Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Foreign Service Officer Resigns Over Afghanistan.
Matthew Hoh, a foreign service officer and Marine veteran of the Iraq War, has resigned his job working as a provincial-level adviser to the Afghan government because he "lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan." The story is fascinating, and Hoh's criticisms are similar to what many feel about the conflict (even Special Envoy Dick Holbrooke confesses to agreeing with his analysis) but I'm not really sure what to make of it.
What confuses me, I think, is the timing. Hoh says this:
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.
"We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh said. "But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve."
What Hoh describes could be the outcome of the current policy process in Washington -- though it is not the most likely option -- and it seems strange that an official might resign before that decision was made, rather than in protest of it. On the other hand, perhaps this was the best way to draw public attention to that drawdown option, although the problem isn't necessarily public support but a lack of advocates willing to face that fact in Washington.
The other point of interest is the extent to which senior American officials from Holbrooke on down met with Hoh and tried to recruit him to higher jobs. Obviously there's a lot of public-relations concern driving those meetings, and the U.S. officials have an agenda of their own, but I don't recall that happening during the Bush administration when various Guanatanmo Bay prosecutors resigned. After reading the New Yorker's Holbrooke profile, though, i don't think that the man's sympathy or interest in working with Hoh is necessarily fake.
Do read Hoh's letter of resignation, which articulates a compelling critique of the war.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (1)
On military matters, presidents tend to be trapped like baseball managers. There's an expression in baseball - "lose the right way." You make a managerial decision based on what is seen as the right way, even if it backfires and you lose. Unfortunately, ramping up military, or at least not drawing down, is seen as the right move. If it backfires and fails, political opinion is less likely to backfire on you than if you took an alternative course.
Which means advocates of draw down do need to be heard more in this debate. However, it is also critical that a responsibility to protect civilian populations be accepted. Draw down advocates need to explain how that policy would protect human rights in Afghanistan.
If the sole reason for the US to fight in Afghanistan is to root out terrorist camps, then smaller forces and unmanned drones are a superior strategy. But a commitment to an Afghanistan with a government that respects human rights is far more complicated. And the defense of those human rights, as the world has learned, is never just someone else's problem.
Posted by: Michael A. Shea | October 27, 2009 9:48 AM