gunning down residents and protesters in cold blood."

And those "racist overtones" were fairly common in the pages of the New York Times. From February 22:

By Monday night, witnesses said, the streets of Tripoli were thick with special forces loyal to Colonel Gadhafi as well as mercenaries. Roving the streets in trucks, they shot freely as planes dropped what witnesses described as ''small bombs'' and helicopters fired on protesters....

Two residents said planes had been landing for 10 days ferrying mercenaries from African countries to an air base in Tripoli. The mercenaries had done much of the shooting, which began Sunday night, they said. Some forces were using particularly lethal, hollow-point bullets, they said.

February 23:

Witnesses said groups of heavily armed militiamen and mercenaries from other African countries cruised the streets in pickup trucks, spraying crowds with machine-gun fire.

February 24:

Distrustful of even his own generals, Colonel Gadhafi has for years quietly built up this ruthless and loyal force. It is made up of special brigades headed by his sons, segments of the military loyal to his native tribe and its allies, and legions of African mercenaries he has helped train and equip. Many are believed to have fought elsewhere, in places like Sudan, but he has now called them back.

It's worth noting that David Kirkpatrick, co-author of today's piece, also co-authored all of the articles excerpted above.

One has to wonder if the Times is changing the story now because they believe the war is over. What better time to start exercising skepticism than now?

August 6, 2011, when 38 soldiers, including 30 U.S. troops, were killed when their helicopter was shot down, was the "deadliest day" of the Afghan War, several media outlets told us:

• David Muir (ABC World News Saturday, 8/6/11): "It was the deadliest day of the war in Afghanistan, 30 Americans, 22 Navy SEALs lost."

• David Gregory (NBC Meet the Press, 8/7/11): "This was the single deadliest day of the war."

• Chicago Tribune headline (8/7/11): "Taliban Says It Downed Copter in Deadliest Day of War in Afghanistan"

• ABC This Week graphic (8/7/11): "DEADLIEST DAY IN AFGHANISTAN"

• Terrell Brown, CBS Morning News (8/8/11): "America mourns the loss of 30 warriors killed in Afghanistan on the war's deadliest day."

• AP (8/9/11): "Troops killed in the deadliest day of the Afghan War are coming home today."

But, of course, it wasn't the war's deadliest day--that unhappy distinction goes to May 4, 2009, when the U.S. military attacked the village of Granai, killing 140 people, 93 of them children, according to an Afghan government investigation (Reuters, 5/16/09). (The U.S. government says it does not know how many people it killed that day.)

Other deadlier days in Afghanistan include July 6, 2008, when U.S. bombing killed 47 civilians, including 39 women and children, attending a wedding in Nangarhar province (Guardian, 7/11/08); August 22, 2008, when a U.S. airstrike killed at least 90 civilians, including 60 children, in the village of Azizabad (UN News Centre, 8/26/08); and July 23, 2010, when the U.S. killed 39 civilians in the village of Sangin (RTTNews, 8/5/10).

To be sure, many U.S. news reports, unlike those cited above, remembered to add "for Americans" to their descriptions of August 6 as the "deadliest day." But there's little evidence that anyone in U.S. media remembers the village of Granai.

U.S. officials seem to be making progress in convincing Iraqi politicians to let some troops stay in Iraq beyond the December withdrawal deadline. The Washington Post weighs in today (8/4/11) and gets some anonymous straight talk:

"There seems to be broad partnerships and political coalitions emerging that take tough decisions," said a senior U.S. Embassy official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the issue frankly.

Of course, one way of reading that justification for anonymity is that an official speaking on the record would be less than frank. If that's worth granting a source anonymity, then it might be worth it. So bring on the frank talk! The rest of the paragraph:

"This is very good, because we don't want to be the security partner to a dictatorship or to a one-party regime, but rather, we believe we should have acceptance by a broad range of political forces in this country."

The "frank" talk is that the United States does not want to partner with a dictatorship? Perhaps the source needed to remain anonymous because he or she was aware of the absurdity of this.

There was an interesting piece in the New York Times yesterday (8/1/11) by Elizabeth Jensen about plans to ship PBS programming across the pond. It's a hard concept to get your head around, especially if you're under the impression that Britain's public broadcasting system is superior to our own.

That might not be the strangest part, though:

W. David Lyons, chairman and chief executive of the Orca Exploration Group, which operates a Tanzanian natural gas field, is backing the PBS UK project financially. PBS described him as "a Canadian-born entrepreneur and venture philanthropist" who "grew up on PBS programming and is interested in bringing such content to the U.K."

