Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Why and To What End in Afghanistan
Matthew P. Hoh, a former U.S. combat marine captain and Department of
Defense civilian in Iraq starting in 2004 and until September a
political officer in the Foreign Service stationed in Afghanistan is
giving some consternation to President Obama’s advisors as the
Commander in Chief considers sending more soldiers to that war-torn
country next to Pakistan.
Mr. Hoh wrote a letter of resignation to the State Department in September. His four page letter frames his doubts about what he said is the “why and to what end” behind “the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. He notes that like the Soviets’ nine year occupation, “we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.”
Mr. Hoh focuses on the giant Pashtun society composed of 42 million people and moves to his conclusions. Read his words:
Will Mr. Hoh’s highly regarded experience, sensitivity and judgment reach the attention of millions of Americans? That will depend on whether President Obama meets with him, whether Congressional committees will provide a hearing for him and others of similar persuasion, and whether the mass media will suspend their dittoheading and trivia long enough to report these views, so that we the people can deliberate better about avoiding a devastating, worsening quagmire replete with serial tragedies over there and boomerangs back here.
Mr. Hoh wrote a letter of resignation to the State Department in September. His four page letter frames his doubts about what he said is the “why and to what end” behind “the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. He notes that like the Soviets’ nine year occupation, “we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.”
Mr. Hoh focuses on the giant Pashtun society composed of 42 million people and moves to his conclusions. Read his words:
“The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.
“The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people. The Afghan government’s failings, particularly when weighed against the sacrifice of American lives and dollars, appear legion and metastatic:
• Glaring corruption and unabashed graft;
• A President whose confidants and chief advisers comprise drug lords and war crimes villains, who mock our own rule of law and counternarcotics efforts;
• A system of provincial and district leaders constituted of local power brokers, opportunists and strongmen allied to the United States solely for, and limited by, the value of our USAID and CERP contracts and whose own political and economic interests stand nothing to gain from any positive or genuine attempts at reconciliation; and
• The recent election process dominated by fraud and discredited by low voter turnout, which has created an enormous victory for our enemy who now claims a popular boycott and will call into question worldwide our government’s military, economic and diplomatic support for an invalid and illegitimate Afghan government.
“Our support for this kind of government, coupled with a misunderstanding of the insurgency’s true nature, reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our Nation’s own internal peace, against an insurgency whose nationalism we arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology.
“I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.
“Eight years into war, no nation has ever known a more dedicated, well trained, experienced and disciplined military as the U.S. Armed Forces. I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan. …
“’We are spending ourselves into oblivion’ a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America’s best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory. …
“Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will never heal or will only worsen with time. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. As such, I submit my resignation.”
Will Mr. Hoh’s highly regarded experience, sensitivity and judgment reach the attention of millions of Americans? That will depend on whether President Obama meets with him, whether Congressional committees will provide a hearing for him and others of similar persuasion, and whether the mass media will suspend their dittoheading and trivia long enough to report these views, so that we the people can deliberate better about avoiding a devastating, worsening quagmire replete with serial tragedies over there and boomerangs back here.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
68 Comments so far
Show AllRather, Conduct RETREAT! NOW!!
Finally, we are beginning to get a true definition of the war in Afghanistan.
Mr. Hoh correctly identifies a Pashtun Insurgency and not a fight against Al Queda and the Taliban.
There are more than 40 million Pashtun in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have never been sucessfully integrated into a nation state. They fiercely defend their self-determination.
There are more than 40 million Pashtun. Afghanistan has a population of 28 million. The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan with 42% of the population. This means 11 million Pashtun in Afghanistan and 29 million outside of Afghanistan - in Pakistan.
In the logic of European colonization, Afghanistan is an area that has never been colonized yet we insist on calling it a nation state. All the easier to impose a western style democracy.
The Pashtun have never been colonized. They sucessfully defend their identities against all foreign invaders. They have sucessfully resisted the Persians,the Macedonians,the Mongols, the British and the Soviets. Why should the US and its coalition be any different?
The Pashtun have virtually no representation in Kabul or in the Afghan military. As in South Vietnam, we support the wrong cultural group.
The Pashtun have the misfortune of living on the route of the Afghan oil pipeline. Helmund Province, the heartland of the Pashtun, is also the heartland of poppy cultivation.
