UPDATED A Very Religious War: US Military "Hunt People for Jesus" in Afghanistan

UPDATE: Responding to Pentagon claims that it had "grossly misrepresent[ed] the truth", Al Jazeera has released extended, unedited footage from Brian Hughes recording the statements of US military in "Bible Study". The footage supports the original claim that US soldiers were advocating evangelism in Afghanistan. We've posted the video and Hughes' further comments in a separate blog.

This is the video report from Al Jazeera, compiled from footage taken by documentary maker Brian Hughes last year, that has sparked controversy over the last 48 hours:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVGmbzDLq5c[/youtube]

The most sensational call to arms comes from Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, who tells soldiers that they have a responsibility "to be witnesses for" Jesus Christ:

The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business.

US commanders moved quickly to discredit the report and to limit any damage. Colonel Greg Julian claimed, "This is irresponsible and inappropriate journalism....The Bibles were taken into custody and not distributed. There is no effort to go out and proselytise to Afghans." Asked in his Monday press briefing about the incident, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denied any knowledge and added, "From the United States' military's perspective, it is not our position to push any specific kind of religion."

The US military is no stranger to controversy over evangelism in its wars. Lieutenant General William Boykin provoked controversy in 2003 when he bragged about hunting down an insurgent in Somalia:

He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, "They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me." Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Video: Admiral Mullen Briefing on Pakistan-Afghanistan (4 May)

Monday's showpiece in the ongoing drama of US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan was a 20-minute press briefing by Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

VIDEO (PART 1 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8apwmV_03I[/youtube]

Mullen's immediate purpose was to push both countries as the priority for American foreign and military policy: while the US "remain committed to the mission we've been given in Iraq", it had now been overtaken by crises which left him "gravely concerned": "This isn't about can-do anymore, this is about must-do."

While the admiral referred to both countries in his opening statements, almost all the discussion with the press was about Pakistan (a fact missed by some lazy journalism at both CNN and The Washington Post). Mullen restated the recent Washington line that it was "encouraged" by the Pakistani military operation against insurgents although there is "more that must be done", and stayed out of any manoeuvres over Pakistan's political leadership.

Meanwhile, State Department spokesman Robert Wood restated Hillary Clinton's warning of the "existential threat" posed by extremists in Pakistan. Attention today moves to Capitol Hill, where US envoy Richard Holbrooke is speaking in a Congressional hearing on the US-Pakistan relationship. And there's the small matter of the arrival of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington for talks.

VIDEO (PART 2 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOkYtt70NEA[/youtube]

More on "Bye, Bye Zardari", Hello Pakistan Military

Related Post: Bye Bye Zardari (Again)? Washington Considers The Political Alternative in Pakistan

A few hours after I wrote Washington's latest political strategy to isolate Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, I read this from Washington Post columnist and de facto Government spokesman David Ignatius:

President Obama convened a crisis meeting at the White House last Monday to hear a report from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had just returned from Pakistan. Mullen described the worrying situation there, with Taliban insurgents moving closer to the capital, Islamabad.

"It had gotten significantly worse than I expected as the Swat deal unraveled," Mullen explained in an interview.

So Ignatius has revealed not only that the Obama Administration sees Pakistan as the priority crisis, beyond even Afghanistan, but how eager the Government is to show its concern.

Once again, Admiral Mullen is using the columnist to put out his views. More importantly, and in contrast to the inter-Administration divisions over Iraq and Afghanistan, his President shares the pessimism: that is why Obama came down so hard on Islamabad in his press conference on Wednesday.

But Ignatius, even as he makes a mockery of the notion of an independent (let alone critical) journalist, does far more. He channels the Administration's praise for recent Pakistani operations --- "what encourages U.S. officials is that recent events have been a wake-up call for a Pakistani elite in denial about the Taliban threat" --- and tips off Washington's increasing reliance on Islamabad's military:

"My biggest concern is whether [the Pakistani government] will sustain it," Mullen said. He has told his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that "we are prepared to assist whenever they want." During his recent visit, Mullen toured two Pakistani counterinsurgency training camps and came away impressed.

There's also a tip of the hat to the political dimension, which we've noted and The New York Times confirmed yesterday: "Politically, the United States is looking increasingly to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif....Officials note that 60 percent of the Pakistani population lives in Punjab and that Sharif's popularity rating there is over 80 percent."

Ignatius does reveal one possible US scrap that might be thrown to Zardari, some semblance of a Pakistani involvement in US drone airstrikes. Even that, however, should be seen as a signal to Pakistan's military, which has been uneasy about the American attacks, rather than the President.

Ignatius concludes his piece with the pretence that he is critiquing American policy:

The growing crisis mentality in Washington poses its own threat to a sound Pakistan policy. It could produce red-hot American rhetoric and a corresponding U.S. impatience -- and that, in turn, would only make the Pakistanis more uneasy.

Don't be misled: The Post columnist is just a mouthpiece for Washington's message. When he finishes, "Success depends on Islamabad's recognition that it's their problem and that they must act decisively," you might as well add: "in doing what we want".

It's a message that no doubt will be delivered, not by a newspaper, but by Obama's officials when Zardari visits Washington this week.