The language could have been far less "collateralizing" New York Times

.......

The civilians were in a vehicle behind the insurgents when the alliance’s forces fired on the insurgents’ car. The explosion destroyed the civilian car, the governor’s office said. The condition of the suspected insurgents’ vehicle was not disclosed.

Civilian casualties have been one of the most contentious issues in Afghanistan, exacerbating tensions in the delicate relationship between international forces and President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Karzai raised the issue again in a speech on Tuesday, saying that the reduction of civilian deaths was an issue that must be addressed as Afghan forces begin taking over responsibility for security in some areas of the country this summer.

Source The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27afghanistan.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Findex.jsonp


Few comments:

Why would the issue of civilian casualties be a matter of "contention ?

Why would this be an issue between the international forces and the President of Afghanistan ? Isn't there a more basic issue here ? We certainly are not talking about some diplomatic "tensions" in this case.

Why are we using such a distorting language when describing the wrong done to civilians ? Are we not distancing ourselves from thinking about the right of these civilians to proper justice by restricting the matter to "delicate relations" between international forces and the President of Afghanistan ?


well, things happen....

the big thing is - could we have done better ? ( we meaning the "international forces")