There's something perfect about this. PBS--long criticized for being  too cozy with giant energy industry sponsors--is trying to get into Britain with the backing of an energy company CEO. British viewers might not understand that the word "Public" in the name is intended to be ironic.

"Iran arming Iraq insurgents" was last month's story. Today's papers are telling a different story; the new line being pushed by U.S. officials is that Iran is supporting Al-Qaeda.

Today's Washington Post:

Iran Allows Money, Recruits

to Reach Al-Qaeda, U.S. Says

'Secret deal' allegedly supports activities of terrorists in Pakistan

In the New York Times:

Treasury Accuses Iran

of Aiding Al-Qaeda

Associated Press:

U.S. Accuses Iran

of 'Secret Deal' With Al-Qaeda

The Post calls this "the most serious U.S. allegation to date of Iranian aid to the terrorist group"-- though it later notes that "U.S. officials have repeatedly accused Iran of assisting Al-Qaeda, links between the two have been difficult to prove." This time around the charge is that a Syrian middleman operating from Iran transfers money and recruits to Al-Qaeda leaders based in Pakistan.  Iran denies any role in this alleged scheme, and the evidence offered in the stories amounts to statements from U.S. officials asserting that this is happening.

The notion that Shi'ite Iran would be working closely with Sunni fundamentalist Al-Qaeda is a leap, as some of this coverage suggests.

But the Times account, by Helene Cooper, seems to go the furthest in helping to shore up the U.S. case,  making the bizarre argument that the existence of U.S. allegations and the Treasury Department sanctions against individuals in the supposed network mean the case against Iran is solid:

The officials said the sanctions were nonetheless meaningful because they would serve to demonstrate that Iran was working with Al-Qaeda.

That's like saying that the fact that the U.S. invaded Iraq to destroy its WMDs means Iraq must have WMDs.

When not providing justification in its own voice, the Times allows U.S. officials to anonymously push their argument further:

Indeed, one senior administration said the action sought to expose both "a key funding facilitation network for Al-Qaeda and a key aspect for Iranian support for international terrorism."

"Our sense is this network is operating through Iranian territory with the knowledge and at least the acquiescence of Iranian authorities," the official said in a conference call with reporters.

Of course, if Iranian officials were really allowing this to happen, U.S. officials would probably say so on the record.

Floating allegations about an Iran/Al-Qaeda connection isn't new. For a good dissenting take on media coverage from last month, you can read this piece from Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

And it's worth pointing out that the other Iran story, which alleges that Iran is shipping arms into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers, isn't going away either.

In a piece today, the Washington Post's Greg Miller reports on a CIA base that will be used to conduct drone strikes in Yemen:

The agency is building a desert airstrip so that it can begin flying armed drones over Yemen. The facility, which is scheduled to be completed in September, is designed to shield the CIA's aircraft, and their sophisticated surveillance equipment, from observers at busier regional military hubs such as Djibouti, where the JSOC drones are based.

The Washington Post is withholding the specific location of the CIA facility at the administration's request.

The existence of the base has been reported elsewhere--the New York Times noted on June 15 that an "American official would not disclose the country where the CIA base was being built." The Times pointed out that the shift to CIA control was important, since with "the operations under CIA control, they could be carried out as a 'covert action,' which can be undertaken without the support of the host government." Meaning the U.S. could bomb Yemen without the approval of Yemen's government, in the event that the current government were to fall.

The story seemed to have been broken by the Associated Press (6/14/11), which, like the Post, is not telling readers what it knows about the base:  "The Associated Press has withheld the exact location at the request of U.S. officials."

This is reminiscent of the Post's decision in 2005 to report on CIA secret prisons ("black sites") in Eastern Europe--without disclosing the location of those sites, where terrorism suspects were taken to be interrogated (Extra! Update, 12/05).

It obviously makes senses for any White House to want to keep its secret programs under wraps--particularly when there's a chance that laws are being broken, or civilians are being killed. (Recall that the U.S. Navy launched a cruise missile loaded with cluster bombs into Yemen in 2009, reportedly killing 41 civilians.)

It does not make sense, however, for news outlets to assist them in these efforts.

