If the U.S. accidentally bombs a civilian caravan when trying to bomb terrorists isn't the critique "we should stop trying to bomb terrorists" equally as valid as "we should be more careful where we drop bombs".

The article explicitly argues CoC's should be done better, but it's also a story of collateral damage. The author might believe these issues are infrequent and a non-issue but not all the readers share this belief and I don't think there is anything wrong with that reaction.

I think extending the metaphor to bombs is a bit much. It's more like if the U.S. accidentally bombs a civilian caravan and the response is "we should stop trying to assassinate terrorists" in other countries.

I wouldn't call that an "invalid" opinion or critique, and again I would think it's an expected reaction. But it would be overly broad, based solely on that incident. Of course we don't exist in a vacuum, so I'd expect that other information would be brought in to support such an argument. Fair enough.

However, an argument that draws an isomorphic relationship between the ability to target a document and the ability to target a bomb is probably attempting to draw outside the lines.

(Particularly since in this case, it's equivalent to the victim of the bombing being the one who is reporting on the incident and quite clearly stating despite what they've been through "I support the thoughtful bombing of terrorists, but that is not what happened in this case.")

Hang about. The metaphor is more like this:

> It's more like if the U.S. accidentally bombs a civilian caravan and the response is "this shows why we should not have foreign policy.”