A sign of things to come? UPDATE 2
“WASHINGTON — A former Marine who fought in Iraq, joined the State Department after leaving the military and was a diplomat in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan has become the first U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghan war, the Washington Post reported early Tuesday.
“Matthew Hoh said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency. ‘I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,’ Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, dated Sept. 10 but published early Tuesday. ‘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.’”
Read more, including his letter of resignation, here.
UPDATE: The lead story in the NYT (10/28/09) in which the U.S. military seems to be taking after the U.S. CIA makes you wonder if we aren’t fighting ourselves in other places besides Washington. “Brother of Afghan Leaders is said to be on CIA payroll,” and he runs the drug business, etc. Anyone remember the Diem brothers? And Madame Nhu!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1&hp
Update 2: And the story of those who went before: “Transcripts of Defeat”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
on October 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I agree with everything Hoh says, except it’s not years, it will take generations to turn around a corrupt illiterate war lord culture. God help us if both ‘US political’ sides take positions based on the effect it will have on next years mid-term elections. If ‘a Sign of Things to Come’ means more principled resignations… bring em on!
on October 27th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Thanks, Ms. Steinfels. Admire this man for his ethical stance. But, it also reminds me of Vietnam, the re-instuted draft on TV – December, 1969 – my birthday was the 21st pulled. The top 120 birthdays were then drafted.
Lots of mixed emotions and sadness around the whole Vietnam fiasco.
on October 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Ouch. I bet he wishes he could have that one back. I can’t believe none of his peers told him his Head of State actually won a Nobel Peace Prize for his Afghanistan policy. Someone should also teach him some basic arithmetic as well, unless he was being ironic about the cost of the war in light of the FY10 budget.
on October 27th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
MAT, He needs no tutor about arirthmetic; he knows about is the 12 to 1 edge in troops over the Talaban, the increasing US causulties each month. Also knows about the 700,000 Pakistani army is over the border. He knows about the amount of corruption and tons of drugs. and no, he would not take the letter back..
You are welcome to keep track of the money cost in the FY10 budget.
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:20 am
“…and no, he would not take the letter back..”
Aren’t you just speculating or are you saying he is on record as saying that he unilaterally rejects the multilateral, multinational, global endorsement of US policy in Afghanistan which the Nobel Peace Prize represents? The letter is dated September 10, 2009. The Nobel Committee announced its offer of the prize to his Head of State on or around the 9th of October so absent some sort of documentation I don’t know that that is a reasonable conclusion to reach. I actually did not even realize the timing until I re-read the letter – I thought it was dated October 10th originally so obviously my comment about his peers is not appropriate.
“He needs no tutor about arirthmetic;…[sic]”
Unless he was speaking ironically, which there is no indication to me he was – but I offered up the possibility nonetheless – he does if he thinks “[w]e are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war…”. That statement does not comport with the actual expenditures on OEF in the context of all federal budgets from FY02 to present and really through the projections provided by his Head of State through the next ten years. So either the sitting President’s budgets are incorrect (again, the sitting President, not the previous president) – which by definition cannot be correct – or Mr. Hoh is mistaken in his mathematics.
on October 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I don’t know that I would call the Nobel a multilateral or multinational anything.
on October 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“I don’t know that I would call the Nobel a multilateral or multinational anything.”
Virtually every newspaper on the planet Earth carried the story on their front pages the following day so I am not sure how you could reach a conclusion like that. Clearly people who are in the business of informing the public worldwide of what is considered “news” felt it was material enough.
on October 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Mat you may go on about the irony of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is immaterial to this discussion. Consider yourself on notice.
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“Mat you may go on about the irony of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is immaterial to this discussion. Consider yourself on notice.”
Indeed, I may have misunderstood the topic of the discussion perhaps but I thought it was regarding Mr. Hoh’s letter. If I am mistaken I am certain you will correct me.
Nevertheless, I am certain you misunderstood my comments. What I feel may be considered ironic was Mr. Hoh’s fallacious comment regarding the cost of OEF relative to actual and budgeted expenditures of the Federal Government. If someone is going to criticise a policy of the United States government I should hope they have a factual basis for the criticism.
I do NOT consider there to be any irony regarding the Nobel Peace Prize. I do think it is a material event which unfortunately Mr. Hoh was not able to analyze when drafting his letter and which, it is my opinion, if not changed his decision entirely, certainly would have had a material impact on his thesis.
on October 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
First observation/question – Why is this such a big deal? This is a fairly low level functionary who has been in his job for less than a year.
Second observation/question – Why is it that people like Mr Hoh are never challenged with the question that his letter clearly raises – OK then what?
on October 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sean; asks ” Why is this such a big deal? This is a fairly low level functionary who has been in his job for less than a year.’
It’s the ‘low level functionaries’ I call them US soldiers, who will die.
What to do? let the 700,000 Pakistani army protect their nuclear weapons from the Taliban/AlQueda enemy in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. step up to their regional responsibility or India will do it for them. see NYT today and change your mind..
on October 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
MAT:
You wrote,
Where is the evidence to back up this claim? I’ve seen none; and the evidence I have seen appears to refute your claim.
Below you’ll find the Nobel Committee’s statement. Wouldn’t you think that, if the committee were giving Obama the prize for (as you insist) his Afghanistan policy, the word “Afghanistan” would have appeared, say, at least once in the text? But it’s nowhere to be found. Of course, that makes complete sense, because the award was not about Afghanistan. What can be found in the statement are the committee’s words on what the award was about — words very different from the ones you have, in effect, put in the committee’s mouth.
