Category Archives: Terrorism

Update V: Viva VA’s Jihadi-Friendly Hospitals (The Stellar Doc.)

Bush, Healthcare, Homeland Security, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The Military

With his substandard professional performance, do you think Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Jihadi who committed fratricide at Fort Hood, would have survived for long in the private sector? In a Veterans’ Administration Hospital, on the other hand, nothing threatened Hasan’s employment status, rank, and six-figure income. In the venerated VA system, damaged soldiers are left to the mercies of a man—Major Nidal—whom the mother of one such soldier describes as scary, inappropriate and without empathy.

As you cheer on the state’s encroaching monopoly over medicine, give some thought to the number of Jihadi-prone practitioners the codified laws of political correctness will admit into the new system.

Meantime, the London Telegraph reports that, “Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.”

“What does seem clear is that the army missed an increasing number of red flags that Hasan was a troubled and brooding individual within its ranks.

“‘I was shocked but not surprised by news of Thursday’s attack,’ said Dr Val Finnell, a fellow student on a public health course in 2007-08 who heard Hasan equate the war on terrorism to a war on Islam. Another student had warned military officials that Hasan was a ‘ticking time bomb’ after he reportedly gave a presentation defending suicide bombers. … expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.”

“Hasan had, in fact, already come to the attention of the authorities before Thursday’s massacre. He was suspected of being the author of internet postings that compared suicide bombers with soldiers who throw themselves on grenades to save others and had also reportedly been warned about proselytising to patients.”

“At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American ‘aggressors’. He made no attempt to hide his desire to end his military service early or his mortification at the prospect of deployment to Afghanistan. … [and made] strident attacks on US foreign policy.”

More from ABC about the the Army’s dereliction of duty:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan’s contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.

At all times, retain your cynicism about Repbulican posturing. When it traspired the Bush’s administration ignored all the memos about Muslim men training to fly, not land, jets, what did Bush do? Nada! When “Skeeza” Condoleeza got intelligence about bin Laden, she called it “analytical,” as opposed actionable, and proceeded to ignore the deafening chatter.

“PROTECTED SPECIES”: Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: If Nidal had been a white supremacist, he would have been gone long ago. But becasue he was a protected species, he got a pass again and again. Hasan proselytized for Islam, preached death to the infidel, logged onto to Jihadi websites, and ran around in his Islamic playsuit…—and we are told this has nothing to do with Islam?

Well said!

Update I (Nov. 10): “We are commanded to terrorize the disbelievers.” WND broke the story about this group. Here are its leaders in the flesh.

Update II (Nov. 10): The president is about to speak at the memorial for the victims of the Jihadi, Major Nidal. He will rhapsodize over the incomprehensibility of this event. That perspective is reprehensible and incomprehensible. There is perfect logic to this event if one doesn’t buy into the “Look Away Doctrine.”

Update III: THE STELLAR DOC. Grunts, here’s more information about your government and how it protects you from in-house homicidal Jihadis. According to the WaPo, late in June of 2007, Nidal gave a powerpoint presentation with a difference. It was titled, “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.”

“Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.”

“Instead, … he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.”

‘It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,’ he said in the presentation.”

“Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of ‘offensive jihad,’ or holy war.”

[SNIP]

You’d think that his supervisors would have at least failed him for his curricular creativity (read laziness). Instead they confined themselves to “looking really upset.” With each, escalating display of deviance our Jihadi got the green light, the Go Ahead.

Update IV: It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Whatever gets you kicked out of the American dhimmi force, it is not radical-Muslim status. This confers you with protections. We learn, Via ABC, that authorities had intercepted Hasan’s extensive e-mail exchange with radical cleric, and al Qaida recruiter Anwar al Awlakis, “but later deemed them innocent or protected by the first amendment.”

Investigators are also telling ABC “that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had ‘more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI’ than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. The official declined to name the individuals but Congressional sources said their names and countries of origin were likely to emerge soon.”

Update V (Nov. 11): HUNTED. “‘When He Saw Me Move, He Shot At Me.’ A victim of the Fort Hood shooting speaks about his experience, his fallen friends, and the desire to serve his country in Afghanistan.” Premeditated mass murder.

