I agree with Spencer Ackerman that this is a big deal – a Foreign Service officer with previous experience in the Marines has resigned his post in Afghanistan, specifically in protest over the war, which he claims “fuels the insurgency.”
“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department’s head of personnel. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”
The reaction to Hoh’s letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay [...]
While he did not share Hoh’s view that the war “wasn’t worth the fight,” (US envoy Richard) Holbrooke said, “I agreed with much of his analysis.” He asked Hoh to join his team in Washington, saying that “if he really wanted to affect policy and help reduce the cost of the war on lives and treasure,” why not be “inside the building, rather than outside, where you can get a lot of attention but you won’t have the same political impact?”
Hoh accepted the argument and the job, but changed his mind a week later. “I recognize the career implications, but it wasn’t the right thing to do,” he said in an interview Friday, two days after his resignation became final.
Hoh agrees that the Taliban is a dangerous force in the region, and that the Al Qaeda remnants in Pakistan need to be disrupted, much of the insurgency is composed of small, discrete sects of regular Afghans fighting a military occupation and the corrupt national government. This has roots going back centuries, according to Hoh, with Pashtuns (the majority ethnic group in Afghanistan and also the vast majority of the insurgency) sharing a sense of disrespect for their culture and traditions from external forces as well as the more urban class (a relative term) in Kabul. Hoh explicitly says that he will continue to speak out as an activist, defining his goals this way: “I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, ‘Listen, I don’t think this is right.’ ”
“We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath,” Hoh said. “But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve.”
Hoh’s critique is not functionally different from that of John Kerry’s, even though Kerry gave tentative backing to the counter-insurgency strategy favored by military commanders, while adding that Gen. Stanley McChrystal “reaches too far, too fast.” But instead of concluding that pulling out would risk civil war, as Kerry does, Hoh thinks that would be the consequence of staying.
UPDATE: Here’s the letter.
…According to Spencer, Matthew Hoh was not a foreign service officer but a temporary contract employee.



47 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
tide turning
8 more GI’s killed today. I think this makes it less likely we’ll get out. Can’t appear weak.
Why is it our military worries about looking weak but never worry about looking stupid?
Actually, Hoh says that right now we are just choosing sides in a civil war that is now 35 years old. I interpret that to mean the civil war started before we got there, continues despite our presence and probably will continue once we leave.
Hoh’s is a principled nuance seemingly lost on the war, war generation now governing Washington, Obama included.
The idea of drawing a line somewhere that America would choose not to cross is regarded as flaccid pacifism rather than the hard-nosed realpolitik that it is, no matter the blood, treasure and sacrifice – and leadership – that’s demanded before that line is ever reached. Current Washington doesn’t want peace and constantly shifts goals in order to avoid it, rather like Obama and Bush constantly shift legal arguments and positions in order to avoid ending up or losing in court.
See also Glennzilla’s post here.
One is tempted to say that at least he didn’t get the Pat Tillman treatment. But the administration sure has done everything they can to keep Hoh’s critique under wraps.
Listening to Kerry’s attempt at explaining a position he is clearly uncomfortable with, and cannot even articulate clearly, I am reminded again of his unfortunate relationship with speaking effectively, in a focused manner. Though attempting to differentiate himself from McChrystal and Obama he hedged virtually every assertion and wound up essentially putting an imprimatur on some level of troop increase and certainly not even touching the idea of troop draw down in Afghanistan.
I would guess, as Spencer Akerman apeculates, that if Kerry gets Hoh in front of a committee, Hoh will not mince words in the way Kerry is comfortable doing.
Hoh’s letter of resignation is the most powerful four page summary of the situation in Afghanistan that I’ve ever seen. There’s no posturing — just an honest declaration of the situation on the ground. I don’t doubt that others have made this kind of critique, but civilians without Hoh’s military credentials get dismissed as being soft on terrorists and military folks don’t want to be seen as advocating withdrawal in the face of the enemy, a la Saigon, for fear of harming their careers.
It is certainly not the sole reason we find ourselves in these quagmire situations and might not be one of the most important reasons but I would not discount the fact that a lot of very influential people make a great deal of money as a result of the conflict.
Really good question. I only have sarcastic answers for that, tho.
How about, why do they (we) not worry about looking imperialistic?
Makes me think of that song “you gotta know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em” – apparently our military does not know about this fairly simple rule.
The military is there under the direction of our civilian leaders who are the ones that bear responsibility.
It seems like the neocon mentality permeates foreign policy thinking — certainly over the remnants of realpolitik — even though the presumption is that the neocons have been disgraced and banished. The MSM certainly seems locked in it’s thrall. Of course the rise of ‘liberal interventionisn’ and the general drift to the right in this country hasn’t helped the realists, much less the (few) progressives gain traction.
The Afghans beat the Russians, and they are beating us. Their military skills seem to be on a par with the Viet Cong, which were pretty good in the day. They know how to coordinate an attack.
I wasn’t thinking of the military, I was thinking of Kenned . . oops, Obama.
The NVA beat us, not the VC.
The “leaders” certainly bear the final blame but McC keeps wanting to put more and more troops in as if it would change anything. The military thinking seems to be that old thing we talk about all the time – doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Never happens.
At least Kerry wants to scale back. I believe we should get out completely. But if we scale back enough that our presence is not inflaming the radicals and expanding the war, and we’re not taking casualties–I can live with that for a while.
Get out now. We do not know why we are there and to pour more money and, particularly, more lives into this conflict is pure craziness.
Military force is not the end all method for solving the world’s or the US’s problems.
