I think on civilian casualties they could do more. It's actually something I've discussed with the editors involved. They're aware of it, and I'm hopeful that there will be more reporting on that.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Unfortunately, in war, there are casualties, including among the civilian population.
Today we're faced with over 500 casualties, a cost of over $200 billion. And it could rise - the casualties could go into thousands and the cost could go over half a trillion - if we stay there for years.
We have to keep in mind that it's not just about the numbers of people who died; it's also the manner which many of these victims met their deaths.
I'm saying this as a Republican: In the White House, the effort that goes in and wherever these decisions are made, as to limit civilian casualties, is more probably than any in the history of the world, especially when you consider the history of warfare.
At least 23,000 civilians have also died in the Iraqi killing field and the U.S. is stuck in a quagmire.
Statistics have shown that mortality increases perceptibly in the military during wartime.
Could anything justify the extermination of civilians on such a scale?
It takes 15,000 casualties to train a major general.
The great concern is that year after year, rising numbers of journalists are being killed in pursuit of their work. They are increasingly seen as not being neutral but rather as combatants by one side or the other.
I think attacks on civilians in fact boost morale.