One example is the administration's intense aversion to American military casualties. This is what led it to do almost all the killing in Afghanistan remotely, from high above the battlefield—which not only leads to mistakes but, in the eyes of Muslims, gives the mistakes an infuriatingly casual, arrogant air and reinforces the stereotype of Americans as contemptible cowards. In one highly publicized incident, American bombs killed Afghans who, according to the unanimous insistence of locals, had just been out collecting scrap metal. Among the evidence used to authorize the strike was that one of the Afghans, viewed by distant airborne camera, appeared to be tall—like Osama Bin Laden!—and to be getting deferential treatment from the other men. Obviously, mistakes such as this would be less likely if ground troops were used to approach suspicious parties. Would these ground troops be exposed to risk? Yes. But war is by definition the sacrifice of military lives to keep civilians safe. When, in a war on terrorism, we get fetishistic about avoiding military casualties, we're inverting this logic, sacrificing future American civilians for the sake of present-day American soldiers. And bear in mind Policy Prescription No. 1: Take your bitter medicine early. The logic behind it suggests that the lives of a few American soldiers today could save many more civilian lives a decade or two from now. (This logic applies also to the question of whether we should now risk the lives of American soldiers in a policing capacity, to impose peace and order on Afghanistan—a question the administration has so far answered with a resounding and ill-advised "no.")