Artful (as in the Artful Dodger) piece of propaganda on the cover of the New York Times today: "Civilian Risks Curbing Strikes in Afghan War." And I don't throw the word "propaganda" around. It's a legitimate word, meaning "ideas, facts, or deliberations spread deliberately to further one's cause." And since the Times piece is reported solely from the viewpoint of the military (and probably instigated by the military) with the reporter allowed access to certain military officials and installations, and with no counter-balancing "ideas, facts, or deliberations"—well, I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what are we to call it, a "puff piece"?

Not when it involves bombs, and whether or not bombs should be allowed to drop, ending innocent people's lives. The basic premise of the piece is this: The military has become So Very Careful to not drop bombs on civilians in Afghanistan—after massive civilian casualties, that is, and a tightening of the "rules of engagement" back in 2007—that the Taliban is now "experiencing a potent resurgence." That's right, folks: The reason for the Taliban's comeback? We can't drop enough bombs on innocent Afghans!

The point of the propaganda is twofold: It gives the military an excuse for "losing" against the Taliban, and it provides a basis for arguing (perhaps later) that we need to lift the recently imposed restrictions on bombing the hell out of civilians.

"Rules frustrate the military..." says the Times.