Does anyone remember the hysteria caused by Mapplethorpe's "Piss Christ"? I don't think Americans can get too sanctimonious about the uproar in Afghanistan after that.

No, the apology is not appropriate. There is no international crime for Blasphemy. So since the American soldiers did not break any law, the president of the USA should not have apologized. Muslims are pushing at the United Nations for a recognition of the crime of blasphemy (punished by death in many cases) against people who do not follow Islam...the list can be long, women who stray or are raped, muslims converted to another faith, etc... I hope that they will fail. Blasphemy is a concept of medieval times, and does not belong to modern times.

As we look for an exit out of this 9th century wilderness suddenly the popular question this month among smug and self-righteous progressives of "Where are the women" rings hollow.
In this context it is not a mendacious and taunting barb used against decent and honorable men but a frightened and heartbreaking surrender to the atrocities that still continue among brutal and vicious men in the 21st Century.

Are the same "progressives" who derisively asked "where are the women" to law abiding men trying to maintain the US Constitution now in the same breath apologizing to a rampaging lynch mob of real theocrat sexist bigots?

A minor incident is turned into occasion for rioting and killing. When the US apologizes for the original incident it implies that the response was justified. When irrational violent behavior is dignified and normalized by President Obama, one of the most powerful man on the planet - expect more of it.

As every good authoritarian knows - the commander is responsible for the conduct of his agents. As every good authoritarian knows - you must never admit your agents have done something wrong.

Of course the Republican Party will object to an acknowlegement that an agent has done something wrong.

First of all, the presidential apology was needed to defuse the situation.
If one takes the larger view, you have a population of Islamists that respect and use the Koran as a guide to properly leading their lives. The Taliban have used (out-of-context) passages in the Koran as an excuse to kill all non-believers. The violent protestations of the Taliban and its followers is prompted by their dislike of anything that would pose a threat to their use of the belief in the Koran. They use this belief in their method of training the children to perform acts that help meet their own ends. As for the terrorist's violent protestations, I say, “Consider the source”.

In Islam God is completely transcendent and beyond human experience. (They don't believe in the Incarnation, the believe in Jesus as a prophet). And man is very small in relation to God. So, when it involves an offense against God, there's not much room (r appropriateness) for forgiveness or apologies.

You have got to be kidding me. As a result of an accidental destruction of a few copies of the Quran, we are seeing a wholly ridiculous, savage, pathological spasm of violence on the part of some of the Afghani population. Wherein some Muslims are violating the text of the Quran in the name of defending the Quran.

Where was all of the "respect" for religion and religious artifacts in Afhganistan, when the Taliban was wiring explosives to the priceless and irreplaceable Bhuddist statues of Bamiyan?

So, the apology was appropriate but probably won't end the situation at all: the question is what retribution is required or appropriate.

The comparison is to desecration of the Eucharist to a Catholic (since that's roughly the place of the Koran in Islam). One has to defend it even with one's life. Once desecrated, Catholics would look for repentance and would see no point in killing, but that might be different in the Islamic context.