Little Hawk states that the US effort in Afghanistan is terrorizing the population of that country. I would entertain arguments that the impact of some US attacks is to induce terror. We see this when an Afghani wedding party is bombed because weapons are being fired, when intelligence informs that a Taliban or Al Qaeda leader is in a house, the house is bombed, and the result is dead women and children.
However, I do not see that the intent is terrorizing the population. There is no percentage of gain inherent in alienating the population of a country in which your army is engaged. To this end, emphasis has been put on schools, hospitals, public service and works project being funded by the US. Narrowly targeted bombs are meant to "surgically" remove their intended victims without widespread collateral damage.
That is the aim. Whether that is being accomplished, or whether our inaccurate intelligence and the gigantic difficulties inherent in fighting a guerilla war with a conventional fighting force result in the terrorization of the populace, is arguable.
I for one would argue that whatever the effect, the intent is definitely an essential factor. Some may see no difference in a group of armed men stalking through a hotel slaughtering hostages under instruction from a mastermind in a remote location via a cell phone, and a bomb that misses a target and strikes a hotel. The effect is nearly identical. The intent, however, must be important to anyone who believes in such things as objective moral truth. By one standard, the deaths are a tragedy to be avoided in future. By the other, the only tragedy is that there weren't more deaths.