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):
How
long are we going to continue to do this? We invade and occupy a
country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people
in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With
the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain
in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely
composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in
their country. All the while, we clearly exacerbate the very problem
we are allegedly attempting to address -- Terrorism -- by predictably
and inevitably increasing anti-American anger and hatred through our
occupation, which, no matter the strategy, inevitably entails our
killing innocent civilians. Indeed, does Hoh's description of what
drives the insurgency -- anger "against the presence of foreign
soldiers" -- permit the conclusion that that's all going to be placated
with a shift to a kind and gentle counter-insurgency strategy?
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.
© 2023 Salon
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):
How
long are we going to continue to do this? We invade and occupy a
country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people
in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With
the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain
in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely
composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in
their country. All the while, we clearly exacerbate the very problem
we are allegedly attempting to address -- Terrorism -- by predictably
and inevitably increasing anti-American anger and hatred through our
occupation, which, no matter the strategy, inevitably entails our
killing innocent civilians. Indeed, does Hoh's description of what
drives the insurgency -- anger "against the presence of foreign
soldiers" -- permit the conclusion that that's all going to be placated
with a shift to a kind and gentle counter-insurgency strategy?
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):
How
long are we going to continue to do this? We invade and occupy a
country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people
in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With
the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain
in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely
composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in
their country. All the while, we clearly exacerbate the very problem
we are allegedly attempting to address -- Terrorism -- by predictably
and inevitably increasing anti-American anger and hatred through our
occupation, which, no matter the strategy, inevitably entails our
killing innocent civilians. Indeed, does Hoh's description of what
drives the insurgency -- anger "against the presence of foreign
soldiers" -- permit the conclusion that that's all going to be placated
with a shift to a kind and gentle counter-insurgency strategy?
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.