The Pashtun stand in the way of US oil hegemony in the South Asia and Central Asia Regions and in the way of CIA controlled opium operations.
The first step in ending this "war" is to identify the "insurgency". We must eliminate all straw dogs.
Yes ... Al Queda and the Taliban may be the enemy. We must understand, however, that the Pashtun are defending their freedom and identity as they have done (sucessfully) for the last several millenia.
As Progressives, we should drop the labels of the Bush and Obama adminisrations and correctly identitfy this "war" as a Pashtun insurgency or a Pashtun "freedon" fight.
grassroots, couldn't get through w/your posted e-mail---my idea---can be found in a comment I posted to Chris Hedges article "War is a Hate Crime"--I believe it's at the top of the comments. Let me know what you think.
gershonmitchel@yahoo.com
Matthew Hoh references that ever present name of Vietnam while discussing the quagmire that is taking place in Afghanistan. Barbara Tuchman points out in her classic work The March of Folly that during the battle of Dien Bien Phu the French Cabinet spoke to American ambassador Douglas Dillon to request "immediate armed intervention of United States carrier aircraft." They tried to persuade Dillon by claiming that the fate of Southern Asia and the impending Geneva Conference "now rested on Dien Bien Phu."
President Eisenhower told a press conference in March of 1954 that:
"There is going to be no involvement of America in war unless it is the result of the constitutional process that is placed upon Congress to declare it." With words that would precede Barack Obama, Eisenhower declared:
"Now let us be clear; and that is the answer."
Obama, like every other president that has come after Eisenhower, has decided, unlike Ike, to circumvent the Congress by sending armed forces into a third world country. The legislative branch is just as culpable as Obama as they have allowed the 44th president to make a mockery of the law by not invoking Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution in which only Congress has the power to declare war. Since, to the best of my knowledge, that part of the Constitution has not been revoked or rescinded or amended, the president has been in direct violation of conducting a war that has never had the approval of Congress. And the Congress apparently has absolutely no problem in seeing the presidents of the United States make complete fools of them when the executive branch decides to egregiously become, and maintain the position of, a war criminal.
- Obama, like every other president that has come after Eisenhower, has decided, unlike Ike, to circumvent the Congress... -
How can you argue this?
Congress enacted Public Law 107-40, the DAFT law. That law allowed Bush to invade Afghanistan and (with the further P.L. 107-243) provided justification for the invasion of Iraq.
The DAFT law is just like the Tonkin Gulf resolution - responsible for justifying further military aggression, and ignored by those wanting to stop the madness.
It is Congress's fault (except Barbara Lee) for the mess we're in.
From Prof. Juan Cole today over at InformedComment -
- our anxieties about terrorism--the key, or even sole, reason for extending the war in Afghanistan according to President Obama -
Progressives won't solve the problem of Afghanistan until they solve the bigger problem of America's paranoia over terrorism - which has been enshrined into a law that is ignored by Progressives.
Locust
Before being so quick to jump all over me, you might want to reread what I had written. You state that "It is Congress's fault..." I had never said that it was not. The quote that you have taken from my comment does nothing to obviate the fact that Obama has maintained an occupation without Congress actually declaring war. The DAFT law that you cite was used as an excuse, as you say, to grant Bush the authorization to invade Afghanistan. However, it is NOT the same as Congress actually declaring war. I also understand that it is the same as the Tonkin Gulf resolution. But in both cases those authorizations were used as a way for Congress to abrogate its responsibilities for it to be the one to lead this country into war and not the executive branch. That is how I can argue and back up what I had written. Your comments would be much more persuasive if you were to decide to argue with your head instead of hour heart.
And I heard Derrick Jensen on the radio yesterday, saying that he thinks there will be a military coup against Obama if we pull out of Afghanistan. Great choices we have here.
I keep posting that wishing for Santa Obama to order the withdrawal of US troops from the Afghan theater is pointless, useless, futile and time-wasting.
We do have choices.
We can end the DAFT war.
Deleted by poster because there really is no free speech in this country.
I don't know where DJ came up with that thought but I can rest assure you that the military has no intention of staging a military coup against Obama. He is no FDR. Even the DOD is prepared to gracefully accept budget cuts but the President, his staff, and Congress of both parties are playing politics with fire here. There is a deep divide within the military on pursuing Afghanistan. Most of them really don't want it but are going reluctant on this.