Update IX: 'A Shout Out To My Pepes, & BTW, Some Soldiers Got Shot'

Barack Obama, Crime, Jihad, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The Military

That’s pretty much what I heard, live, come out of the mouth of Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama, pursuant to a shooting on an army base, during which 12 soldiers were killed and 31 injured. [Update: 13 are now dead.]

The president was hanging with leaders of the Native American tribal nations when the news broke. His response: “What an extraordinary gathering… I thank the extraordinary people who made this extraordinary convention possible … we’re gonna do right by you extraordinary people, yada, yada, yada. Oh, and by the way, some soldiers got shot.”

“The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan. Fort Hood, on which this shooting spree occurred, “has suffered more deaths in Iraq than any other US home base. ” Most soldiers on the base had been deployed at least four times (as Bush cleared brush on his ranch and Barack vacationed at Martha’s Vineyard).

All told, there were three shooters; one was killed, two are in custody, (Update: subsequently released, so they could not be shooters).

Via the NYT: “CNN reports that the soldiers who were at the readiness center were getting ready to deploy to Iraq.”

On Fox News, Major General Robert H. Scales says that his sources tell him this was not the act of a madman—this was no spontaneous act committed under duress—but, rather, a planned and deliberate assassination. The venue was picked, and the men targeted mowed down with diabolical precision.

Developing.

NYT: “Update | 6:16 p.m. According to the Marine Corps Times, a Pentagon source said the suspected gunman killed at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, ‘was a psychiatrist recently reassigned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to work with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.'”

Hasan was 39 years old.

Update I: Huffington Post on Hasan’s military records:

“Military officials say the suspected shooter at Fort Hood was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to the Texas base in July.
The officials had access to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s military record. They said he received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because military records are confidential.”
The Virginia-born soldier was single with no children. He was 39 years old.
He is a graduate of Virginia Tech University, where he was a member of the ROTC and earned a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry in 1997. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. At Walter Reed, he did his internship, residency and a fellowship.”

[SNIP]

I’d like to know more about the nature of the “poor performance evaluation” the killer received, and whether this information might have been followed up on as a possible harbinger of what Hasan was capable of.

Update II: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan IS ALIVE. I have no idea why media were told he was dead, at first. Perhaps the military was ashamed that the base police came upon a man mowing down soldiers and did not take him out. On the other hand, maybe they want to interrogate him. Gently, of course, in case the libertarian and liberal Left squeal about the trauma the placing of a bug in the bug-phobic Abu Zubaydah’s “confinement box” caused them.

But interrogation and correctly reporting Hasan’s status are not mutually exclusive.

Update III: “Muslims have a right to rise and attack the aggressors,” Hasan is purported to have told a retired colleague. Now this is an intellectually consistent position. Perfectly consistent. What is inconsistent and incongruous is the conduct of our liberal military. Given his poor performance and his views, why on earth was he not kicked out of the force? Why were his passing comments dismissed as mere hot-hotheadedness? Liberalism, that’s why. The military has an obligation to expunge elements like Hasan from its ranks. The brass’ duty is to preserve its own; not display tolerance for diversity.

Via Jihad Watch:

Update IV: Shep Smith said Nidal Malik Hasan was a convert to Islam. Nonsense on stilt. So much of it. The WaPo reports that “Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim of Palestinian descent whose parents came to the United States from the West Bank. He joined the military after high school and earned medical degrees as he rose through the ranks, family members said. A doctor in the Medical Corps, Hasan was promoted to major last year, according to the Congressional Record.”

Wait for this. According to NPR “Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.”

Disciplined? What were they thinking? Speak nicely to the man and he’ll abandon his faith and his anger?

I’ll repeat an ongoing theme on this blog: Hasan acted in character. He is consistent. The people who are, to me, more contemptible than he are the military brass. Infected with PC and liberal do-goodism, they honestly believed that with a few mild warnings and kind reprimands they could tweak Islam out of this man like one would an unsightly nose hair. His superiors need to pay for forsaking their underlings. They abandoned their charges for liberal political correctness.

