Guardian Comments

I'm really having fun reading these comments. Here are some more:

So that is what is meant by the Americans,when they say they have to win the hearts and minds of the non combatants in Afghanistan,to stand any chance of winning in Afghanistan ?,whatever it is that they are trying to win of course,it has never been explicitly stated what that exactly means,but hey, lets not worry about such a small detail.

When you add to the stupidity of trying to convert people whose lands you have invaded and now occupy,the American pilots brave deeds in bombing women and children desperately trying to gain some shelter from the mud buildings they live in,as a hideous death rains down on them from the sky.

You realise why future historians will record that American's dominance of this planet,in comparative terms,was so short lived,because no other power,{imperial,or otherwise},before them,ever thought it would be a world beating grand idea to turn stupidity into a virtue.

AND

It is extraordinary the level of delusion the hawks and armchair warmongers will go to in order to convince themselves that the carnage and destruction resulting from the military actions they supported is actually the embodiment of democratic reconstruction. Not only do they delude themselves into believing that the acute suffering their cheerleading contributed towards is actually progress, they have the audacity to make moral judgments on those who oppose the violence and worsening conditions of depravity. I mean for fuck's sake, they describe the coalition forces in Afghanistan - who daily bomb and kill innocent civilians - as "moral".

donoevil, you're quite right - different planet.

AND

Well, the bombing of innocent women and children by US aircraft combined with this religious intolerance is evidence of the inability of the Americans to win in Afghanistan over the long term.

The conflict in Afghanistan is already being lost and has now spread into Pakistan. Having made a complete mess of Iraq they now are making a similar disaster in Afghanistan.

America may have a lot of guns but it lacks the intelligence and sophistication required to achieve the military ambitions it sets for itself.

AND

In the unlikely event they ever meet any ordinary, working people from outside their bubble they should ask them who is more moral - the coalition forces in Afghanistan trying to rebuild a ruined country and its schools, or its Taleban oppressors who burn them down as quickly as they can be built."

The coalition forces have destroyed innumerably more villages, schools and homes than the Taleban have. Your blind loyalty to "our boys" prohibits you from ever deeming their acts of violence as reprehensible whilst your narrowly constructed, racistly-formed view of the Afghan population allows you to label all victims of NATO aggression as "terrorists" or "extremists" (therefore being acceptable fodder for bombing campaigns). And finally this:

"How sad it is that simpering cultural relativism won't permit a tiny few to declare themselves superior to women-oppressing, intolerant, medievalists."

But I didn't respond to that query - are you in the habit of deciding how other people feel about issues based on their silence? Very immature, don't you think? As it happens I do consider myself morally superior to those who oppress women and murder and kill. Sadly you're incapable of applying this stringent moral fibre of yours to those who bomb wedding parties and have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents across the Middle East since 2001. The interchangability of your "moral position" only serves to highlight your inherent double standards and hypocrisy, Rich. Take your miserable bleating elsewhere.

AND

"just another american power trip. nothing surprises me when it comes to this holy war/oilwar. we all know why they are there.
www.digitaldirect.co.uk

AND

Those Christians, eh. What are they like.

US-led air strikes have killed dozens of Afghans, including women and children, the Red Cross has said."The air strikes killed about 120 civilians and destroyed 17 houses," he said, adding the toll was imprecise."Jessica Barry, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said the Geneva-based group had also sent a team to the scene of the air strikes.

"There were women and there were children who were killed. It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit," she said.

By their deeds shall ye know them.

AND

Not much point building all these girls schools if you're going to incinerate the pupils.

AND

And they call the Taliban 'terrorists' .

AND

Let's drop the sarcasm and focus on what I'm actually saying.

1) People who live in occupied countries, whether the US acted unilaterally or in conjunction with the UN, can't be expected to treat the invaders as well as they would treat their own people. That doesn't mean I 'like' the Taleban. it means I'm not hopelessly blinkered by my hatred of them.
2) Whether this is true or not, the US army trying to convert the Muslims of Afghanistan is deeply inappropriate and against the law.

Please don't try to misrepresent my position. And please don't use my name at the end of sentences to underline what a patronising git you are

AND

I really do feel great sorrow for the people of Afghanistan. The rednecks are not only still busy bombing and strafing their women, children and other noncombattants, as they always do, but are now trying to peddle their crude version of "Christianity".

It seems to me that Obama, rather than ushering in palpable, profound, so-badly-needed change in the US is more or less continuing the repressive, destructive, militarist policies of his dickheaded predecessors. I'll soon be calling him a quasi-redneck at this rate!