And there’s more. You go on to say,
Wrong again — a grave misrepresentation of what was endorsed, the kind of endorsement it was, and who did the endorsing. “Multilateral?” “Multinational?” “Global?” No; the prize was awarded by five Norwegians selected by the Norwegian parliament. Period. That’s not to take anything away from the prize, or those who awarded it, or the person who received it. It’s simply to say – to you, MAT – that what you wrote was inaccurate.
Here is the Nobel Committee’s statement:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
Oslo, October 9, 2009
on October 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Ed
Please, don’t pull that “soldiers” routine on me. I spent more than two decades in the military serving all over the world and both of my sons are soldiers in the US Army. I understand what’s at stake.
My point is that This is a 30 something minor bureaucrat with some military experience. I even agree with some of his observations, but it’s hardly worth front page coverage. Besides, for every young officer who thinks what he does there are likely two that disagree with him – where’s their story?
My other question has more to do with our responsibility to the Afghan people. Do we bear any responsibility to do what we can to keep the Taliban from taking over again? Certainly we can achieve a great deal in terms of protecting ourselves from the establishment of terrorist basing without so many men on the ground, but should we handle this with Hellfire missiles and JDAMS and let the people of Afghanistan fend for themselves? This kid likes to use the Vietnam parallel – OK, that withdrawl was followed by the deaths of millions and the establishment of two totalitarian states – Are we ready to see women stoned to death in the national stadium in Kabul? Is that the right thing to do?
As I said, I have two sons in the Army, so I would like nothing more than to see this end, but it’s not enough to say “just leave” unless you are also willing to live with all the consequences of that.
on October 29th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Sean, see 10- 29 NYT about all the US aid going this year to Pakistan so that they do the heavy lifting.. As Obama suggested in his campaign .. and was critiqued by the Republicans.
it is not your sons or my granchildren’s responsiblity to POLICE the Asian continent. Hoh is not a ‘kid’ . he was an experienced combat Captain in the US Marines. . Forget your bluster and examine the long history of US failure in mainland Asia.
SEE NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/asia/29weapons.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
on October 29th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Gene P.:
This is not directly relevant to Mr. Hoh’s letter so I think I am going to be censured, and perhaps censored, but I will try to respond.
“Where is the evidence to back up this claim? I’ve seen none; and the evidence I have seen appears to refute your claim.”
In the opening sentence. “…[E]xtraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” If you are suggesting that his statements regarding his potential Afghanistan policy represented – at the time that was written – not the central diplomatic initiative of his campaign, I think that distorts the historical record of the campaign and is a strange position to take. To therefore define his “diplomacy” as encompassing the foreign policy platform of his campaign with some sort of carve-out for his Afghanistan policy is equally strange, especially since they did not specifically carve it out. If you think he talked about a policy position regarding international diplomacy more important than warfare, escalating a war no less, not ending it, I can’t fathom what that could be. That would be like awarding the Prize to LBJ on 31 Jan 65 for his efforts in speaking about possible “international diplomacy”…towards Canada. And then not mentioning Canada.
“Wouldn’t you think that, if the committee were giving Obama the prize for (as you insist) his Afghanistan policy, the word “Afghanistan” would have appeared, say, at least once in the text? But it’s nowhere to be found. Of course, that makes complete sense, because the award was not about Afghanistan. What can be found in the statement are the committee’s words on what the award was about — words very different from the ones you have, in effect, put in the committee’s mouth.”
No, I would not think that. I would think the opposite in fact. As I say above, if one is going to refer to statements a potential Head of State makes regarding potential international diplomatic policy and carve-out what is generally considered (by the potential recipient of this award no less at the time those statements were made) would consider the most important part of that policy, ie warfare, a massive escalation of one no less, I should think the onus is on the author to define the carve-out. I did not see Gitmo mentioned in the text either, but I think one would be taking a bizarre position to assume that the phrase “…human rights are to be strengthened,” does not refer, first and foremost, to statements made regarding a potential investigation to evaluate a possible future closure of the detention facility there. If that phrase does not refer to Gitmo, any reader who has even a passing familiarity with the statements of the Laureate on “human rights” at the time this was written would have an expectation for it to specify the exception.
“Wrong again — a grave misrepresentation of what was endorsed, the kind of endorsement it was, and who did the endorsing. “Multilateral?” “Multinational?” “Global?” No; the prize was awarded by five Norwegians selected by the Norwegian parliament. Period. That’s not to take anything away from the prize, or those who awarded it, or the person who received it. It’s simply to say – to you, MAT – that what you wrote was inaccurate.”
The mechanics of voting for the Prize are of course indisputable. I did not realize I gave the impression I was speaking about the actual voting procedures. The Prize, in the words of the New York Times, “shows how many people around the world want the same thing.” For all its faults, I am quite certain the New York Times understands what the Prize represents. Are you taking the position that they are mistaken? Therefore to take a position that the Prize is not a global brand which represents a certain global political philosophy shared by hundreds of millions of people across political boundaries and ethnicities is to misunderstand the global brand the Prize has.
on October 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Perhaps Mr. Hoh, as some say, is low on the bureaucratic food chain. However, unlike all of us, he has been to Afghanistan as military and as a member of the state department. He must have had some confidence that going back as a civilian would benefit the Afghanis he was working with. He has now concluded that he cannot help under current conditions. Perhaps they don’t want our help.
Rory Stewart on the Newshour last week, who walked across Afghanistan and stayed with tribal people said more or less the same thing: they want to be left alone. Maybe they don’t know what’s good for them, but we do. Hmmmm!
on October 30th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Another take on Afghanistan: “Obama — Really the Afghanistan “Decider”? by Michael Brenner — Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/obama—-really-the-afgha_b_332655.html