Update V: What is considered a cause for alarm on a military base? Clearly not a man strolling about the base in traditional Muslim/Arab garb. Tell me that the military is not as liberal as the rest of the country. The madness we endure at airports is the madness we’ve witnessed on this military base.

The American taxpayer paid for this man’s education, years of tuition and living expenses. Hasan is a ponce who lived off the taxpayer and turned deadly when his debts were due.

On the other hand, Major Nidal begged to be released of his duties. The man underperformed and was rotten at his job. Why did the military not cut him loose? Yes, liberalism sees no danger in an abaya-clad, angry, devout Muslim who saw the institution he worked for as an aggressor and oppressor. As an arm of the state, the military mirrors the state’s reckless disregard for those who serve it. Today, we saw proof of it.

Update VI (Nov. 6): Would a military man be allowed to roam the base in a Hare-Krishna robe?

The morons of MSNBC are going the causal route of the trauma victim—Major Nidal of course. A victim of bullying and stress. “Evil, not ILL” says it all:

“To listen to the nation’s psychiatric gurus is to come to believe that crimes are caused, not committed. Perpetrators don’t do the crime, but are driven to their dirty deeds by a confluence of uncontrollable factors, victims of societal forces or organic brain disease.

The paradox at the heart of this root-causes fraud is that causal theoretical explanations are invoked only after bad deeds have been committed. Good deeds have no need of mitigating circumstances. Even though [Major Nidal] went about his business meticulously and methodically, liberals (and, increasingly, conservatives) toss the concept of free will to the wind. They acknowledge human agency if—and only if—adaptive actions are involved.”

“‘Allahu Akbar’ was shouted by the Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Malik Hasan before he opened fire.” Assorted dhimmi are elaborating on the many meanings of the phase. Armed, dressed in traditional Arab garb and shouting “Allahu Akbar”: I think we all know what that means. Trouble.

Update VII: HERE are some of the men and women killed by a coward.

As we all know, the military/the state affords the men and women who join the best of care. That’s why it unleashed Major Nidal on unsuspecting damaged soldiers. Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was supervising Nidal, who clearly needed supervision,” said [that] privacy laws prevented him from going into details but … that [there were] problems … with Hasan’s interactions with patients.”

Only the best.

Via Fox News, more on the abnegation of responsibility in dealing with this individual: “At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials.”

The military authorities were in no hurry to do their duty.

Nor is premeditation in question. ABC: “The gun thought to be used in the Fort Hood massacre packs so much firepower, it’s known as ‘the Cop Killer,’ federal law enforcement officials said.”

Update VIII: “An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack. Get Well Soon Major Nidal. We Love You.” So wrote “The Official Revolution Muslim Website.” Via WND.COM.

Update IX: Col. Jack Jacobs, now an MSNBC military analyst, said it is unlikely Major Nidal caused all the deaths. The Colonel mentioned that oxymoron “friendly fire.”

Update IX: ‘A Shout Out To My Pepes, & BTW, Some Soldiers Got Shot’

Barack Obama, Crime, Jihad, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The Military

That’s pretty much what I heard, live, come out of the mouth of Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama, pursuant to a shooting on an army base, during which 12 soldiers were killed and 31 injured. [Update: 13 are now dead.]

The president was hanging with leaders of the Native American tribal nations when the news broke. His response: “What an extraordinary gathering… I thank the extraordinary people who made this extraordinary convention possible … we’re gonna do right by you extraordinary people, yada, yada, yada. Oh, and by the way, some soldiers got shot.”

“The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan. Fort Hood, on which this shooting spree occurred, “has suffered more deaths in Iraq than any other US home base. ” Most soldiers on the base had been deployed at least four times (as Bush cleared brush on his ranch and Barack vacationed at Martha’s Vineyard).

All told, there were three shooters; one was killed, two are in custody, (Update: subsequently released, so they could not be shooters).

Via the NYT: “CNN reports that the soldiers who were at the readiness center were getting ready to deploy to Iraq.”

On Fox News, Major General Robert H. Scales says that his sources tell him this was not the act of a madman—this was no spontaneous act committed under duress—but, rather, a planned and deliberate assassination. The venue was picked, and the men targeted mowed down with diabolical precision.

