It is good to see that the German edition of the Financial Times may now move beyond this ridiculous misrepresentation (by an external contributor) of what German-American debates were about in terms of tactics and operating procedures, as well as a downright absurd interpretation of "deterrence" as killing-a-lot-of-people-just-for-the-deterrence-of-it. The Kunduz airstrike was just bad, bad, bad, and they may be getting at this with the new bits of information that are constantly coming.
According to a recent report by FT (GER), relayed by Expatica, anonymous NATO officials (not my favourite source of information, of course) say that even a dreadful misunderstanding contributed to making the Kunduz airstrike happen ("Are you in contact?;" "Yes, visual contact"). To be exact, these anonymous friends of intra-alliance harmony are saying that Colonel Klein lied, but that seems to be beyond what necessarily has to be concluded at this point. I have some other questions, though, that have not yet been addressed - perhaps we will see clearer once that NATO report comes out.