As an Anglican of a fairly ceremonial hue, I find US evangelism little more than a rather sick joke, a quasi-fascist parody of - can I even bring myself to call it - "Christianity". But then, it's like everything else that interfaces with that wretched country - it becomes simply profaned.

AND

Mind you, the Afghan operation *was* authorised by the UN, and AFAIK is still supported by it, as others have pointed out. If you consider that to be a "flimsy" pretext, then so be it.

Oh it was authorised by the UN was it? That's ok then - who gives a fuck what the Afghans themselves think as long as a self-interested security council dominated by the P5 allows it. Get a grip.


AND

You seem a bit uncomfortable with the yawning chasm between their good book and their bad deeds, pal ? Dismembering women and children in somebody else's country whilst preaching 'christianity' seems pretty 'on-topic' to me. Aren' there basic tenets that these hypocrites are forgetting eg

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods ( trillions of $$$$ caspian basin oil/gas just a pipeline away)
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not lie through ones teeth

Lest we forget...

By their deed shall ye know them.

AND

I'd be delighted if as many proselytising Christians as possible went on missions to Afghanistan.
Maybe another large contingent could make their way to the Swat Valley in Pakistan.
The sooner the better, I'll even contribute to their airfares!

The Christian soldiers missed a trick with the detention camps though (assuming they're mostly closed)... I'm sure proselytising and waterboarding would be a winning combination! This kind of 'conversion' had some success historically...

It all goes to show just how beneficial religion is for mankind!

AND

Brian Whitaker seems to be extraordinarily under-informed - for someone writing this article. It's not a question of 'religious freedom' at the point of a Christian fundamentalist's gun, is it?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/6/the_crusade_for_a_christian_military

AND

The point being Afghanistan is not Iraq. The point being some peoples memories go back further than September 2001 conspiracies.

The Taliban were recognised as legitimate by only three nations (I'm sure the ummah is larger than that) and were despised by a great number of those Muslim nations who now shout loudest about persecution of their brothers.

If the point is oooh look aren't the Yanks terrible killing civilians by mistake then pointing out that the Talib were never averse to killing civilians (and all of them fellow Muslims) on purpose, en masse, is surely fair.

AND

The US military gets a lot of its recruits from the South or the Bible Belt. The Army advertises directly to attract rural Americans even though more Americans live in cities. It is ironic that it is exactly this group of Americans that are more likely to be hostile to the federal government. The divisions in US society are reflected in the military. It should not be much of a surprise to anyone.

AND

Surely, it's quite irresponsible to try to bring extreme pluralistic liberal attitudes into a situation like Afghanistan. Or into Iran or Saudi or Sudan, for that matter.

Attempting to "convert" someone in countries like those to Christianity seems to me to be heartless and wicked. What sort of life is the converted person to have? Rejected by society, family, friends, with a few military or churchy types to cling to. I can't imagine a worse fate. Frying pan and fire spring to mind.

I think this mania for "converting" everyone is based on a totally mistaken view of religions: that they contain special objective truths, known only to the initiated. A form of gnosticism.

Religions are not depositories of privileged facts. They are social constructs of immense communal and personal value, defining people's self-image. The idea that anyone should wish to convert from one religion to another seems to me ridiculous; dangerous even.

AND

Dear Brian,
Thanks for a very objective article, which also clearly states your very agreeable position. The issues are multiple, yet you break them creditably.

1. The War in the Afghanistan, or Iraq, is a war against terrorism, and should be based only on very credible threats to the west and all democracies. It is in the interest of the terrorist that it takes the shape of a religion-based crusade.

2. By bringing in a element of conversion motive, even if loosely the act of "some individual and perhaps rogue elements", America in particular and every democratic nation, will lose further credibility behind the motives of this war against terror (no, I don't agree with the term).

3. That does not take away from the fact that the way the Afghan president reacted is wrong, and un-democratic. He should insist, if anything, that the democracy in Afghanistan assures, against the wishes of the terrorists, a free discussion on religion and a freedom to take any religion by its citizens. However, US soldiers have no business doing it.

4. The issue is larger. The secular nature of any democracy, and all officials of all its institutions, including the Army. For instance, any American, Britisher or India can hold a discussion on religion and try to convince others of their viewpoints without coercion. But the same can't be for the Presidents and Prime Ministers, because of the position.

Hope the debate will continue on these lines... on the failure of secularism and purpose by the American Army, and in reaction, the failure of the Afghanistan president to distinguish between democracy within and the restrictions of natural rights to an external armed force.

Regards
Sriram

Enough for now :)