Someone clearly thought it was important to very publicly call out a notoriously low-integrity American “news” source for being aligned with foreign military intelligence.

…officials said Zero Hedge, which has 1.2 million Twitter followers, published articles created by Moscow-controlled media that were then shared by outlets and people unaware of their nexus to Russian intelligence…

A tone-deaf response was then published by Zero Hedge, cited in the same article, which confirmed they knew they were spreading anti-American propaganda — as if an attack on truth (intentional lying) is a legitimate “side” for Zero Hedge to be on.

…publish a wide spectrum of views that cover both sides of a given story…

Wide spectrum? 2+2=5 is part of a “wide” spectrum. And “both sides” is a concept that invalidates “wide spectrum”, which I will explain in a minute.

First, this is like Zero Hedge saying “let’s hear from someone who denies basic math” as if that person needs help to spread obvious nonsense, increasing the cost of communication. Nobody really wants to hear 2+2=5 in their “spectrum” of news.

Someone who is actively doing wrong, someone who spreads intentional disinformation as part of a targeted military intelligence campaign, is being brought into the conversation because… why?

Second, in a spectrum you have many sides. However, if you cite “both sides” you negate the spectrum and force a binary. That’s a tactic to try to bring in a view that has been rejected, validate a side that doesn’t exist.

It is in fact a dog-whistle going back to at least the Civil War (if not WWII), which tries to promote obvious criminals and losers as deserving a voice and give them a chance to win after losing so obviously.

Let’s look at the Civil War for example. When Woodrow Wilson very clearly tried to re-write history, he claimed that the pro-slavery states starting a war to expand slavery weren’t doing the exact thing they had announced they were doing.

It was necessary [for the United States defending itself] to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.

The “states fighting for their independence” wanted independence specifically “for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”

The South was at a moral disadvantage because it aspired to be nothing more than a white police state that profited almost exclusively from human trafficking.

Woodrow Wilson was a ruthless anti-American propagandist, evidenced by things like how he solicited Black votes to become President and then used his power to remove all Blacks from government and dilute or remove their voting rights.

Kind of similar to what Andrew Jackson did 100 years earlier, and kind of similar to what George Washington did 100 years before that. See the problem with “both sides” being an invitation to regression and mass casualties?

The opposite of the “both sides” propaganda of Woodrow Wilson was President Grant’s famous campaign slogan “Let Us Have Peace“, which asserted there was a proven right and moral side to American victory over its enemy in war.

In other words… stop saying maintenance and extension of slavery has any “sides” or arguments worth hearing. It is beyond the spectrum of acceptable views.

Both the ballot box and the battle field have settled the argument. Let us have peace.

Grant won his 1868 campaign for President in a huge landslide, defeating a “side” that literally ran on a platform called “this is a white man’s country”, which in retrospect obviously was not a side at all.

Logically speaking a “both sides” claim also floats towards a form of the “tu quoque” (you too, appeal to hypocrisy) logical fallacy. Instead of presenting a logical argument, “both sides” misdirects using false statements (e.g. alleging to be interested in a “wide spectrum of views” when in fact shifting attention to a very narrow and intentionally wrong one) to obfuscate and distract from accountability of making such false statements.

One of the greatest myths of American military history is that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were superior to sending ground troops.

In reality it was Soviet ground troops advancing on Japan that should be credited with an end to combat, given months of unrestricted aerial munitions by America (Tokyo 50% destroyed by non-stop napalm) had not delivered a surrender.

Technically the nuclear bombs gave the Japanese a diplomatic out — a public distraction — and thus did serve a purpose. The Japanese could use them to claim they cared about civilian deaths and claim they cared about American technology, when in fact they cared most about Soviet military encroachment and occupation.

It seems to me this is important backstory, let alone the failed bombing campaigns of Vietnam and North Korea, for Americans reading about a new dispute coming out of Syria.

If the al-Qurayshi home had been targeted in a similar aerial strike, the number of “acceptable” casualties would have been decided by a drone pilot and military lawyer, who would have made a judgment call as to when the number of civilians in the compound was low enough to justify a “proportional” strike.

Instead, the ground team was able to reduce the odds of collateral harm even further by clearing the area of some civilians in real time­ — first calling on them to evacuate and then assisting many in leaving their homes. Had al-Qurayshi not detonated his own explosive device, it is possible no civilians would have died.

While global data is scarce on the overall historical ratio of civilian casualties resulting from commando raids as compared to drone strikes, it stands to reason that in raids, armed actors are likelier to follow rules of engagement more associated with law enforcement or SWAT teams rather than urban warfare, and in doing so would take greater pains to protect innocent bystanders.

Indeed, US President Joe Biden has explained that he used ground troops rather than aerial munitions in the al-Qurayshi raid specifically for this purpose.