which IMO becomes suspect by introducing obtuse foolishness like this:
The lack of timely air support...was a consequence of the manpower and equipment shortages bequeathed by the Bush administration's failure to secure Afghanistan against a resurgence of the Taliban, al Qaida and allied groups before turning to invade Iraq.
...
The denial of heavy artillery fire to those trapped in Ganjgal also has roots in the Bush administration's decision to divert resources to Iraq and the resulting stress on the U.S. military.
Those comments would seem to questionably accurate at best, politically motivated (understandable given his background) and tangentially if at all related to the story. They discredit the rest of his reporting in my view.

More sensible is this comment:
There are a limited number of U.S. helicopters in Kunar, a stretch of craggy mountains and serpentine valleys bordering Pakistan where airpower gives a vital edge to overstretched U.S. troops fighting guerrillas who know every nook and trail of the area. Unbeknownst to those trapped in the Ganjgal kill zone, however, the available aircraft were tied up in the Shiryak Valley to the north in a battle in which two pilots were wounded, U.S. commanders said.
Though I'd suggest that air power does not give a vital edge, it merely offsets the opponents vital edge in terrain knowledge, local support and agility to a slight extent. A very slight extent...

I can give kudos to the guy for going out with the troops -- and still decry the politicization and the lack of rudimentary military knowledge by too many in the media.

And while I can comment on the reporting, I still don't know enough to comment on the incident.