Your first two examples differ greatly from the level of detail found in and length of the Pentagon memo.

Your third example proves my point - the Pentagon issues these types of memos AFTER a screw up, i.e., after they became aware that abuse was occurring.

The Pentagon was wrong about everything in this war (troop strength, greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction, etc.). It's hard to believe that they would have had accurate foresight on this issue either.

There's no way to know the relative impact of the two things, of course, since they overlapped.

Because the Pentagon is always issuing dumbass rules to protect the sensetivities of someone. Let me try to remember some of the better Pentagon issuances from Gulf War I (disclaimer - I didn't make it to the theatre, having just rotated back to stateside).

- When in theatre, GIs were not to cross their legs in the company of Saudis - they were offended by the soles of your feet.

- When in threatre, female GIs were not to drive, leave base not escorted by men, nor could they remove their BDU blouse while performing manual labor - the Saudis were threatened by American females.

- When a picture of a GI landed on the front page of a major newspaper, showing said GI's NBC mask askew, someone got their panties in a bunch and new emphasis was issued on how GIs must be in proper uniform at all times on the battlefield (this was probably the Panama campaign to rid the world of Pineapple Face, not GWI)

So McGuffin, there are three examples that this coffee-less, 6am addled brain can remember of silly Pentagon rulings designed to lessen the abuse of someone else's sensibilities. The Koran ruling is nothing new, nor is it special; and your arguement of why the Pentagon would ever "need" to issue such a ruling is moot.

Clearly because pervasive Koran abuse was occurring and they were trying to stop it (or at least look like they were trying to stop it).

"It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," he explained.

I can't get from there to your adjusted position in the original item (gasoline on small fire). By this I mean, I'm certain you are saying what YOU meant, but I don't think what Myers was saying is what you were saying.

One innocent explanation would be that Myers and Eichenberry were wrong then, but honestly wrong, not spinning for the committee and the media, and they now believe what Scott McLellan and Donald Rumsfeld claim, that the riots really WERE about the Newsweek Koran-flushing story. It would be interesting to ask them NOW if their views have changed from THEN. It would be . . . convenient if they had - when we thought the story was true we believed it unimportant; now that we believe it untrue we also just happen to have decided it's terribly, TERRIBLY important. Some bloggers, not posting to this site, may prove to have followed the same evolutionary path.

Still, it's possible.

Microscopes for eyes.

Why be so afraid to call a space, a spade.
Newsweek did not even follow THEIR OWN verification protocol. They went with the story because it was inflammatory, and damaging to the administration, as always.

Those that defend this B.S. are of the same, warped mindset. "Allegations" of Koran abuse by an attorney's "clients", doesn't make it so. I'd rather side with American rednecks, than muslim extremists being held for enacting or planning violence against civilians, simply because of their faith or country of origin. Where the hell did you all get it twisted around?

LJD, if you're going to concede our "totally unproven and unfounded implications" for the sake of argument, maybe you should read the comments in question first. Real, not virtual, desecrations are alleged & being investigated.

Also, if you'd read my 2d comment, you'd see that I recognized the terrible threat under which our troops live every day, and that I never implied that most, or even a great many, troops would desecrate Qur'ans. My point is, simply, that it would beggar belief that NONE of our guys has done such things.

These rumors may be lies from the Qaeda playbook, but given our track record in Iraq & at Gitmo, they're not so implausible that Newsweek committed some sort of abomination by finding them credible, especially coming from a previously reliable source who gets his paycheck from the U.S. gov't.

Hal wrote:
'In any event, it wouldn’t matter if they were faked, as the people they were interrogating certainly believed it'.

.........

In any event, it wouldn't matter if the 'massive, verified reports of torture, sexual humiliation, abuse of children to force confessions' allegations were faked, as the people whom hate the United States and Western Civilization certainly believe it.

I think the massive, verified reports of torture, sexual humiliation, abuse of children to force confessions all pretty much point to wide spread problems. Granted, the vast majority of our troops are doing a heck of a job under incredibly dismal and increasingly desperate conditions. But it doesn't take all that many people to really screw the pooch in this respect. And it's not like everyone works in the prisons, you know.

Lastly, I find it quite hilarious to suggest that people who are willing to torture other human beings, savage them with dogs and use electrical "stimulation" are going to "fake" flushing a Koran down the toilet. I can just hear them now: "Yes, there are limits, dammit. And we won't cross them. Torture, sure. But desecrating the enemy's religious objects?"

In any event, it wouldn't matter if they were faked, as the people they were interrogating certainly believed it. And when they have gone home (after finally being proven that they weren't of "interest"), they will tell the same tale - and have, check out the link in my previous comment. It's not like this story just sprung from the brow of Zeus, ya know.