Somebody owes me 10mins of my life back. The article did not make sense at all. It reminds me of the last minute collages I used to make when I was in the 5th grade... it's just a bunch of ideas and quotes thrown together haphazardly.

I also didn't appriciate his tone; he makes it seem like Petraeus is personally sending out hit squads who machete Afghan civilians.
But in Afghanistan, the Petraeus strategy has undermined and humiliated pro-U.S. Afghan President Karzai, whose pleas to stop killing Afghani civilians have been ignored.
We get it, killing civilians in predator strikes is counterproductive but stating that 100 times and attempting tie that to non-related issues doesn't make for an effective argument.

Petraeus's strategy helped push the Pakistani military into a disastrous military operation that is strengthening its enemy over the long-term - As Kilcullen has noted "Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies must be defeated by indigenous forces -- not from the United States, and not even from Punjab, but from the parts of Pakistan in which they now hide. Drone strikes make this harder, not easier."(Times, May 17) All observers agree that if Pakistan is to be stabilized much of the Pakistani military will need to shift its priorities from defending against India and learn to wage an effective counter-insurgency war within Pakistan.
If not the Pakistani Army, what other indigenous forces are there? "The Waziristan militia"? Waging a counter-insurgency war within Pakistan is what they're doing now, isn't it? I doubt Petraeus would disgaree with "the observers" who agree believe that the focus should shift from defending against India to fighting the Taliban.

Ass-hat!