>> lehrer: then, we assess the risks and benefits of the diabetes drug, avandia. >> ifill: we have another report from haiti-- six months after the earthquake. tonight, ray suarez looks at the road ahead for the many amputees. >> thousands of haitians lost limbs in january's earthquake. international charities are bringing pros thesees, mobility and hope. >> lehrer: and margaret warner updates the charges against six new orleans police officers in the killing and cover-up of unarmed citizens after hurricane katrina. >> what appears to me is that the officers based upon the admitted statements immediately decided to not tell the truth. that's just disgusting. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: this is the engine that connects zero emission technologies to breathing a little easier, while taking 4.6 million truckloads off the road every year. bnsf, the engine that connects us. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: u.s. forces in afghanistan added eight more names to the killed in action list today. it was the latest sign of the escalating war, as american commanders struggle to adapt. the first strike came in kandahar. three americans killed last night in a car bombing and gunfight at an afghan police headquarters. then, this morning, four more u.s. troops killed in a roadside bombing elsewhere in the south and a fifth shot dead. and three british soldiers died tuesday, when an afghan soldier attacked them with gunfire and a rocket propelled grenade in helmand province. british brigadier nick parker is the deputy nato commander in afghanistan. >> our afghan partners have got to look very carefully at what's happened, and they've got to reassure us that they're doing everything they can to minimize it happening again. >> lehrer: in all, 45 nato troops have been killed so far this month-- 33 of them americans-- as fighting intensifies in the south, and the east. that's on track to top the record of 60 u.s. deaths in june. overall, roadside bombs now cause up to 60% of combat deaths, and car bombings are also taking a toll. in fact, the kandahar attack resembled recent assaults on much larger, american-run air fields at jalalabad, near the pakistani border, and bagram, just north of kabul. with violence peaking, the rules of engagement for nato forces have become a particular flashpoint. recently relieved u.s. commander stanley mcchrystal had instituted tight new standards, to lessen civilian casualties. the vast majority of civilians are killed by insurgents, but coalition killings bring routine and widespread condemnation from president hamid karzai on down to the streets, as seen this past weekend in mazar-e-sharif. >> ( translated ): foreign forces have carried out an operation, and they have killed two civilians and have arrested three others. that is why we are out here demonstrating against them >> lehrer: coalition-caused civilian deaths have declined, but mcchrystal's rules also led to resentment in the ranks. troops said they increasingly found themselves with fewer options to respond and repel danger. the new nato commander, general david petraeus, underscored the core tenet of counterinsurgency warfare, in brussels, shortly after being appointed. >> the human terrain is the decisive terrain. and therefore, you must do everything humanly possible to protect the population. >> lehrer: petraeus said the rules of engagement would not be revised, but he did acknowledge the hard standard they demand. >> there are concerns among the ranks of some of our troopers on the ground that some of the processes have become a bit too bureaucratic. >> lehrer: those concerns were borne out recently in reporting by james foley of "global post." he talked to soldiers in the volatile kunar province hard by the pakistani border. >> we're infantry guys and we're trained to count our victories with the number of bodies that we clean up afterwards. it's kind of a vulgar way to put it, but it's the truth of it. and we're kind of out of our element. >> lehrer: the core of these fighting units are the sergeants who run their squads and who routinely update their soldiers on the rules of engagement. >> feel like you life is in danger or the life of your buddies is in danger-- engage. you know what i'm saying? you got to use your escalation of force. >> lehrer: the nature of counterinsurgency, called "coin" in shorthand, is trying to separate the enemy from the people. and it is inherently difficult, complex and not a little frustrating to the troops carrying it out. >> when you destroy fighters, it makes you feel like you've accomplished something. it's very hard to feel like you've accomplished something in a coin fight because it takes so long to accomplish that task, that miniscule task of winning one individual over to your side. >> lehrer: to help accomplish that task, the afghan government today approved an initiative pushed by general petraeus, to establish community police forces. the groups would be empowered to patrol their own villages. in washington today, pentagon, spokesman geoff morrell said the need was urgent. >> this is temporary solution to very real near term problem. this would be a stop gap measure, at least envisioned at this point, because we don't have enough police forces to provide security in populated areas. >> lehrer: morrell also placed the effort in the larger context of the u.s.-led counterinsurgency. >> the onus is on us, even to protect them from the taliban. so we have to work double not just to win their trust and confidence but to protect them. and so there is a real risk to those who step up in afghanistan. >> lehrer: a top american commander in southern afghanistan said today security will improve as more u.s. and afghan forces move into violent areas. he said: "it's a rising tide." two perspectives now: major benjamin tupper was an embedded trainer with the afghan national army. he wrote a book about his experiences "greetings from afghanistan, send more ammo." he's still in the army national guard. the views he expresses are his own. and major general charles dunlap was the air force's number two lawyer until his recent retirement. he's now a visiting professor of law at duke university. first, major tupper, how do you see the reasons for the rising tide of u.s. casualties? >> well, i think it's pretty straight forward. we're going into areas that we haven't been for years. we have force levels now that are on par to get into these home land, so to speak, safe