US military identifies all four 'urinating' Marines

American military investigators have identified the four US Marines who appeared on a Youtube video to be unirating on the bodies of several Afghans.

Lt Gen Thomas Waldhauser, a three-star general, is appointed to decide if any http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif"disciplinary action is to be taken".

Even though two of the men had moved to other assignments before the video became public, they have been strongly criticized by both Afgan and American officials and people for their immoral, "inhuman," and "disgusting" acts. A Kabul resident told AFP news: "This is an absolutely savage act and condemnable in any religion."

There is no doubts that this will hamper the peace attempts between the US and Afghanistan.

Video and further reading can be found here

Yen Do

U.S. set to pay Taliban members to switch sides

"You can rent an Afghan but you can't buy him." This old saying implies just that. So with Obama signing a $680 billion defense appropriations bill to aid with military operations in assistance with the Taliban, we are attempting to purchase an Afghan. This is a temporary fix and does not seem to be a realistic way to diminish the ongoing problem. While it is beneficial because it separates the Taliban members from their leaders, which weakens the group, it will only last us so long. However, this short term plan is the only plan implemented that shows some effects. There is no simple long term plan which will eliminate the hatred and violence, hence there being no world peace. Plus with this program we are putting trust into an untrustworthy group so it really is a short term plan and cannot be trusted to alleviate all Taliban problems for the U.S. but it is a start.

By: Lindsay Weidling

Separation of Church and State

by Sarah Richardson

Bibles are burned in response to a breach in the military rules of the war in Afghanistan. Military officials say that it was a difficult decision but that is was necessary for security reasons. Some Christians expressed their concern that there was too much consideration for not offending Muslims that they have committed a great offense to Christians. One official highlighted the presumable up rise from the Muslim community if they were to "take a bunch of Koran and burn them."

However, I think that the situation is being taken out of context. It was clearly stated that religion was not to be proliferated in the agenda in Afghanistan and the bibles were written in the two most popular languages in the country, not in English. They were sent by a church, not carried by the troops themselves. There is good reason to believe that they were going to be used in a way that would breech the contract and cause issues. Not to say that America is privy to keeping its word in wartime.

I guess the question at hand though is was it necessary to burn them? Now this, I think is different. Why they couldn't be returned or confiscated and retained until a later date I don't know. It does seem to be an extremely disrespectful thing to do.

Tackling the New "Rape" Law

Post by Bri Roozen

After checking the news this morning, I was pleasantly surprised to see that our President is currently visiting troops in Iraq.  However, as I continued reading about his surprise visit to the Middle Eastern country, I also learned he has no plans of stopping in Afghanistan.  Now I know the president is busy and all, but due to the recent rape law passed in Afghanistan, one would hope that the president would be a little more forthright.  

This new law was put into effect by the new Afghanistan government (that's the government we put in place) and it basically gives an Afghani man permission to strip his wife of basic human rights such as being able to leave the house and declining to have intercourse.  To put it in layman's terms, Afghani women have less rights than that of an animal.  To make the situation even worse, many of these Afghani 'wives' are little more than children, allowing in the further abuse of women and children in the Middle Eastern world.  What is Afghanistan's current defense to the passing of this law? "Most members of the parliament did not know what they were going to vote for" a woman member of the Afghani parliament, Koofi, said.  "Even some of my friends... voted in favor without knowing what happened."  Is this supposed to instill confidence in us?  To know that the Afghani parliament is unknowingly voting through laws that violate some of the most basic human rights?  President Obama called the new law abhorrent, and let it be known that the current administration opposes the law.  Perhaps if the President could take a little side trip from Iraq and put the pressure on Afghanistan to revoke the law now, maybe the women of Afghanistan could be treated like people again, before too much damage is done.

Putting Afghanistan back on the front burner

by: Justin Lynch

http://www.slate.com/id/2214726/

Barack Obama campaigned with the promise to make the battle in Afghanistan more important. With the promise of at least 17,000 additional troops to "take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east and... go after insurgents along the border," Obama seems to be making good on his word. However, as odd as it may sound, Afghanistan is probably a more complicated war than Iraq. Where Iraq is mostly flat, Afghanistan is in a mountainous region where the clear advantage lies with those who know the terrain (look at how Bin Laden has been able to hide in the mountainous region somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan and how the Taliban have been able to stay alive.) Also, with numerous tribes and regions where government is basically non-existent, Afghanistan as a whole is going to be almost impossible to nail down. Obama's strategy, as described by Fred Kaplan, is basically part counterinsurgency and part counterterrorism, which seems like a good mix to start bringing stability to the country we started fighting more than seven long years ago.