That said, the article is skewed. It takes off on the "No more blood for oil" T-shirt and then discusses Taliban atrocities. But Mortenson did say that bombing innocent civilians was a terrible thing (as far as I can tell from the wording of the article), just as bombing innocent civilians was bad in WWII and would be bad just about any time in history.
I doubt anyone would dispute that bombing and killing innocent civilians is bad. Sometimes, sadly, it is a necessary part of a greater need to extirpate an evil that must be extirpated.
However, if innocent civilians are killed for reasons that are not noble (the extirpation of evil regimes is noble and necessary) the killing of innocent civilians may not be justified. If innocent civilians were killed solely to insure U.S. economic prosperity, that would probably not be justifiable.
"No more blood for oil" is a very poor way to make that statement, because it is unclear. In the campaign against Saddam Hussein, oil is clearly not our motivation, though some dumb Hollywood actors may see it that way. But spilling blood for oil, be it the blood of innocent civilians or the blood of America's soldier heroes -- would not be good at all.