Developing.

NYT: “Update | 6:16 p.m. According to the Marine Corps Times, a Pentagon source said the suspected gunman killed at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, ‘was a psychiatrist recently reassigned from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., to work with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood.'”

Hasan was 39 years old.

Update I: Huffington Post on Hasan’s military records:

“Military officials say the suspected shooter at Fort Hood was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to the Texas base in July.
The officials had access to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s military record. They said he received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because military records are confidential.”
The Virginia-born soldier was single with no children. He was 39 years old.
He is a graduate of Virginia Tech University, where he was a member of the ROTC and earned a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry in 1997. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. At Walter Reed, he did his internship, residency and a fellowship.”

[SNIP]

I’d like to know more about the nature of the “poor performance evaluation” the killer received, and whether this information might have been followed up on as a possible harbinger of what Hasan was capable of.

Update II: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan IS ALIVE. I have no idea why media were told he was dead, at first. Perhaps the military was ashamed that the base police came upon a man mowing down soldiers and did not take him out. On the other hand, maybe they want to interrogate him. Gently, of course, in case the libertarian and liberal Left squeal about the trauma the placing of a bug in the bug-phobic Abu Zubaydah’s “confinement box” caused them.

But interrogation and correctly reporting Hasan’s status are not mutually exclusive.

Update III: “Muslims have a right to rise and attack the aggressors,” Hasan is purported to have told a retired colleague. Now this is an intellectually consistent position. Perfectly consistent. What is inconsistent and incongruous is the conduct of our liberal military. Given his poor performance and his views, why on earth was he not kicked out of the force? Why were his passing comments dismissed as mere hot-hotheadedness? Liberalism, that’s why. The military has an obligation to expunge elements like Hasan from its ranks. The brass’ duty is to preserve its own; not display tolerance for diversity.

Via Jihad Watch:

Update IV: Shep Smith said Nidal Malik Hasan was a convert to Islam. Nonsense on stilt. So much of it. The WaPo reports that “Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim of Palestinian descent whose parents came to the United States from the West Bank. He joined the military after high school and earned medical degrees as he rose through the ranks, family members said. A doctor in the Medical Corps, Hasan was promoted to major last year, according to the Congressional Record.”

Wait for this. According to NPR “Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time.”

Disciplined? What were they thinking? Speak nicely to the man and he’ll abandon his faith and his anger?

I’ll repeat an ongoing theme on this blog: Hasan acted in character. He is consistent. The people who are, to me, more contemptible than he are the military brass. Infected with PC and liberal do-goodism, they honestly believed that with a few mild warnings and kind reprimands they could tweak Islam out of this man like one would an unsightly nose hair. His superiors need to pay for forsaking their underlings. They abandoned their charges for liberal political correctness.

Update V: What is considered a cause for alarm on a military base? Clearly not a man strolling about the base in traditional Muslim/Arab garb. Tell me that the military is not as liberal as the rest of the country. The madness we endure at airports is the madness we’ve witnessed on this military base.

The American taxpayer paid for this man’s education, years of tuition and living expenses. Hasan is a ponce who lived off the taxpayer and turned deadly when his debts were due.

On the other hand, Major Nidal begged to be released of his duties. The man underperformed and was rotten at his job. Why did the military not cut him loose? Yes, liberalism sees no danger in an abaya-clad, angry, devout Muslim who saw the institution he worked for as an aggressor and oppressor. As an arm of the state, the military mirrors the state’s reckless disregard for those who serve it. Today, we saw proof of it.

Update VI (Nov. 6): Would a military man be allowed to roam the base in a Hare-Krishna robe?

The morons of MSNBC are going the causal route of the trauma victim—Major Nidal of course. A victim of bullying and stress. “Evil, not ILL” says it all:

“To listen to the nation’s psychiatric gurus is to come to believe that crimes are caused, not committed. Perpetrators don’t do the crime, but are driven to their dirty deeds by a confluence of uncontrollable factors, victims of societal forces or organic brain disease.