Glenn Beck (7/25/11, via Mediaite, 7/25/11) explains on his radio show why the right-wing Norway terror suspect is what we call left-wing here in America:

This was one of the episodes where I showed the railroad tracks that were different than America. In America, the left railroad track is gigantic government--it could be Communist or Fascist, it doesn’t matter, it's giant government. The other side of the track is anarchy or very, very small government. So that's the left and right here in America. The Left and Right in Europe, because, once they got rid of the kings, they didn’t get "We the People," they had to replace it with another strong government. And that's where Fascism and Communism came from. That’s your left and right. Fascism on the right; Nazis. And Communism on the left. And there are variations on both of those theories, Fascism and Communism, left and right. This guy, the shooter, is from the right-wing, different than our right-wing. It is still big government.

Just to give an example of how Anders Behring Breivik's politics are not completely different from right-wing politics in the United States, in the same radio broadcast, Beck shared his feelings about the victims of the Norwegian shooting spree:

As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing.

So the kids who were massacred in Norway were kind of like Hitler Youth. Which is to say they were kind of going to grow up, take over the world, impose a totalitarian dictatorship and commit genocide. What's the rational thing to do with people like that, if no one else is going to stop them?

This is a fairly standard argument for Beck, with the steps one should take to stop the Nazi-like menace usually left unspecified. For example, he repeatedly portrayed the Tides Foundation, a fairly obscure funding group, as the secret organization "behind it all...involved in the nasty of the nastiest" (9/29/09). On his July 13, 2010 show, he presented Tides as being behind a plot to "kill white babies"--suggesting that it might soon be too late to stop it.

And  a few days later, on July 17, Glenn Beck fan Byron Williams set out with his arsenal to try to wipe out the Tides Foundation staff, much as Breivik went to exterminate the "Hitler Youth" summer campers. Unlike Breivik, Williams didn't make it to his target; he was arrested after a shoot-out with police instead.

No doubt Williams, in Beck's mind, isn't a real right-winger either.

Newsweek has a feature called "My Favorite Mistake," where a famous person talks about something they've done wrong.http://www.fair.org/blog/wp-admin/edit.php

This week (7/24/11) it's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The mistake she cited was when she wore the wrong pin to a meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and then said something critical about his Chechnya policy. (The best mistakes are the most self-serving ones, apparently.)

When I saw the headline, I was half-wondering if she'd talk about her famous defense of killing Iraqi children on 60 Minutes (5/12/96):

Leslie Stahl asks Albright: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

To which Albright replies: "I think this is a very hard choice. But the price--we think the price is worth it."

Iraq did come up in the Newsweek piece, when Albright wrote, "We had sanctions on Iraq then, and I was instructed to keep saying terrible things about Saddam Hussein."

I would agree that she said something terrible.

The first sentence of Mark Landler's piece in the New York Times today (7/21/11):

It is a truism of Middle East peacemaking that the United States is the pivotal player--the most credible broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

If by "truism" he means "something most people don't believe to be true," then this makes sense. If he means "truism" in the other, more conventional way, then it is difficult to understand the article in question--which is about Palestinian efforts to pursue alternatives to U.S.-backed negotiations.

Newsweek (7/17/11) begins a piece on David Petraeus becoming CIA director with an account of how he got the "short-term job done" after he was named commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan:

Now, after 13 months, the 58-year-old Petraeus is coming home to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that day in the Oval Office, hopeful signs have begun appearing that he may have performed the seemingly impossible task of stabilizing the Afghan battlefield.

The article, by reporter John Barry, doesn't provide much detail on what these "hopeful signs" are, but Afghan civilian deaths are up 15 percent in the first half of 2011 vs. the first half of 2010.  (Maybe that's why an Afghan media executive cited in the piece contends that "not everyone in Afghanistan fully appreciates what Petraeus has achieved in his year there.")

As for U.S. troops and their non-Afghan allies, 705 of them were killed in the 13 months Petraeus was in charge of Afghanistan--as opposed to 725 in the 13 months before that. Other than that, I'm sure he had a great war.

The end of a Wall Street Journal article (7/14/11) on a new report on Afghan deaths highlights the peculiarity of their culture:

Of civilian casualties, 2 percent were caused by night raids, slightly down from last year, with 30 fatalities, the report says. Night raids have been a contentious issue between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. military officers and civilian leaders. The raids are sensitive in Afghanistan, because foreign soldiers burst into civilian homes, where strangers are unwelcome in the country's conservative Islamic traditions.

What a strange place. I guess in a civilized society, when a foreign soldier bursts into your home in the middle of night brandishing a weapon, you offer them dinner.