Sometimes articles have such a jawdroppingly inane premise that one marvels at the mental gymnastics of the author. If I am to understand this article, somehow because 1000+ years of Afghan custom, culture, politics and belief have not been erased in the past 5 years, it is all George Bush's fault? Somehow too I missed the clear instructions on how to accomplish this aim in this article, or perhaps wishing something is supposed to be a substitute for action?

Are women discriminated against in Afghanistan and (in most parts of the country) treated more like chattel than an individual? Yes. Is this due to the tribal culture of the area mixed with an overlay of religious justification? Yes. Is the lack of development in the country caused by the mountainous terrain and lack of resources (with a generous dollop of resistance to change due to the culture) Yes. Are there differences in treatment of women between areas (tribes)? Yes - with the Pashtoon regions being the worst (and not coincidentally, their being the heartland of the Taliban).

I am happy that women have made some progress in Afghanistan since the Taliban were thrown out of power in 2001-2002. And it is not surprising that most of this progress tends to be in the urban areas where the grip of the tribal reins is the loosest. But can we please have some realism here? The fundamental cultural patterns of the Afghan people have not been changed, and short of shooting every male over the age of 2 years old, it is not going to be fundamentally different in the future. There is also a struggle going on in the country between the previous rulers (the Pashtoon) and the rest of the country that has yet to be resolved - a low grade version of the struggle going on in Iraq between the Sunni & Shia factions. The rump Taliban are just taking advantage of this tribal struggle as a means to return to power.

So, in the end, there is no magic bullet to bring this area into a "Western European" norm of culture and human rights without a slow, grinding path to educate the populace and change the old ways. Short of filling the country with a invading army and acting like a reverse Taliban to force all the women to wear bikinis instead of burkas, what would the author suggest is the best answer?

And no, I don't see George Bush leading that fight either.

When you write articles on serious subjects - please don't throw away the small progress to make cheap political points.

As usual, Sidney rants and raves and pulls out his best invective while missing the whole point about the Taliban and Afghanistan - they are and forever will be a creature of Pakistan and the ISI. The uncomfortable truth is that both the Bush and Clinton administrations have done nothing about this because Pakistan has nuclear weapons - and a culture of corruption (remember A.Q. Khan?) that would sell them in a second if they thought that they could get away with it. Couple that with the fact that Waziristan and Afghanistan share the Pashtoon tribe - who feel that they have the right to rule in Afghanistan - and you have the two prime motivations driving policy in the region.

Pakistan is a failed state - the tribal regions have essentially become independent, the army sucks all the money from the budget, and you have a security service that also operates independently, but is driven by it's own ideology (Islamic) and realpolitick (destabilize the neighbors) agenda. And the "recruits" for the Taliban these days seem to come mainly from Pakistan - from Afghanis who have lived there since the Russian times and from "ethnic" Pashto brothers in search of heaven.

If Cheney was in Pakistan delivering a message that the Pakistanis need to clamp down on the support for the Taliban - then it is about time that someone has finally figured out that the only way you are going to shut down the violence in Afghanistan is by shutting down the enabling agencies. And if you are dreaming that more "aid" in Afghanistan is going to suppress the outsiders - then you are just continuing down the same "build it up - they tear it down" road that has been going on for years. Cure the disease and the symptoms go away.

While I do not find the idea of a naked Jesus to be offensive (there are certainly examples in religious art of Jesus being depicted without clothing in crucification scenes), I DO find the sanctimonious expression that people should just "toughen up" over threats to be somewhat hypocritical considering the way Salon covered the Mohammed cartoon flap last year. I remember too many letters then saying we had to be "culturally sensitive" and I certainly don't remember Salon describing the protests as "ranting and raving". I don't remember Salon advising either side in that "debate" to just toughen up.

Oh - and what I find MOST disturbing is that there is an allegation in the article that Mr Donohue's "minions" called in the death threats. I don't know or care who Mr Donahue is frankly, but that kind of writing really skirts the edge of libelous opinion. I would have thought better of Salon for that. Disagree with someone, yes! - but please, don't stoop to mudslinging when you express your opinions on their opinions.