WASHINGTON, D.C. Sept. 20 (DPI) –American readers — even those posting comments to liberal-minded NYTimes.com — may favor a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, but a surprising number keep voicing hawkish views.

Comments responding to the murder this week of Burhanuddin Rabbani, an Afghan tribal leader designated to negotiate peace with Taliban, reflected not simply the usual despair over the US’s drawn-out occupation, but a hardening of views as well.

“As much as I’d like to see the U.S. out of Afghanistan, I would also like to see us go in with overwhelming force and anihilate the Taliban, and this includes their redoubts in Pakistan, where they originated from in the first place,” wrote NYTimes.com entry #15. The comment received a surprisingly high number of reader recommendations (50).

Adds another: “A person whose job it was to find peace was killed. What does that say about the people that killed him actually wanting peace? Sometimes there is no solution but force. How many times has this been shown?”  And a third: “If the basic agreement that one should not murder local leaders trying to broker peace is not followed, what hope does a foreign army /government have?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/world/asia/Burhanuddin-Rabbani-afghan-peace-council-leader-assassinated.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1316555999-hDvDo7VrUYBmsQTdDxcWxw

WSJ.com comments, typically more caustic and often veering off-point, included a predictable array of criticisms of the Obama Administration, but the strident tones were rife:

“Only a complete naif thinks the Taliban and their ilk have any interest in a negotiated peace and, here’s the proof for all but the willingly blind and other useful idiots.” Adds a responder: He “is correct – clearly the Taliban is still eager to resist. They must the be annihilated.”

WSJ.com reader replied: “The ‘fallout’ from a campaign to wipe out militant Pashtun tribes just is not worth is for us – and Pakistan would have to be destroyed too – don’t forget that. The US cannot afford to use weapons of mass destruction and retain any leadership role in the world – or any trade ties.  A policy of pro-active containment is best here – wipe out training camps, keep good intel, don’t let the Taliban establish any governments… Aside from that – it’s up to Muslims to stop bowing down to these folks. We can’t make them free – they must free themselves.”

One reader spotted a string of journalism cliches: “This quote from the article is almost comical: “The attack was seen by some Afghan and U.S. officials as an indication of the insurgency’s unwillingness to talk to the government, despite reports that some senior Taliban are seeking a peace deal.”  You THINK??? Who are the “some”? Shouldn’t that be ALL, or MOST. Jeesh…”