A great many main stream "news" sources seem for more interested in putting a negative spin on events than providing accurate information. The Guardian has long covered the war in a way that seems more in line with reinforcing the insurgents than providing coverage. (We can add Reuters, the New York Times, CBS, and a host of other "news" organizations to the list. I don't expect rah-rah coverage. I expect to hear about the good, the bad and the ugly. But their reporting has been so bad that "journalistic ethics" has to be the greatest contradictions in terms in the English language.)

Given the Guardians track record, I suspected the article from the start. My thanks to Lt. Col. Kilcullen for setting the record straight. We need to ask a lot more of these "news" organizations "But whose side are you on?" However, I don't think they want that answer known.