U.S. official resigns over Afghan warOn that last point regarding the strategic purposes of our presence in Afghanistan, Mr. Hoh is perfectly justified in having lost confidence. Because Obama freely admits that he has no purpose. Or strategy. That's what this months long strategic confab is all about. He's trying to figure out what he believes and square it with promises he's made.
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled 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." [link]
This is no way to fight a war.
Hoh is right. If we no longer have a good reason for being there, get out now. Not another brave American life lost. Now.
19 comments:
As per a Van Zant song
"If you're gonna go, go all the way / if you're gonna stay stand your ground / if you can't run with the big dogs, big dog let me walk you out / if you can't lead let me by you / if you won't follow get out of the way / you're takin up space.
If the leaders don't know why we are there, how in the world can the military?
DO SOMETHING! Making no decision is a decision!
...Al...
"This is no way to fight a war"
Ah, there you go again, placing blame on Obama for not acting fast enough, and your archives show no ill will toward Bush or Cheney during the 7 years they ran the war.
Here are some funny quotes from these 2 clowns,
"The Taliban regime is out of business, permanently." Dick Cheney, 2002
Oh really? That is, the Taliban is out of business until we take our eye off the ball and invade a different country, then leave the ruins of Afghanistan for the next guy!
Now the dumb son of a bitch comes out and says,
"It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger." Dick Cheney, 2009
Oh... I see they are dithering now, when Obama is in the driver's seat... but Bush/Cheney weren't dithering when they took focus off of Afghanistan, and put all their focus on Iraq? Isn't that a good definition of neglect?
"Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of Al Qaida, and put the Taliban out of business forever.” George W. Bush, 2003
Al,
As I have said to your other comments, doesn't this comment apply directly to Georgie and Dick? Where was your outrage when we neglected Afghanistan to invade Iraq? The hypocrisy is a little too thick here!
Drew
As the wife of a United States Marine I can tell you that I have also lost my belief in our presence in Afghanistan. Our brave men and women in the military place their lives on the line every day to complete their mission. What if there is no mission? Today our troops in Afghanistan, with a few exceptions, have taken on a defensive posture. They are "holding down the fort" so to speak while bombs are lobbed at them. Where is the mission? Why are we there? To battle the Taliban? To protect a corrupt government? I tell you this... I don't really know and I no longer care. We cannot spill the blood of our youth to defend a mission that today does not exist. President Obama: Either define their mission, get a surge of troops in there and let them fight and complete their mission. OR... if what I believe is true and there is no longer a justifiable mission in Afghanistan... get them out of there. Right now, today. Get those kids out of there. Call me harsh but if the corrupt government in Afghanistan fails and the country is thrown into chaos I really don't care. We cannot police the world and defend everyone from evil all the time. It is not worth one more American life to me. Give them the tools to fight and let them do it right or bring them home now. Either way, GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND DO IT. People are dying, our nations youth. Stop golfing and make a decision.
Afghanistan is not worth one more U.S. flag draped casket to me.
Semper Fi.
After reading the link, I am dumbfounded to why you would include this on your blog!
A soldier turned war protester... doesn't that make you a traitor? At least 8 months ago, Hoh would have been a traitor!
"Hoh is right. If we no longer have a good reason for being there, get out now. Not another brave American life lost. Now."
But, Cindy Sheehan was a crazy bitch in your view because her son died for nothing? The protesters who blanketed every city in the United States, rallying against the war in Iraq, they were all un-American twits.
You really need some consistency here Jerry, your fair-weather fan mentality is sickening!
I respect Hoh and his views on Afghanistan... but I cannot understand why you would post such an article, especially when the last 2 paragraphs say,
"If the United States is to remain in Afghanistan, Hoh said, he would advise a reduction in combat forces.
He also would suggest providing more support for Pakistan, better U.S. communication and propaganda skills to match those of al-Qaeda, and more pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to clean up government corruption -- all options being discussed in White House deliberations."
A reduction in US forces? Do you agree with that? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't make 2 posts a day about Obama "dithering" on Afghanistan!
Did you want your readers to just read the little quote your provided, that "proves" your point and not go on and read the entire 4 page article? Or maybe, you didn't read the entire article, just the part you agree with? Or you just got it off one of the wingnut sites you visit, and thought it was worthy of a post?
Drew
Anon @ 8:48,
Did you support the war in Iraq? Did you not see that because we invaded Iraq, we lost focus on Afghanistan?
Or, are now wanting to cut and run because there is a different Commander and Chief?
Drew
Anon 8:48 -- Thanks for your service, and yes, you are serving, too.
Every time I read about another soldier's death in A-stan, I immediately try to figure out if the circumstances could point to one of my friends there. Later, my wife and I worry over how our friends' wives must feel when they hear the same news.
Anyone with friends over there hears from them the same thing you are saying. Our troops are just rolling targets. It's time to either fish or cut bait.
And George Bush can't make that decision.
Cheers,
Salt Lick, as with all the wingnuts, you too are becoming a joke.