He lumped in the MIC with it, and I can easily see them supporting such a coup.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. I'm not a conspiracy nut by any stretch of the means but since Obama has done so much in favor of MIC, I don't see how they could possibly stage a coup against him unless Biden had something far bigger and better to offer kinda like LBJ having more to offer the MIC than JFK but even then, I don't see them doing it even if he does pull out of Afghanistan.
A year into his reign, attempts to defend 0bama from news of his own policies have become shrill.
The military has, if anything, less argument with 0 than with Cheney. 0 is not only fetching them their money and handing them the good will of a new swath of the electorate, he's likely less a pain on quail shoots.
The graveyard of umpires.
Let's hope that trend continues. I think the smart money says it will.
Perhaps the only salvation is for the empire to collapse and the sooner the better..
The thing to do is to reinstate the draft, That would end this folly in two weeks, I remember
back in the day that nothing will focus a fellow like that letter telling you to report for
the physical.. Or your collage room mate coming home in a body bag.
I disagree:
1. If, IF the US were to collapse, into whose hands would our own army & weapons nukes fall? Blackwater USA? Or KBR, etc.?, only to disperse around the world, out of the grasp of anyone, to be "at large" and beholden to the highest bidder/corporation?
2. Reinstating the draft? Not going to happen. Shutting down and holding the Capital and the Pentagon would shut this war down a lot quicker than anything else.
In today's world, it might mean high civilian casualties, but our situation now demands we do what needs to be done to end this madness of violence and criminal activity.
Q: Would they kill us, The People?
yes
they will kill ya read up on Kent State..
and of course the labor wars of the early twentieth century..
Ralph my man, if we the sheeple took feminism seriously enough and used it as a genuine litmus test against elections, you would be our great leader and Congress would be totally different. I'm afraid that we'll have to do some more learning in Afghanistan as we did in Iraq.
Doesn't Mr. Hoh understand that we have a Black Budget estimated at upwards of $300 billion a year and that Afghan poppy will continue to fund it beautifully?
Why would anyone blow that money to bail taxpayers?
The United States' participation in the crime of the Vietnam war ended a little over 30 years ago. That is well within the memory of many. Yet this new group of warmongers, movie tough guys and bagmen for USA exceptionalism, led, once again, by Democrats, are strutting through the news with their shorts down, trying to convince not us but themselves that they are The Cocks of the Walk. Afghanistan is the cockpit wherein the true and comical length of their screwdrivers elicits only laughs and does not inspire fear. Obama is Shaft; he shafted all of us, the Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and lastly, and unsurprisingly, himself.
Good article,
Peace is the only answer.
The Hawks do not seem to have much support in the media anymore.
Killing for peace is expensive and the people are beginning to see the cost.
Something is making Obama hold back from the Hawks request to escalate.
We'll see
Killing for peace is like having sexual intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
Sign me up for that one. I'm ready to go.
Yes, but "Hawks" is a false metaphor. A more fitting one would be war-monger, war-profiteers, vultures, parasites, and Vampires. Hawks acutally do the work themselves and kill only to survive. These old, fat, bloated, wealthy, dudes don't do anything: they don't do the fighting, they don't pay for it either. They profit.
"Killing for Peace" straight outa Owrwell's 1984
There's only one way out of this mess - 'we' must guarantee Big Military Profiteer that their profits will not take a hit due to Peace.
We're spending the $$ anyway, so we'll re-task said BMPs to make green stuff, and infrastructure stuff, and KBR can have the contract to build the new American PublicCare clinics across the land, under the condition they promise not to electrocute any poor, sick people.
Once the BMPs are re-tasked and paid, there will be no more lobbying for perpetual death and destruction of foreigners and US military personnel. That will free the Pres/Congress to do the right thing for the right reasons, not for the right bribe - er, I mean, campaign contribution.
If ya can't beat em, pay em to go the f**k away. Hey - we're paying the Taliban not to fight, right? Same thing...
Nader and Hoh are 100% correct...but still we don't leave. Why?
Right now the US is running a corrupt, narco-state called Afghanistan. Why?
