On Thursday, The New York Times made an astonishing editorial choice, for which its editors owe the public an explanation: it published an op-ed by an obscure and poorly identified author attacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal for his directive last July that airstrikes in Afghanistan be authorized only under "very limited and prescribed conditions." The op-ed denounced an "overemphasis on civilian protection" and charged that "air support to American and Afghan forces has been all but grounded by concerns about civilian casualties."

The author of the op-ed, Lara M. Dadkhah, is identified by The Times merely as "an intelligence analyst." In the body of the op-ed, the author identifies herself as "employed by a defense consulting company," without telling us which company, or what her relationship might be to actors who stand to lose financially if the recognition that killing civilians is bad for the United States were to affect expenditures by the United States military.

As Glenn Greenwald asked in Salon:

What defense consulting company employs her? Do they have any ties to the war effort? Do they benefit from the grotesque policies she's advocating? What type of "analyst" is she? Who knows ... it's virtually impossible to find any information about "Lara Dadkhah" using standard Internet tools.

The use of anonymous and underdisclosed sources by The New York Times is an issue of longstanding dispute. The newspaper has written policies on the use of anonymous and poorly-identified sources - policies which it does not always follow, as The Times' public editor has documented.

That policy concerns news sources, and, so, The Times may argue that since this is an op-ed, different standards apply. But to claim that there are not very similar issues here would be to dodge responsibility. The New York Times does not publish op-eds randomly; it does not publish op-eds questioning whether the Nazis systematically murdered European Jews or whether the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center. The Times makes editorial choices about what is worthy. Publishing this op-ed was a choice: publishing an op-ed attacking General McChrystal's efforts to reduce Afghan civilian casualties was a choice; publishing one by an unknown and underidentified author who may have a financial interest in promoting the aggressive use of airpower without regard to civilian casualties was also a choice. The New York Times' editors should be prepared to defend these choices, particularly given the unique role The Times exercises in influencing national political debate, both by influencing the choices of other media and by influencing the perceptions of government officials. If The Times' editors are not willing to defend those choices, then the status of The New York Times as a "watchdog" of "accountability" is something that fair-minded people should take a lot less seriously.

You can ask The New York Times' public editor to investigate these concerns here.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Kishi's joints have been in bad condition since she was a child -- a result of bombing-related microcephaly -- and she cannot count the number of times she has rubbed her left leg and sighed sadly. Before her 60th birthday, she had hip replacement surgery. Afterwards, however, she suffered from pain and could not raise or lower her leg. She could not go shopping without a wheelchair, and was scared to try walking around her own house without leaning on furniture.

"(I thought), since I had been bombed, there was nothing I could do to get better," she says. Rehabilitation seemed to produce no results, and she was consumed with envy when she saw people who had undergone the same procedure as her walking around, full of energy. And so it went until November last year, when during her weekly walking practice she could suddenly lift her leg, and without any pain. "It's so light! I raised it!" she exclaimed in a delighted voice, and went on to show everyone else in the room that she could finally walk.

Her first pain-free steps were not the only thing to bring hope and happiness back into Kishi's life, as she got back in touch with her estranged son and daughter. Her son visited her over New Year's along with his baby girl, who was born just last summer.

"I could finally say to my granddaughter, 'I'm your grandma!'" she says as she stares intently at a picture of the baby girl on her mobile phone. "She kept moving, so I couldn't get such a good picture."

Her daughter also visited, and they spent time shopping and tidying the family grave site.

Over 30 years ago, many around Kishi were opposed to her having children because she was a bomb survivor, saying, "Who knows what kind of child you'll give birth to?" Even so, she decided to have kids, and both her son and daughter grew up healthy. However, she worried so much about them that she nagged them constantly, and they alienated her when they reached their teens.

Left alone, she was confused and worried some of the time, but her children have now "returned" to her. She feels she began to believe that, "If I change the way I feel, the other person changes, too." However, though she has emotional peace now, she knows she will never be in perfect physical condition, and that it can get worse. Even so, I first met Kishi four and a half years ago, and I have never seen her look so bright and happy.

There are about 20 known cases of nuclear bombing-related microcephaly nationwide. Without a good estimate of their numbers and condition, government support for them has not been sufficient. Among the known cases, there are also those with mental disabilities, while those who care for them are getting older.