Wow. I’m amazed that this actually ran in Fred “Roundheels for Shock ‘n’ Awe” Hiatt’s WaPo.
You know I usually try to keep an open mind about a lot of things, or at least I hope you know that. But, I am utterly convinced what you say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Reply to Knut @ 14
Insurgencies learn from experience and lacking the bureaucratic underpinnings of our military they can adjust their tactics more quickly.
I have often said that if you want to know the real motivation behind any government policy figure out who stands to profit from it. Somebody ALWAYS profits.
When you follow the money, you get answers, names and motivations. War or otherwise.
The Afghans didn’t beat the Soviets, the CIA’s aid to the Afghans did.
meanwhile . . .
link
One of the first things the Soviets learned after they invaded.
CIA wasn’t the only supporter of the Afghan insurgency. They received money and arms from most of the Arab world and Pakistan. I think the CIA gets more credit than due because of the Stinger.
Well, I know it’s self-serving, but in CWW, they say that once Avrakotos brought Mike Vickers on board, apparently some sort of military genius who completely reshaped the aid to the muj, he reduced the number of fighters the CIA armed to 150,000 from 400,000, and trained them much better. That wasn’t the mujs learning, that is the mujs being trained by outsiders. Big difference.
Vickers’ wiki.
I disagree. You make it seem as if the Afghans had no say in the matter. Availing themselves of outside assistance is just another example of an insurgency’s ability to quickly adapt and exploit every opportunity for advancement.
I think we know where the money is going, gotta love the internet.
Its no matter, Georgia in its desperation join NATO is going to send its young men (mainly) to DIE in the great sand box.
What is distressing about situations like Afghanistan and Iraq is that we stumble into them and then our mere presence there becomes a substitute for having a policy with regard to them.
So who’s the outside help today’s Afghans are taking advantage of to defeat the U.S.?
Your point is valid, but the way insurgents are typically described, it is usually meant that they figured stuff out for themselves. Not true in the Soviet case. In CWW, they say that by 1985, the muj were getting worn down. The CIA aid was pushed on them, in the sense that it was a big worry to the Paks that the Soviets might invade them too, and Gorby personally warned Zia to stay out. The muj who came to the U.S. to lobby didn’t just wake up one morning & call the CIA & ask for help.
The Soviets analysts divide the war into 4 phases, the second being from March 1980 to April 1985. During this phase the Soviets made great efforts to stem the tide of refugees returning to the country to join the Mujahideen, all unsuccessful. As for being worn down the Soviets say:
“They [the Soviets] abandoned the conduct of large-scale field operations against separate detachments and groups of Mujahideen and concentrated their main efforts on retaining strategically important regions and the lines of communication.
However, in practice, these political steps did not always yield the desired results, mainly because of the weak hold that the government had in the countryside.”
That undoubtedly is a common misperception. In reality human advancement (for good or bad) rarely occurs in a vacuum. Outside influences usually play an important role.
The high-level angst at Hoh’s principled and now public resignation – something I wish Dawn Johnsen would do – seems to be not over questions about faulty policy. The angst seems driven by Team Obama’s desperation to sidestep a Nixon-Kerry moment.
A talented young Ivy League-trained Navy lieutenant became a national symbol of anti-war protest when he testified in Congress over his objections to the Vietnam war he had served in. It brought home the human costs of fatally flawed policy. Nixon hated Kerry for it. Will Obama have a beer with Hoh? Will Rahm trash his love life and service record? Or will we begin to rethink why we’re in Afghanistan, what price we’re paying for it, and what we’re really accomplishing?
It didn’t take long for the Mujahideen to learn they couldn’t match the Soviets in set piece battles. I’d call the decision to switch to a guerrilla style definitely due to outside influences.
Having read Hoh’s letter, he echoes many of the criticisms that we have made, lack of a clearly defined policy and workable strategy, failure to understand and address the complexities of the social, political, and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan, and a refusal to recognize that Afghanistan is primarily the responsibility of the Afghans, that the emphasis we have placed on it is out of keeping with our approach to threats emanating from similar states, and that it misallocates our resources in combatting terrorism.
Due to them getting their asses smoked. That’s a heavy motivator to change.
Got that right.
To what extent are we in Afghanistan to encircle Iran? To what extent to keep out other empires, military or commercial, such as Russian or China? To what extent to give our war machine and its Congressional proponents something to do? To what extent to deprive a few hundred armed extremists of a “safe haven”?
It’s obviously not to deter the growth or flow of opium; it’s skyrocketed since our invasion.
Possibly the only campaign promise that Obama is keeping is his pledge to focus more on the Af/Pak situation.
Those who supported him as a candidate ought to have known that this increase in focus would result in an increase in blood. And that the strategic incoherence and wildly disproportionate cost/benefits of the situation there were unlikely to be fixable, even by a marketing genius like Barack Obama and his team.
So, as the two quagmires drag on through the 4 or possibly 8 years of Obama’s presidency, people of conscience should ponder whether support of the lesser evil is still too evil to have on their conscience.
If former Marine Corps captain Matthew Hoh can have the courage and clarity to assess reality and step away from what they were doing, then why can’t more ‘progressives’ step away from their unrequited devotion to the Democratic politicians who are running these wars?
And do what?
First year of Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama’s presidency the deadliest of the 8 years of war in Afghanistan.
http://www.obamasquagmire.com/?p=2574
And October is now the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.
http://www.obamasquagmire.com/?p=3789
Glenn Greenwald has a good posting on his Salon.com column on this. Bravo to the guy who resigned. Maybe more will. And also write letters.