The most important part of the article is the link to the actual MHAT reports, which are extremely informative (the article much less so). There is some good sourcing outside the MHAT report that attempts to give perspective, but too much is made of out-of-context statistics. Why are statistics for physical abuse of non-combatants lumped together with property damage in the article, when they are separate in the MHAT report, and when the rate of physical abuse is about half that of property damage? Very misleading. Is it surprising or troubling that front-line soldiers and marines would approve of torture or any other means of saving lives or getting important information? What is the point of emphasizing those findings? And no ... More »

C'mon, be honest: this is an opinion piece, not journalism. Too much glee and backslapping, too little real analysis. And way too much credit given to a Congress that is every bit as malfeasant as the previous one. I'm sure there is quite an audience for this type of antagonistic punditry, but don't call it journalism.