He explained that the 2002 article was "just a bad piece, plain and simple, and something I wish I'd never written". He noted that while he still partially agreed with his article's main point—"that we must calculate the risk to American services members when we design rules of engagement"—he "expressed [that point] in the worst possible way, and simplifie[d] the issue beyond the bounds of morality (particularly by doubting the civilian status of some civilians)".[52]