areas that the talibans that been operating out of for years uncontested. so it's tragic, but it's logical to expect that we'll have more casualties as we go into their homeland and they fight to defend their logistical bases, their support bases. >> lehrer: do you agree, general, that this was pretty inevitable? >> i think it's inevitable when you put more troops on the ground, you're going to have more casualties. especially given the interpretation any way of the rules of engagement as being more restrictive. if you decide to take out the logistical centers that major tupper referenced by putting ground troops and sending ground troops after it, then you're going to have more casualties. and that's why i believe that we ought to use more of our technological means, within the law, within the law, to achieve those objectives. >> lehrer: in other words, change the rules of engagement? >> well, it may be that the rules of engagement themselves are fine. but as general petraeus has alluded to, it may be the interpretation that's going down the chain. and sometimes at the bottom, at the pointy end of the stick the troops feel that they have to, they interpret the rule of engagement in they way that maybe wasn't intended up the chain him so that's an issue that i think general petraeus and the commanders have to address immediately. because there's obviously the perception that the troops are fighting with one arm tied behind their back. and the facts seem to be supporting that. the original rationale that general mcchrystal put out was to protect the afghan people. but what we've seen since the restrictive rules have gone into effect is afghan civilian casualties have reached an all-time high, as have the losses of young americans and young nato troops. so we really have to take a look at this situation, see if there's a better way of accomplishing the task. >> lehrer: do you agree, major, that there's a connection between the rise in u.s. casualties and the possibly some misunderstandings about the rules of engagement? >> i'm not going to speculate on those individual actions that are occuring at a hair split second decision. i will tell you what i saw. and i had a unique perspectivele bed wind the afghan national army. i got to work alongside afghan soldiers, very few americans pretty much myself and one other american would be out on missions. and i saw how the afghans approached these prickly moments when there's uncertainty, when it's a shoot-don't shoot moment. for the most part, they laid back and i think we could today we call it coin doctrine, they were more passive. they were more conservative in the use of force. and they reaped a lot of benefits from that, because unfortunately more times than not when we reacted that split second we make the wrong decision, we may shoot the wrong vehicle, we may shoot the wrong person. so i think we should never equate killing bad guys with winning in afghanistan. i think for me personally i think the coin philosophy is cause to cause us some short-term frustration. but it's going to get us a lot of long-term benefits in civilians not injured, in villages seeing that we the coalition forces use restraint and the enemy did not. the taliban did not. that is how you win in afghanistan. and in your runup to the story when you had some of the guys out on the front line talking about how frustrating and difficult it was, i get that. and it's a lot to ask, it when your intonight try man to be a soldier, a immediate area, a teacher, but that's what we have to do. we say we're the most professional army in the world, we can do this. it's going to be a steep learning curve, it will be difficult for some of those guys who would rather pull a trigger, but we're professional soldiers and i think we can and will do it. >> lehrer: general, do you disagree with tharz i do. i think there are a number of irreconcilables in afghanistan, each to be dealt with in a military fashion. the fact is that the current process is not succeeding the way it was intended. it was intended to protect afghan civilians. we're seeing their deaths reach all-time highs. and if in fact we're winning hearts and mind, we've been told that less than 10% of the afghan people support the taliban, but we're also being told that the taliban is making inroads. so this connection, it seems that we've won the hearts and mind, but we still seem to be losing the war in the sense of we are continuing to see rise in casualties. so we really do have to make some fundamental relooks at the way we're approaching this. because the american people need to know that every effort is being made to protect their sons and daughters that are going there. and i believe that's what the commanders want. and i'm not suggesting at all that we do something in violation of the law. we strictly adhere to the law. and i disagree with major tupper in the idea that we have troops making split second decisions where they're typically making the wrong decision. i think they're typically making the right decision. the army and marine corps has a very sophisticated process where they train the troops . but the point is we ought to use our technological means, we ought to use air power. we ought not to be sending troops on the ground against every target. we ought to be looking at other opportunities. and the fact of the matter is we keep telling the adversary that if there's one civilian there then we're not going to use air power or artillery. we've telegraphed to the adversary exactly what strategy to use. and that's not what the law provides. the law expects that there's going to be civilian casualties because they don't want to encourage enemy adversarys to surround themselves with civilians, which is exactly what's happening in afghanistan. it was a well intentioned idea, but we need to have aggressive rules of engagement that comply with the law. i completely agree with major tupper that the more we can have afghans leading this effort, afghans in the field, i'm all in five of that. and what he did was heroic and the kind of thing we need to do more of. but what we're talking about now is we're americans and nato troops are leading the effort, they need to be free to use all the capability that's available to them. >> lehrer: major, what about the point that the general just made, and also mr. morell made in his statement today that the problem is there are not enough trained afghan security forces out there to get the job done and the americans