To worry about the deaths in Afghanistan, after GWB neglected it for so long... but no worry for the needless deaths in Iraq.
How sad, you are a clown.
Drew
BTW -- There is a "competition" of sorts at Soldier's Angels to raise money to support wounded soldiers. I've given to them and can vouch that Soldier's Angels is a terrific organization.
Interesting how the Marines, drawing from a much smaller group, are almost even with the Army. ;-)
Thanks for the link, Salt Lick. I'll post it for everyone to see.
Drew,
I believe our military is strong enough to fight 2 wars at the same time.
We went to Iraq to enforce the multiple UN resolutions that were being ignored. Plus, we went to where the bad guys were, and we had leadership and a goal. After we whipped all the bad guys in Iraq, they ran to Afghanistan, so we had to go bad to kick some ass.
But along the way, a wussy took office and is more concerned about telling the world what a bad country the USA has been. And he purposely waits while our soldiers fighting. He is the commander in chief, time to fish or cut bait.
Keep bringing up Bush, if that is the best you got. You have no rationale for why the president waits.
Obama plays golf...our troops get knocked off.
...Al...
Al: Are you serious? Bush led us into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions. Are you vying for a talking head spot on Fox News?
Droobie,
No, I did not support the war in Iraq. I supported our troops while they were there but I did not support our reasons for being there and didn't from Day One.
Do I not see that we lost focus on Afghanistan? Of course I see that.
Do I want to "cut and run" because we have a different Commander in Chief? Are you kidding? While in Iraq, the decision to execute the troop surge was approved. At that moment we moved from standing still having our asses handed to us... to moving forward and fighting to make it better. I did not support our reason for being there BUT we were there anyway. I supported the means by which to fight that conflict and bring our men and women home. Guess what? It worked.
In Afghanistan, my point is that we either need to fight to make it better or bring our men and women home. Do you really think I give a hoot who makes that decision? It could be Obama, Bush or Bozo the Clown. Not everything is split down party lines, Droobie. My point is that Obama is the one in the decision making chair TODAY and he needs to get to it. I live outside the gates of Camp Lejeune. I look into the faces of young Marines every day, I know many of them personally and call them a friend. I know their wives, husbands, children. This is personal to me and rises above petty political bickering.
I laughed though at your description of "cut and run". You enjoy those little swipes, don't you? I can assure you that even if our troops are ordered home they won't "cut and run". They will just follow orders. It is what they do.
Drew,
Read the Iraqi War Resolution. Here is the second paragraph:
"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq ;"
Read the whole thing. This is what congress heard and voted on. Regardless of what you think or heard on MoveOn. These are the facts.
Iraqi War Resolution
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
...Al...
Al,
Do you actually believe, even though it has been debunked many times, that Saddam had an al Qaeda link? al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq until we went in! So we brought that upon ourselves!
Dropped the ball, that is what Bush did... and now Obama has to sweep up the mess that was made, just like everything else!
Drew
Drew have a look at the March, 2008 report released by the Pentagon and based upon captured Iraq documents showing the close relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. It is condensed in a book by Louis Fairmont, THE LINK but you won't find it at MoveOn.org or in the legacy media which will continue to debunk. We all know how fair and open minded you are.
Drew,
What part of the posted war resolution confused you? It is pretty clear.
I'm saying the war resolution was to enforce UN sanctions. You bring up al Qaida. You bring up WMD. You bring up settling a score for his dad. Its about the UN resoultions that the UN is too weak to enforce.
The war resolution is clear - enforce UN sactions.
Congress heard it, voted YEA, and then started adding qualifiers.
Read the war resolution and learn something.
Just because you believe a lie don't try to pass it off as truth.
...Al...
Anon @ 7:42,
Do you actually think that increasing troops was what turned the war in Iraq around? The surge was more than an increase in troops on the ground. The surge also encompassed making allies with past enemies, which some say is the most important part. We paid Sunni insurgents to defect and come work for us.
Anon @ 8:53,
Since you don't seem to be bright (or are you just lazy?) enough to find the document or post a link to it, here it is,
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
"While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." -- Piece of Abstract of above document
So, Saddam was willing to use al Qaeda, but was there a link? I'm willing to find $1 million on the road, but has it happened? Nope.
Al,
What part of "you posted at the exact same time as I did" do you not understand?
You are just using smoke and mirrors to obscure my point. My point is, if Bush had not pushed the war with Iraq, Congress wouldn't have needed to vote "Yea", and we would have had way more success in Afghanistan. But, you want to gloss over this fact with your redirections.
Drew
Drew--I gave you a book title and author and you provided a link to a pacifist website. I'm sure it's approved by MoveOn and your fellow Bush Derangement sufferers. Thanks for nothing.
Al: You should read the whole resolution. The resolution would never have passed on the basis of enforcing UN sanctions. There are 23 paragraphs and you chose to cite the one that directly relates to enforcing UN sanctions. How about these:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) ; and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region
Post a Comment