... it seems clear to me in any case that the threat of Quran-burning by a few dozen kooks in the US is only a pretext for these demonstrations, which inevitably are actually about the grievances of Afghans under foreign military occupation. That is why the story of the plans for burning the Quran has brought people into the streets in Aghanistan to protest in impressive numbers (in contrast to most other parts of the Muslim world, where there were no similarly-sized rallies). [my emphasis]

In the past week, thousands of Afghans have protested American Christian fundamentalist plans to burn the Qur'an in commemoration of the September 11 attacks. There is every reason to believe that the protests have been so widespread in Afghanistan in part because of the upcoming parliamentary elections of September 18 and because of the widespread insurgency against the American and NATO troop presence and the US-backed Karzai government. That is, this is not an essentialist story of Muslims being touchy about their religion but rather has a specific context in Western military dominance of Afghan society.

"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Quran) burning. Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday," Petraeus said in his message. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult." Petraeus: Burning Qurans Could Endanger Troops CBS News 09/07/2010

I share Adam Serwer's discomfort with David Petraeus' purporting to instruct us all on what is and is not appropriate speech based on the danger it creates for troops; that's the same rationale used to demonize war opponents (they embolden the Enemy) and justify suppression of torture photos (disclosure would cause harm to the troops), among other things. And while I'm glad to see civilian administration officials speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry on the ground that it inflames anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world (though there should be no question -- none -- that a Church has the absolute right to burn Korans under several First Amendment guarantees), Blue Texan's observation is quite true:

Well, yes -- burning Korans is deeply stupid and inflammatory. But, um, so is haphazardly invading, bombing, Predator striking, torturing, and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people, just for the hell of it.

It's a bit strange to watch American officials express such profound concern over the way in which a Koran burning may inflame anti-American sentiment while they simultaneously pursue policies which create precisely that sentiment on a
much, much larger scale.