Why bother, Washington Post?

Buried in the left corner at the bottom of page A10 in Saturday's (September 26, 2009) paper in the section "World Digest" under Afghanistan, are four paragraphs with a heading (not big enough for a headline):

5 U.S. Troops Killed in Attacks in South

Why bother, Washington Post? They were only five. Five soldiers who don't matter. Why even bother to put them in at all? The huge stories you have on Indian defense and mandatory flu shots are surely more important, but what? One hundred paragraphs on them was not enough and you had to squeeze the deaths? You supporting the Defense Department's order for more troops and you're trying to minimize more losses? Or maybe it's the green crew you've got in now, which can't exactly pinpoint Afghanistan's location nor does it know anything about our troops there or the past. Maybe Washington Post, you better get in some people with some history who know a thing or two about world events, more than the crew you've got now which relies on wire service stories and can't tell a dead soldier from a fighter jet.