Matthew Hoh’s Letter of Resignation Regarding Afghanistan

Many have now heard the news of the first U.S. government official resigning his position in protest of our continued presence in Afghanistan.  I was alerted to this development by a fellow officer and blogger, Matt Bader, and was immediately intrigued by the background of this State Department employee.

The Washington Post’s Karen DeYoung reported on Tuesday,

“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.”

Hoh is 36 years old.  This is significant to me because it places him in a generation, close to mine, who isn’t so heavily influenced by the Cold War-era mindset of strategy and warfare.

There has been some controversy relating to his actual role in the State Department, with DeYoung calling him a Foreign Service Officer and others calling this incorrect, stating he was a “3161″ employee brought on for a temporary cycle.  Regardless, after reading his full letter of resignation out loud to my wife this morning over coffee I felt it was worth sharing with my intelligent and discerning cadre of readers.

What strikes me is not the symbolism of such a resignation, but rather the content of his letter.  He lays out a battering ram of an argument as to why continued expenditure of blood and treasure in Afghanistan is not worth the sacrifice.  Remember, this is a seasoned Marine talking, not someone who is necessarily opposed to waging war.  Hoh says, “I’m not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love.”

The following are some segments from his chilling, but important letter (emphasis mine).  Read the full letter here:

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.  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. To put simply: I fail to see the value or worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.”

Regarding the Pashtun population,

“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 the 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 South and East, 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.”

On why the safe-haven argument is weak (something I have written about here),

“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 of regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc…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.”

Or the idea that we should be there to help a failing state,

“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.”

Even if the war seems worth it, we can’t afford it,

“‘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 that 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.”

This analysis of our presence in Afghanistan is not the type that will get you promoted, but it presents a formidable argument that few will be able to dismiss.  To be fair, there are many other intelligent voices who are advocating increased presence, resources and time in Afghanistan.  Some of my favorites include: Steve Coll and Andrew Exum (who posted a blistering critique of the Washington Post article mentioned above).

Popularity: 4% [?]

Related posts:

1. Why the Safe Haven Argument for Afghanistan is Weak
2. The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan
3. Why China Cares About Afghanistan
4. General Godin: What the Military Can Learn from Seth’s Hierarchy of Success

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.