Petraeus warns Koran burning could endanger troops

[Maimonides]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/7/petraeus-koran-burning-could-endanger-troops/

A proposed book-burning by an evangelical pastor in a Florida college town this weekend has inflamed sensitivities from Afghanistan to Washington, D.C., and added a wrinkle in U.S. relations with Muslims abroad.

The Rev. Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., said Tuesday that he will go ahead with his plans to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday in remembrance of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even though U.S. officials said it could endanger U.S. troops, tourists and diplomats overseas.

But an interfaith coalition in Washington denounced Mr. Jones' plan as anti-Islamic bigotry, while a spokesman for the State Department called it "un-American" and the U.S. commander of troops in Afghanistan said it likely would "incite violence" among extremists around the world.

What's more, Brian Robertson, a spokesman of Families of September 11, said burning the Koran can serve "no useful purpose whatsoever."

"This is not the America that we all have grown to love and care about," said Rabbi Steve Gutow of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a member of the interfaith coalition that held a news conference in Washington. "We have to stand up for our Muslim brothers and sisters and say, "This is not OK.'"

The interfaith group included representatives from Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths, including the former archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick. The Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, on Tuesday published an article with the headline "No one burns the Koran" and denounced Mr. Jones' plan.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces, said the planned burning of the Koran "could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort" in Afghanistan.

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community," Gen. Petraeus said in a statement.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said during a briefing with reporters that the Obama administration strongly opposes the Florida pastor's plan.

"We think that these are provocative acts," Mr. Crowley said. "We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values. In fact, these actions themselves are un-American."

Gen. Petraeus is a lying hypocrite, because if he cared about American troops he would not tie their hands behind their backs with ridiculous rules of engagement.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008863,00.html Petraeus Toughens Afghan Rules of Engagement

In his first tactical directive since assuming command of international forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus doubled down on the orders imposed by his predecessor that put a premium on protecting civilians first to win their support. For months those rules of engagement, formulated by General Stanley McChrystal, have led to rank-and-file grumblings by U.S. soldiers. The servicemen say that the strict rules put them in greater danger, even as they aim to avoid civilian casualties. The grumbling is unlikely to diminish with the new directives that Petraeus issued on Wednesday.

The renewed call for a disciplined use of force — plus added restrictions — were not what most troops were hoping for. Over the past year a series of directives issued by McChrystal limited air strikes and hot pursuit in populated areas. This managed to reduce civilian casualties caused by NATO forces, pleasing Afghan officials and rights groups. But many war fighters contend the current policies have handicapped their ability to effectively take on the Taliban, a guerrilla force that doesn't have to play by the same rules. There's also been widespread uncertainty over how troops can defend themselves when under attack. Misinterpretations of earlier directives by ground officers in some parts of the country confused and frustrated a lot of frontline soldiers, who say they worry about the consequences of a heat-of-the-moment mistake. (Can the allies trust the Afghans to watch their backs?)

Now, rather than loosen the rules of engagement as many would have preferred, General Petraeus has tightened them.Under General McChrystal, NATO forces were prohibited from calling in air strikes or artillery fire on village compounds where the enemy might have been mixed in with civilians. Going several steps better, General Petraeus has reportedly expanded the ban on air strikes and artillery fire to all types of buildings, tree-lined areas and hillsides where it is difficult to distinguish who is on the ground. Although the military has kept much of the directive's fine print classified for operational security, other measures are said to include a curb on small-arms fire that has yielded a steady trickle of fatalities at checkpoints and in night raids on private residences. These have surpassed errant air strikes as the main source of civilian casualties. Writes Petraeus: "Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause." (See the women of Afghanistan under the Taliban threat.)

In his directive, Petraeus tried to reassure troops of their basic right to self-defense. With a nod to the inconsistencies, he forbade lower-level officers from making his guidance stricter "without my approval," adding, "We must give our troopers the confidence to take all necessary actions when it matters most while understanding the strategic consequences of civilian casualties." In other words, commanding officers should not make their soldiers feel too cautious about defending themselves when necessary. And, in the event they are at risk of being overrun by enemy forces, they are allowed to forgo stringent civilian-oriented protocols to defend themselves.

Still, the emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties is a loud echo of McChrystal's dogma. And it should come as no real surprise. General Petraeus authored the U.S. Army counterinsurgency manual that was the backbone of McChrystal's strategy, ensuring continuity in letter and spirit. In the run-up to his confirmation, Petraeus vowed to stay the course. And everything he has done so far seems to underscore his predecessor's policies. On Sunday, he released a broader list of counterinsurgency warfare guidelines to the 135,000 troops under his command that reinforce the existing strategy, exhorting them to be more respectful and learn about the nuances of Afghan culture to better connect with locals. Among his recommendations: drinking more tea, living among the people, admitting mistakes when things go wrong and using information as a weapon.

General Petraeus is not the only one hustling to shape perceptions. Last week the Taliban command released its own directive calling on fighters not to harm civilians, with the exception of those working for international forces or the Afghan government ("supporters of the infidels"), who are to be executed. "The Taliban must treat civilians according to Islamic norms and morality to win over the hearts and minds of the people," says the document, which appears to be in response to an aggressive NATO campaign to publicize how the Taliban is now responsible for most Afghan civilian deaths. But it's not quite working. At least 43 Afghan civilians have been killed by the militants since the 69-page code of conduct was released, according to NATO, mostly from roadside and suicide bombs, including a Monday blast in Kandahar that left five children dead.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008863,00.html#ixzz0ytvQN4Cg

[Maccabi]

maybe they should burn effigies of Petraeus instead?? (or in addition to said Korans)

[angryChineseKahanist]

Right, while we're pondering whether its ok to burn a stinking koran and who it may offend, immediately the muslim world start burning American flags and effigies of the pastor
and all without second thoughts.