US troops need more air support(?)

Thus argues an essay in today's NYT by one Lara Dadkhah, an intelligence analyst of unstated affiliation.  Except that's not her most significant conclusion (and shame on the NYT for not being more up-front about that).

The real point comes at the end:

all this is not to say that the United States and NATO should be oblivious to civilian deaths, or wage “total” war in Afghanistan. Clearly, however, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of avoiding the death of innocents at all cost. General McChrystal’s directive was well intentioned, but the lofty ideal at its heart is a lie, and an immoral one at that, because it pretends that war can be fair or humane.

Wars are always ugly, and always monstrous, and best avoided. Once begun, however, the goal of even a “long war” should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.

Her real bottom line, once you wade through all the rationale: War is hell, we must have "victory," so bombs away.  And if the US takes out a few thousand more Afghan civilians in the process? . . . well, ya know, to make an omelette . . .

IMHO, the decision to publish this essay was not one of the shinier moments for the US's supposed "paper of record."