The New York Times, which discussed the Taliban’s military strategy with a “logistics tactician” for the group “over six months of interviews,” gets a quote describing U.S. drone strikes as extremely effective:
But David Kilcullen, former adviser to General Petraeus, recently offered this assessment in testimony to Congress:
So which is it? Crowley says our young Taliban strategist might be feeding the Times propaganda — that the attacks are backfiring and he wants them to continue. An expert I spoke with says Kilcullen “doesn’t get Pakistan,” and disputes both that these strikes have killed 14 “senior” leaders (he says they were mostly mid-level operatives) and that there have been 700 civilians killed. “Whatever happened to not distinguishing between terrorists and those that harbor them,” he said. So regardless of whether or not the number is as high as 700, why should the people housing and harboring terrorists be considered civilians by the United States military? One last question: When New York Times reporters Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah were done with their source, did they tell the U.S. military where they might find him for a more thorough interview, or do journalistic ethics only allow reporters to aid and abet the enemy?
