Former Marine Captain Resigns in Protest of Afghanistan War
Top civilian in Southern province argues we're exacerbating the problem we're supposedly there to solve.
Matthew
Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, resigned
last month from his position with the Foreign Service, where he was the
the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan
province of Zabul, because he became convinced that our war in that
country will not only inevitably fail, but is fueling the very
insurgency we are trying to defeat. Hoh's resignation is remarkable
because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of
principle that has been so rare over the last decade, but even more so
because of the extraordinary four-page letter (.pdf) he wrote explaining his reasoning.
Hoh's
letter should be read in its entirety, but I want to highlight one
part. He begins by noting that "next fall, the United States'
occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical
involvement in Afghanistan," and contends that our unwanted occupation
combined with our support for a deeply corrupt government "reminds
[him] horribly of our involvement in South Vietnam." He then explains
that most of the people we are fighting are not loyal to the Taliban or
driven by any other nefarious aim, but instead are driven principally
by resistance to the presence of foreign troops in their provinces and
villages (click on image to enlarge):
Relatedly,
Hol points out the transparent fallacy of the claim that we will reduce
-- rather than worsen -- the problem of Terrorism by occupying Muslim
countries with a massive military presence:
Hoh's observations are entirely consistent with David Rohde's account of his seven-month hostage ordeal
with the Taliban: namely, the longer we occupy Afghanistan, the more
people we kill and imprison without charges, the greater the central
fuel of terrorism -- anti-American hatred -- rises, not only in
Afghanistan but across the Muslim world. As the Pentagon's own commissioned Report from 2004 concluded:
Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security . . . Direct American intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for Islamic radicals.
Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung
that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to
be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to
be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team
whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about
his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment,
based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that
country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Matthew
Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, resigned
last month from his position with the Foreign Service, where he was the
the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan
province of Zabul, because he became convinced that our war in that
country will not only inevitably fail, but is fueling the very
insurgency we are trying to defeat. Hoh's resignation is remarkable
because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of
principle that has been so rare over the last decade, but even more so
because of the extraordinary four-page letter (.pdf) he wrote explaining his reasoning.
Hoh's
letter should be read in its entirety, but I want to highlight one
part. He begins by noting that "next fall, the United States'
occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical
involvement in Afghanistan," and contends that our unwanted occupation
combined with our support for a deeply corrupt government "reminds
[him] horribly of our involvement in South Vietnam." He then explains
that most of the people we are fighting are not loyal to the Taliban or
driven by any other nefarious aim, but instead are driven principally
by resistance to the presence of foreign troops in their provinces and
villages (click on image to enlarge):
Relatedly,
Hol points out the transparent fallacy of the claim that we will reduce
-- rather than worsen -- the problem of Terrorism by occupying Muslim
countries with a massive military presence:
Hoh's observations are entirely consistent with David Rohde's account of his seven-month hostage ordeal
with the Taliban: namely, the longer we occupy Afghanistan, the more
people we kill and imprison without charges, the greater the central
fuel of terrorism -- anti-American hatred -- rises, not only in
Afghanistan but across the Muslim world. As the Pentagon's own commissioned Report from 2004 concluded:
Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security . . . Direct American intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for Islamic radicals.
Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung
that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to
be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to
be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team
whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about
his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment,
based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that
country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve.
Matthew
Hoh, a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq, resigned
last month from his position with the Foreign Service, where he was the
the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan
province of Zabul, because he became convinced that our war in that
country will not only inevitably fail, but is fueling the very
insurgency we are trying to defeat. Hoh's resignation is remarkable
because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of
principle that has been so rare over the last decade, but even more so
because of the extraordinary four-page letter (.pdf) he wrote explaining his reasoning.
Hoh's
letter should be read in its entirety, but I want to highlight one
part. He begins by noting that "next fall, the United States'
occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical
involvement in Afghanistan," and contends that our unwanted occupation
combined with our support for a deeply corrupt government "reminds
[him] horribly of our involvement in South Vietnam." He then explains
that most of the people we are fighting are not loyal to the Taliban or
driven by any other nefarious aim, but instead are driven principally
by resistance to the presence of foreign troops in their provinces and
villages (click on image to enlarge):
Relatedly,
Hol points out the transparent fallacy of the claim that we will reduce
-- rather than worsen -- the problem of Terrorism by occupying Muslim
countries with a massive military presence:
Hoh's observations are entirely consistent with David Rohde's account of his seven-month hostage ordeal
with the Taliban: namely, the longer we occupy Afghanistan, the more
people we kill and imprison without charges, the greater the central
fuel of terrorism -- anti-American hatred -- rises, not only in
Afghanistan but across the Muslim world. As the Pentagon's own commissioned Report from 2004 concluded:
Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security . . . Direct American intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for Islamic radicals.
Hoh told The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung
that he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to
be in love" and that he believes "there are plenty of dudes who need to
be killed," adding: "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team
whacked a bunch of guys." Plainly, there's nothing ideological about
his conclusions; they're just the by-product of an honest assessment,
based on first-hand experiences, of how our ongoing occupation of that
country is worsening the very problem we're allegedly there to solve.