That said, if the Koran burning causes some to kill, they should be hunted down and brought to justice, not appeased or deferred to, as too many suggest. If a person would kill another child of God over the burning of a book (Bible, Koran, or any sacred text), that person is totally responsible for the murder they commit.

We, in Europe, and your neighbours in Latin America, have seen, all too often, where neglect of that principle leads.

Indeed, which is precisely why Gen. Petraeus’ statement was as restrained as it was.

From the general’s perspective, this act makes it more likely that more American soldiers will come home in body bags and more girls in Afghanistan will have acid thrown in their faces by Taliban goons who will be better equipped to fire up the local populace against the government if this act takes place. He is right to speak up if that assessment is accurate.

Given that he is in a position to monitor intelligence reports and hear what is going on from the guys who are on the ground there, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his assessment either.

We, in Europe, and your neighbours in Latin America, have seen, all too often, where neglect of that principle leads.

The following definitions are from thefreedictionary.com. Of course other definitions were also listed for each word.

To appease means ‘to pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.’

Extortion is ‘the act of securing money, favours, etc. by intimidation or violence; blackmail.’

It would be one thing if Petraeus had warned against some constructive tactical action because it might anger our enemies; this is not that. This is Petraeus suggesting that a meaningless symbolic exercise with no tactical value would be better left undone because it could HURT our military efforts. It is not appeasement to say “Don’t do X stupid thing because it will harm our military efforts by getting our soldiers killed with no tactical advantage.” It would be appeasement to say “Don’t engage in an effective tactical strategy because it might make them mad.”

There is no infrastructure in Afghanistan to destroy. And part of what helped the surge in Iraq succeed was winning over hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. While it makes us feel good to talk about winning a war by “destroying” an enemy and not fighting any “police” actions, sometimes the world is a little more complex than that . . . you have to fight smart. There are Afghan’s dying everyday fighting side by side with US Soldiers. Should they be destroyed too? Don’t you think these soldiers may not like seeing their holy book desecrated? Why is that so hard to grasp?

Afghanistan is a very, very different place. There is very little infrastructure and their tribal culture is largely pre-modern. If you “removed” the Taliban, things would not necessarily be any different. The Afghan population is what needs to be won. They are the ones who will live and work in Afghanistan long after this war is over. They are the ones who grow poppies to feed their families in a land poor in resources and utterly devoid of development. They have nothing to lose, so threats of – and actual – violence never changes things for the better. That’s the harsh reality.

If enemy militias will target American soldiers for a Koran burning, the best solution is destroying those militias.

And an unwise action by a bunch of citizens in Florida is not “politics.” Of course the military shouldn’t be influencing domestic government policy — or even foreign policy, that’s why we have civilian control of diplomacy and the military. But warning people who could be expected to care whether American troops die that their actions might cause such deaths, is not “interfering in policy.”

Is “loose lips sink ships” also an inappropriate meddling of the military in domestic policy and free speech, or is it just good advice to people who might temper their actions by it?