Pipelines. No one mentions the P-word. Energy pipelines, that's why we're there. Friend Karzai once worked as a consultant for the oil giant firm, Unocal. Current government installed by the CIA. Remember, the CIA was sending guys around on horseback with wads of bills in their saddle packs --paying vast sums to the anti-Taliban (And anti -Pushton) Northern Alliance. We provided air support to the NA troops in their fight to defeat the Taliban. The NA won and a lot of corrupt/narco Tajik war lords were put in power. Still there.
A giant pipeline is planned for Afghanistan--one that will bring middle east gas/oil to the west (and avoid, Russia and Iran). That's the holy grail for the US. That's why we are in Afghanistan and that's why Karzai is our man in Kabul.
Good point. Pepe Escobar, Tariq Ali, and Chris Hedges have written about this, as you are probably aware. Also, contrary to most "news" reports in the MSM, the vast majority of the opium money goes to warlords and is funneled through Karzai's brother. The so-callled Taliban is responsible for a very tiny fraction of this.
Thank you. More people need to re-watch Farenheit 911 where Moore mentions this (I think that's where I saw it - either there or in Oliver Stone's W).
Afghanistan is a wasteland. Why else would the Soviets, the US, etc be interested in it. That and now there's the threat of nukes getting into the wrong-er hands. But why not be honest about it? Perhaps the sheeple couldn't handle it.
But if we leave, won't the people of Afghanistan build the pipeline anyway since there are profits to be had? And build it faster than if we are there creating havoc? Wouldn't we be able to purchase this oil and natural gas faster if got out of the way and let the Afghan people build their own pipeline? Or are we so delusional that we think that can permanently occupy this country and control any oil or natural gas that flows through it? Can anyone help me out here?
Yes, here is help: The U.S. could just back off and buy. One problem, control of fossil-fuels = control of world economy, so the U.S. has to stay to keep China and Russia out. That is why no matter how bad it is the U.S. cannot leave.
.
http://freepublictransit.org/Oil__Pipeline_Wars.php
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-us-military-is-in-pipelineistan.html
.
Thank you, fpteditors.
The Wash Post, NYT will run this aricle right? And then Ralph will get multiple requests for interviews on CNN, Fux, and PBS Newshour, right?
Matthew Hoh wrote a brilliant poignant letter of resignation that almost says it all on Afghanistan.
Ralph Nader cut and pasted it here.
Too bad Mr. Nader got all those votes in Florida.
I don't think Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan.
Please, our election and electoral system is a sham.
The winner takes all, big money, corporate directed, election system is not to blame?
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
Seriously, blaming Ralph is like killing the messenger and then blaming him for his own death.
Read: "Ten steps to repair American Democracy" Stephen Hill. This is a good start.
With all due respect, after you understand the intricacies of our our system you will realize why it is not democratic. The ruling D/R oligarchy do not want you to know about these things, so better not investigate too much.
Look where the one-party system got us with Obama: a right-wing President who can lie without a smirk. Aint nothin changed exept for slicker rhetoric and a more attractive brand name.
I agree with you on all of these points except the part where Ralph is not culpable.
Matthew Hoh put his future on the line and resigned for what he had come to believe in.
This is in stark contrast to Nader who glibly took campaign assistance offered by the Republican Party, refused to consider that he might interfere with a race between the Champion of the Environmental Movement and the Oil Man, and entered the race for the benefit of his ego.
There is no difference between McCain and Obama.
There was a huge difference between Bush and Gore.
We will likely never have a shot at a decent President again, since they seem to get worse every election.
We will never recover from two disastrous wars started by Bush.
Nader is no hero.
He barely even campaigned. He just entered the race and wrought havoc.
I am afraid you are trapped in the black/white two-party dichotomy. If we don't have a real democratic choice, don't you think we ought to ask why? Do you remember the election fraud? No one wants to fix our sham of an electoral system, but are quick to blame Nader everything.
If the messenger speaks the truth, you don't chop his head off for it and then blame him for his own death. Ralph is right on the money.
Let's see Gore/Clinton saw the passage of NAFTA, increased Pentagon budgets, decreased social spending, decreased education spending. That sounds like right-of center politics to me. Not much difference there. Remmber, JFK escalated the involvement in Vietnam as did LBJ, both democrats. The D party is corrupt to the bone.
Nader is responsible for more legislation than any president. Please don't believe me and don't believe the Democratic party. Do your own research with an open mind and find out what he has done in the last 40 years before making sweeping generalizations.
Really, I am not defending the two party system.
For the most part, Democrats have been no better than Republicans.
