"Eight civilians were killed in the attack which, according to an anonymous source in the US government who was speaking to Reuters news agency, was targeting senior al Qaeda operative Abu Ghadiya." Horrible, but typical of war. Is it worth sacrificing civilian lives to kill an important enemy general? My country seems to be answering this question with a consistent "yes". Whatever his merits in diplomacy and in trying to reduce civilian casualties in general, Obama hasn't shirked away from the use of aerial attacks that kill "senior" enemies but which come at the cost of civilian lives lost as a result of collateral damage. One of the advantages to having guns on the ground is that you can be more discriminate; preferably, Syria would take care of this sort of thing so that explosions wouldn't. That would save lives. As for covering this sort of thing up, well, this sort of thing bolsters enemy recruitment. More enemies means more people die, and it reduces the likelihood of our own victory. At the same time, transparency leads to a domestic discussion that questions the ethics of what we are doing. In other words, you get something and you lose something by being transparent, but of course our leaders have decided what they think is ethical, they don't want to be second guessed, and so unless they are very mature, and therefore support a debate in principle, a cover up is a win-win situation for them. I feel uncomfortable and disgusted by these kinds of attacks, and they bolster my disdain for war in general. It is a vast exchange of horrible actions that rip apart and destroy human lives; but although I think world peace is attainable, I don't think its time has come. And until it has, the debate about exchanges will continue because unilateral inaction cannot shut the process up.