Put another way, COIN forces rarely enjoy any “propaganda victory” with host-nation populations when the enemy kills innocent people.
I have to wonder why he is locked in an assumption that the target for propaganda is in the host nation? This, to my mind, is certainly belied by the extensive use of videos, etc. put out by AQ for consumption in non-host nations.

Moreover, the broader topic of civilian casualties is also discussed. Specifically, has collateral damage from airstrikes caused more enemy “propaganda victories” than have, for example, the results of land force actions at such places as Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Hammadyia, and Mahmudiyah? Is there a difference between the impact of unintended civilian causalities from airstrikes and intended injury to civilians by rogue military members on the ground?
I think that this is an invalid comparison. How about rogue military members in the skies? The way this is phrased seems to imply that there aren't any. Given the friendly fire casualties caused by certain US air units on Canadian troops, I would beg to differ - if not "rogue" in intent, then rogue in activity. I would also like to point out that that particular action had an immense propaganda effect in Canada.

There is also the interesting point, that seems to be left out, that it is easier for host nationals to comprehend ground fire collateral damage (since it comes from all sides), that air strike damage, since it only comes from one side.