Most of the time, Nader might as well run because there is no difference.
That was very much not the case in 2000.
I watched an interview with Nader about that race. Wen asked if he felt in anyway responsible for GWB he replied that Gore didn't even win his home state. No apology. No reflection. Nader did not win any state. It is disgusting to hear him reproach Gore in this fashion.
As testament to Nader's dangerous ego, he doesn't bother working his way to the Presidency by running for Congress or for Governor. He thinks he should sail right to the top.
He puts very little effort forth, but gets a lot of attention.
This article is an example.
He just signed on to Matthew Hoh's work.
What the hell are you talking about 'ego'? He wasn't responsible for Gore losing. That has been rebutted so often and yet it gets dragged out again and again (typical of democrats who are loyal to the party and not the party principles). Hearing this type of comment is like listening to Dittoheads, it's so Bizzaro World.
Just remember Gore's VP, Lieberman. And not one peep on global warming from him at the time.
Gore didn't represent my views, Nader did. So all of you who still claim that Nader cost Gore the vote, get your head out of the sand.
If you disagree with Nader, don't vote for him.
But who are you determining who can and who can't run for president, especially when there isn't a democrat or republican representing the positions that Nader represented.
Have you ever even listened to Nader? What is happening in our country wouldn't come as a surprise if you listened to other points of view other than the democratic party leadership.
I say that for every 5% of the vote Nader would have gotten, the democrats wouldn't have been able to do 10% of their BS. That is a pretty good return. Maybe the bailout would have only been $725 billion dollars of our tax money. But with no opposition, the democrats are given free reign to do the bidding of the power elite.
As a testament of your ignorance of why Nader is running, you obviously are mistaking ethics with ego.
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for everything.
notonemore,
Dennis Kucinich has served in Congress representing the people and being outspoken on these issues:
An end to war
Single-payer health care
Environmental and Corporate regulations
Peace Department
End to NAFTA, WTO
Public Works
Green jobs
Free public college education
Protection of Civil Liberties
Equal rights in Marriage
Why has Ralph Nader never run for Congress?
I say we take the pledge:
NO MORE millionaires
NO MORE Harvard graduates
NO MORE lawyers
You prove my point very well thank you. However you did not address the points I raised.
One of the many problems with Nader is that he doesn't put much effort toward winning. The third Party concept is really a sham if the candidates just throw their name in the ring and have enough name recognition to end up on the ballot without trying.
No argument here about Kennedy and Johnson.
I don't hold Gore responsible for the Clinton years. Gore was obviously disgusted by Clinton.
How much attention does anybody pay Biden?
Obama can do whatever he wants.
The VP only breaks a Senate tie on very rare occasions.
Gore would have been so much better than Bush.
Do I really have to explain this?
You prove my point very well thank you. However you did not address the points I raised.
Have you heard Al raise an objection in public about Afghanistan or the Obama fetish of coal and nuclear?
The best thing Al can do is continue getting rich off environmental "green washing" void of action directed at the Obama Administration anti environmental plans. .
Oh, you of little faith!
You mean the same Al Gore who chose Joe LIEberman to be one heartbeat away from the presidency?
If you watch Al Gore closely, even in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", where much of his talking was done in the back of a gas guzzling limo, you would know the guy is not really going to cause much trouble for his colleagues in the ruling class.
Well said. And now AG is pushing biofuels and buying into carbon trading. Nowhere does he mention getting rid of the private automobile.
.
the U.S. cannot leave.
.
http://freepublictransit.org/Oil__Pipeline_Wars.php
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-us-military-is-in-pipelineistan.html
.
Gore's book Earth in the Balance does indeed decry the internal combustion engine as the root of many of our environmental troubles.
Well, j, you should have at least given Honorable Mention to the Jews for Buchanan-- what was up with THAT?
But yeah, between that narcissist Pied Piper Nader, and decades of slow poisoning from all the fluoride those Cuban Commie rats put in the water supply, those Floridians really got screwed up-- and dragged the rest of us down with them, dammit!
Glad you're keeping your eyes on the ball there, j.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Hey now, don't blame us Floridians (and I was 17 at the time, couldn't vote), or even Nader.
There were, what, 8 candidates for president on the ballot in Florida? Maybe a few more. All of them got more than the 537 votes Bush officially beat Gore by.