have to step up to it and of course the general's point is if americans are going to step up to it they'll have to step up more aggressively. >> just to clarify, i'm not saying we shouldn't have a kin eic role and we shouldn't be engaged in kinetic operations. what i think is, to your question about the afghan security forces, we're growing them as fast as we can. it's a ram shackle army, it's a work in progress. any professional army takes years and years to develop. again, i can speak to my experience there, and the afghan soldiers i worked with , i was very impressed. at their motivation and understanding of the big picture of what was trying to be done in afghanistan. in other words they weren't just there to get a paycheck. their commitment to working with coalition forces, and we came in there with a lot of arrogance and ignorance and well intentions, and they put up with us and helped us walk the afghan landscape and understand it a little better. so the cup is half empty, the cup is half full. there's a lot of progress being made, you know, we had that tragedy of an afghan soldier, i believe, killing the three british guys yesterday, the day before. >> lehrer: is that an aberration or is that a serious problem? >> in my opinion that's an aberration. we've been at war there now nine years and i think this is an accurate statement that tragicly more american soldiers have killed american soldiers in that nine-year period -- >> lehrer: you mean from friendly fire accidents? >> and intentional. think of the hassan case and some other incidents. have had more fatalities than from afghan soldiers attacking their embedded trainers. and trust me, the afghan soldiers every day and every night have the opportunity to do away with their trainers if they saw fit. but they don't, because they recognize that they're part of a team, that the americans and the coalition forces are there to do something good for afghanistan, and they don't have a problem with that. and they're willing to work with us hand in hand, teach us some of what we need to know about the afghan landscape. we're teaching them some of the military tactics they need to know to be more successful. >> lehrer: general, i take it from your perspective you don't disagree with what the major said about what the ultimate intent here is. >> well, certainly we do need the afghans need to defend themselves and have their own army. i do think it an aberration. but the problem is we have to think about this sophisticated enemy we're dealing with. he only has to have a few of these incidents to inject what some would call friction into the operation. every american over there and every nato member is going to be looking a little harder at his afghan ally, and that's what the enemy wants to take place. i believe that we have to focus, the president of the united states talks about protecting the american people from al qaeda. we hear army commanders or troop commanders talking about protecting the afghan people from the taliban. i think we have to focus on that sophisticated element of our adversary that presents a threat to the united states. and so that's where i think we ought to bring our capabilities and let the afghans continue the training process and let them deal with the threat of the taliban, as opposed to the kinds of adversaries that can wreak havoc in this country. >> lehrer: general, major, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> ifill: still to come on the "newshour": the risks of a diabetes drug; help for amputees in haiti and charges in the shootings on a new orleans bridge after hurricane katrina. but first, with the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: the federal reserve's economic outlook has turned a bit dimmer. the estimate today said growth will be slightly lower than its april forecast. at the same time, white house officials projected the president's economic stimulus program has created or saved two and a half to more than three and a half million jobs. christina romer, of the council of economic advisers, and vice president biden presented the estimates in washington. >> now there's obviously a lot of uncertainty about any jobs estimate, and i suspect that the true effects of the act will not be fully analyzed or fully appreciated for many years but our compendium show that analysts across the ideological spectrum as well as the non partisan budget office agree the act has had a significant beneficial effect on unemployment and output over the past year. >> sreenivasan: president obama also called in former president clinton today, to encourage business leaders to invest and create jobs. but republicans dismissed the administration's economic efforts. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said, "the fastest- growing parts of this democrat economy aren't jobs. they're the crushing burden of the national debt and the size of the federal government." wall street lost its recent momentum, after the fed issued its weaker economic forecast. stocks were mostly higher, but not by much. the dow jones industrial average added less than four points to close at 10,366. the nasdaq rose seven points to close above 2,249. b.p. got word late today to proceed with testing a new cap on that gushing oil well in the gulf of mexico. the effort had been in doubt much of the day after federal officials asked the company to delay the test. oil spewed unabated from the blown-out wellhead, after the operation to test a new cap was put on hold. b.p. and top government officials called off the crucial test last night, citing a need for further analysis. kent wells, a b.p. senior vice president, defended the move today. >> sreenivasan: news accounts said energy secretary steven chu and others were concerned about how the well would stand the pressure, when valves on the 75- ton cap are closed to halt the flow of oil and gas. in a worst case scenario, the pressure might break through the well shaft and create new leaks. in new orleans this afternoon, retired coast guard admiral thad allen. >> we will start to increase the pressure in the capping stack, and we will do this in six-hour intervals. and at each six-hour interval we will stop and we will consider a pressure data, we will look at information we are gaining from sonar, acoustic data, remote visual data from remotely operated vehicles. >> sreenivasan: b.p. also temporarily halted drilling two relief wells-- designed to choke off the damaged well-- until it's clear ho