Over a year ago, I got my first little taste of blog fame (like real fame, only less so) when Glenn Reynolds published an email of mine suggesting that we were probably killing fewer Afghans with our bombs than the Taliban would have, if they had kept on with business as usual. It struck me as ironic that getting bombarded by the United States probably resulted in a net improvement in public safety.

Now, at last, I am vindicated -- and the vindication comes, believe it or not, in that most anti-war, anti-American of Brit rags, The Guardian:

Was it worth it, I asked? He pointed up at the sky: "We shouted with joy when the American planes came over this way. They hit a Taliban police barracks down the road. Boom! It was a big ammunition dump, we knew that. But we were amazed at how precise it was. Yes, we cheered!"

Not surprising, perhaps, as this is Hazara territory, the downtrodden, spat-upon tribe that makes up 20% of the population. But what of the bombs that missed, the innocent dead, among them Hazaras too? Hussain Dad spread his arms wide: "How many more do you think the Taliban would have killed in this last year? Thousands! And they would still be killing now."