Forces spare Afghan civilians

Coalition forces in Afghanistan are being trained to avoid civilian casualties even if that means sometimes refusing to respond to direct attacks, a senior officer said.

The careful approach is part of a broad counterinsurgency program, which U.S. commanders said has begun to yield information from a fearful population about the locations of Taliban forces and improvised explosive devices.
...
Government and foreign troops are concerned ... Full Story »

Posted by Roland F. Hirsch
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Topics: Afghanistan
Member Tags: civilan
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Roland F. Hirsch - Oct 16, 2007 - 5:33 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Kaizar Campwala
2.6
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

This piece suffers from not putting the new US policy in context. What spurred on the change in tactics? Does the data show it has worked?

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Julian Friedland
1.9
by Julian Friedland - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a highly dubious piece. It's not at all clear why the "senior officer" is unnamed, suggesting, together with the alarming paucity of content here for such an important topic, that it's just one person's opinion. More evidence that this Newspaper run by the Reverend Sun Yun Moon (i.e. the Moonies) is not to be trusted.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Ted Perlmutter
2.8
by Ted Perlmutter - Oct. 1, 2008

Does not give much sense of or reference to military doctrine or why this is happening now.

(comment refers to full article) More »

See Full Review » (14 answers)
Roland F. Hirsch
4.5
by Roland F. Hirsch - Oct. 1, 2008

This is a factual article from the Times' correspondent in Afghanistan. The reporter balances the positive points with negatives, as indicated in the quotes.

See Full Review » (11 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.0

Average
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
3.0
Facts
2.8
Fairness
3.5
Information
3.2
Sourcing
3.0
Style
2.8
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
3.5
Context
2.5
Popularity
2.7
Recommendation
3.0
Credibility
2.5
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!