The paradox at the heart of this root-causes fraud is that causal theoretical explanations are invoked only after bad deeds have been committed. Good deeds have no need of mitigating circumstances. Even though [Major Nidal] went about his business meticulously and methodically, liberals (and, increasingly, conservatives) toss the concept of free will to the wind. They acknowledge human agency if—and only if—adaptive actions are involved.”

“‘Allahu Akbar’ was shouted by the Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Malik Hasan before he opened fire.” Assorted dhimmi are elaborating on the many meanings of the phase. Armed, dressed in traditional Arab garb and shouting “Allahu Akbar”: I think we all know what that means. Trouble.

Update VII: HERE are some of the men and women killed by a coward.

As we all know, the military/the state affords the men and women who join the best of care. That’s why it unleashed Major Nidal on unsuspecting damaged soldiers. Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was supervising Nidal, who clearly needed supervision,” said [that] privacy laws prevented him from going into details but … that [there were] problems … with Hasan’s interactions with patients.”

Only the best.

Via Fox News, more on the abnegation of responsibility in dealing with this individual: “At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials.”

The military authorities were in no hurry to do their duty.

Nor is premeditation in question. ABC: “The gun thought to be used in the Fort Hood massacre packs so much firepower, it’s known as ‘the Cop Killer,’ federal law enforcement officials said.”

Update VIII: “An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack. Get Well Soon Major Nidal. We Love You.” So wrote “The Official Revolution Muslim Website.” Via WND.COM.

Update IX: Col. Jack Jacobs, now an MSNBC military analyst, said it is unlikely Major Nidal caused all the deaths. The Colonel mentioned that oxymoron “friendly fire.”

Updated: “A Sudden Exit Driven By An ‘Irrational’ War” (& Vain Talk)

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Terrorism, The Military, War

“Another of the contradictions of [the occupation of Afghanistan]: The Pashtun population we patronize happens to disdain the central government we hope to strengthen. So it goes: We help local groups we believe to be patriotic but, at the same time, end up establishing an authoritarian protectorate. Pakistan anyone?”

That’s Mercer in 2008.

“In Afghanistan, everything is much more localized. Allegiance is really to your family and then to your village or your valley. And that’s what they fight for. There has not been a tradition of central government there and I don’t believe central government is wanted. And actually, I believe they fight the central government just as much as they fight the foreign occupiers.”

That’s Matthew Hoh in 2009. Hoh is the latter-day Scott Ritter, and “the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war.” He gave an impressive interview to PBS. Here is the transcript:

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News.

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

And I’m Melissa Block.

Matthew Hoh is a man who has seen the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan up close. Now, he’s become the first U.S. official to publicly resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan. Hoh began his public service in the Marine Corps. Then as a Civilian Defense Department employee, he led reconstruction efforts in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. Later, as a captain in the Marines, he fought in Iraq’s Anbar province, where he was cited for uncommon bravery. And after his stints in Iraq, Hoh signed on as Foreign Service Officer in Afghanistan, working on development efforts in Zabul province, a hotbed of the Taliban.

Last month, Hoh resigned saying in his resignation letter that he had lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. And Matthew Hoh joins us to explain that decision. Welcome to the program.

Mr. MATTHEW HOH (Former Foreign Service Officer, State Department): Thank you, Melissa.

BLOCK: In your resignation letter to the State Department, you said: My resignation is based not upon how we’re pursuing this war, but why and to what end. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Mr. HOH: I’m not so much concerned about the how of the war. I’m not so much concerned about debating General McChrystal’s views or any of the views of the folks here in D.C., that think-tank crowd. I’m more concerned about why we’re in Afghanistan. Why are we losing soldiers and Marines in combat to people who are fighting us really only because we’re occupying them? Why are we supporting an Afghan government who, if we are successful in stabilizing it, that stabilization won’t defeat al-Qaida? And if Pakistan is our priority because of its nuclear weapons, then why do we have 60,000 troops in Afghanistan and why are we not fully supporting Pakistan? And so, those are the issues that I really feel need to be addressed and I really hope the American people understand what we’re doing there. To me, it does not make any sense in terms of – the losses of our soldiers do not merit anything that comes in line with our strategic interests or values.

