Our "good" and "smart" terrorism in Afghanistan

Writer Tom Clancy, a biographer of non-Nazi Chuck Horner, has a bone to pick with "the movies" about military leaders:

"In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who has worked on books about retired Gen. Chuck Horner, who led U.S. Central Command Air Forces during the Gulf War, and retired Gen. Carl Stiner, whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega.

"In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about that. These are good guys, and smart guys."

 
Let's take a look at Afghanistan, which is under our military rule. We're treating them pretty awfully:

While infrastructure improvement has been hampered in active war zones, notably in rural Helmand and Kandahar provinces, significant change has been achieved elsewhere. Numerous roads have been graded or asphalted, electricity installed in many villages, and agriculture has improved, particularly in the eastern provinces along the Pakistan border. Much of this headway, however, was not instigated by donor aid but rather individual Afghan investment. NATO’s military approaches, particularly in hard-line insurgent areas, have been criticized for not allowing recovery initiatives to reach parts held or otherwise influenced by the Taliban. At the same, some insurgent commanders have pointedly refused to allow any aid project that might show international aid workers in a positive light.

This strategy is a war crime. It is indistinguishable from an espionage operation which we exceuted Nazis for:

But we don't call it terrorism. Instead it's called "centers of gravity" or, more negatively "benign neglect"( dead link, alt link here). Chuck "not a Nazi" Horner believed in targeting "national leadership and command and control to railroads, airfields, and ports."