A religion to kill for?

Nothing proves the moral and strategic bankruptcy of the Afghan insurgency like the murder of 10 medical aid workers last week in a remote part of Afghanistan. The Taliban bragged that its soldiers had killed the aid workers, whom the Taliban described as spies and proselytizers. The group of seven American medical professionals, one Briton and two Afghan interpreters had a long history of providing aid and relief to the neediest in Afghanistan. One leader of the medical team, Tom Little, an optometrist, had been providing free medical care to Afghans for more than 30 years, through all the turmoil of the Soviet invasion and subsequent civil war.

The entire medical team was executed by gunmen who captured them after they had spent weeks providing desperately needed care in a tiny, remote village. One can only explain these murders as the acts of paranoid people who distrust and hate everyone unlike themselves, no matter how kind, helpful and loving the strangers might be. The many kindnesses and sacrifices of these strangers were rewarded with bullets, unquestioning and undistinguishing. It's little wonder that Americans are questioning the wisdom of a war amid a population so filled with irrational hatred.

Even if, as the Taliban claimed, the medical missionaries were preaching Christianity — a claim firmly denied by all associated with the mission and by friends and relatives of the victims — what does that say about the state of Islam? If Islam cannot survive a test of allegiances when alternative faiths are explained and can only be maintained by the threat of execution for apostates, what real chance does it have? The murderous Taliban, claiming to be defenders of Islam, are actually proclaiming the weakness of their faith. A religion that cannot be contested, doubted or questioned cannot survive in a modern world of ideas and intellectual rigor.

Obama searches for another Afghan strategy

President Obama, who campaigned on the assertion that U.S. strategy had lost its way by invading Iraq in March 2003 and should have concentrated on Afghanistan instead, appears to be rethinking his commitment to Afghanistan, or at least to current U.S. policy. That policy is a fluid thing. Only weeks ago, Obama replaced the commanding general in Afghanistan with a new commander who is more attuned to counter-insurgency strategy, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Now, reports say the administration is delaying McChrystal's request for additional troops so that the entire strategy there can be reassessed.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported recently, things are not going particularly well in Afghanistan. More Americans are dying. Casualties are also increasing among NATO troops. The Taliban insurgency is showing greater strength and sophistication, and last month's election made a farce of U.S. efforts to bring democracy to the splintered nation. None of this should be a surprise in a country nicknamed "the graveyard of empires." Ask the British and the Russians about how difficult it is to tame Afghanistan.

The United States had every reason to overthrow the Taliban, who had sheltered and supported the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001. Overthrowing the Taliban was not all that difficult. The population was tired of the Taliban's ridiculous bans on any amusement or pleasure (movies and kite-flying were forbidden). The horrors of that regime are beautifully chronicled in Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and "A Thousand Splendid Suns."

Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries on earth, has a culture that makes it nearly ungovernable. Families, tribes and ethnic groups claim more loyalty than nationality, and corruption seems to be as deeply ingrained as the militant independence of various groups. America has already concluded that it cannot rule this disparate nation by force. McChrystal is trying to win the public's loyalty by protecting civilians from harsh Taliban reprisals, but this strategy is, at best, a slow process. The Taliban have shown a remarkable resilience and surprising military strength. The Taliban control large areas of the lightly populated country, and they are able to carry out military attacks even in supposedly secure cities such as Kabul.

President Obama would like to put the Afghan problem behind him, but he and others fear that Afghanistan could easily slip back under Taliban domination and again be a staging area for al-Qaida. Neighboring Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the worst-case scenario is al-Qaida domination of both countries with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

America's best strategy might be some accommodation with the Taliban that would allow a theocratic government but prohibit terrorist activities or training. Right now, the Taliban have few reasons to negotiate. As Mullen has admitted, the Taliban have the upper hand.

Violence in Mumbai worse than economic crisis

Wednesday's coordinated attacks in Mumbai, India, are a reminder that the world has more to worry about than the global economy, and we Americans have more to worry about than the state of our 401(k) accounts.

Today's reports indicate that no one is sure just who is responsible for these attacks, but they appear to be directed by Islamic radicals, and they are frighteningly well-organized and carried out. In attacking Mumbai, the terrorists singled out Western tourists and business people working in the heart of India's toehold on the global economy and also India's economic modernization itself. Like the Taliban and al-Qaida, these terrorists want to turn back the calendar to about the seventh century, a time when tribal elders dictated trade policies, women were subservient and covered up, and modern values, ranging from democracy to live-and-let-live moral standards, were unknown or forbidden.

The attacks also are an affirmation that no place is safe. Although India has a long history of political violence, these attacks targeted upscale Western hotels, where tourists and business travelers had every reason to feel safe. They also tellingly targeted a Jewish center —  a target that points the blame at Islamic radicals.

Wednesday's attacks reassert the axiom that no country can sit on the sidelines while Islamic radicals strive to bring down world markets, democratic institutions and the safety and security of travelers. The radicals want a new worldwide theocracy that will eliminate most of the freedoms achieved in the West since the Reformation and the Enlightenment. There are no "unaligned nations" in this battle, and no nation or nationality is safe. Nations that tolerate or harbor these terrorists, including Iran, Syria and Pakistan, must be penalized. They must be excluded from the world of civilized countries and from global trade and travel. Nations, such as Afghanistan, that host radical organizations while battling against them must be aided in their efforts to oust or capture the militants. Only coordinated global efforts, not some unilateral invasion or cruise missile strike, can succeed against the worldwide threat to civilization.