BLOCK: This is quite a lengthy and, at times, emotional resignation letter that you sent to the State Department. One point you make is that we have understood the true nature of the Afghan insurgency. You used the word, valleyism. I want you to explain what you mean by that.

Mr. HOH: Sure. I think everyone is familiar with the term nationalism. We have seen that throughout our history in terms of from our own revolution, where we fought out of nationalist concerns to, you know, most recently the Vietnam War, where, I believe, we mistook what was Vietnamese nationalism for some type of communist threat. In Afghanistan, everything is much more localized. Allegiance is really to your family and then to your village or your valley. And that’s what they fight for. There has not been a tradition of central government there and I don’t believe central government is wanted. And actually, I believe they fight the central government just as much as they fight the foreign occupiers.

BLOCK: Can you compare what you saw in your time in Afghanistan, you were there for about five months, with what you saw in Iraq? You were there at the height of the Sunni insurgency. Why have you concluded the war in Afghanistan seems – is fundamentally un-winnable?

Mr. HOH: Yeah. I don’t want to go down that path about talking about whether or not it’s winnable or not. I prefer to keep talking about is it worth winning. Is it worth losing war more lives? And is it worth spending billions of dollars that, frankly, this country does not have? I don’t feel it’s un-winnable. I just don’t feel – it’s not worth winning. No one has been able to answer to me: Why are we there? And that’s what I’m looking for.

BLOCK: You were in Afghanistan for about five months. That’s not a huge of amount of time. Do you really think it’s enough time on the ground to fully understand the situation in all parts of the country?

Mr. HOH: Yes I do, because I was fortunate to have served time in two different parts of the country. I served time in the east where our forces are heavily engaged in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, as well as time in the south, where our forces are also heavily engaged. I had done quite a bit of studying. I have many friends and colleagues who had served in Afghanistan prior to me going there. And then most importantly, the position I had as a political advisor, my job was to work with local Afghans on a daily basis. And I did and I was able to get out and I was able to meet with local Afghans throughout the east and the south of the country. And they’re the ones who really codified my thoughts on this. And you realize that what they want is to be left alone.

BLOCK: The question then would be if they are left alone, as you say, if the Taliban were to take over in Afghanistan again, would the – would al-Qaida regroup there? I know, you have said that you don’t think they would. Secretary of State Clinton disagrees entirely. She has said if the Taliban take over Afghanistan – I can’t tell you how fast al-Qaida would be back in Afghanistan. Is she wrong?

Mr. HOH: I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe that after 2001, we disrupted al-Qaida and chased al-Qaida and Taliban out of Afghanistan, that al-Qaida evolved, and al-Qaida became, basically, an ideological cloud that exists on the Internet. I don’t believe al-Qaida will ever again tie itself to a geographical or political boundary. I believe they have evolved and that they get recruits worldwide. They’re not looking for a safe haven in Afghanistan. They don’t need that. They’ve already got safe havens in half a dozen other countries – Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.

And more to the point, if you look at the successful attacks al-Qaida has had, including 9/11, the majority – the vast majority of those attackers are not from the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Many of them are Western-European or from the Gulf. And so much of that training and planning for those attacks – whether it was 9/11, Madrid, London – took place in Western Europe or – you know, hey. I mean, as everyone knows in the 9/11 attacks, a lot of training happened here in the U.S.

BLOCK: You’re talking about the flight schools.

Mr. HOH: Correct, correct. So, I think what we’re doing is we have an approach where we haven’t evolved ourselves. We are still set up to do our foreign policy and our defense operations like we were in 1991. And we need to change. Al-Qaida changed. They evolved. They got smart about how they’re going to do their operations. We need to do the same. And more to the point, say we do continue to occupy Afghanistan and say, hey, we – say we even go farther. Say, we occupy Pakistan. Occupation only reinforces the message of al-Qaida. Occupation only causes people to want to fight the West and to join their ranks.

BLOCK: And your message is it is not just now that you feel this is the case, you feel this has always been the case in Afghanistan.

Mr. HOH: That’s correct. You know, of course, we had to go in there in 2001. We had to drive the Taliban from power. We had to do our best to destroy al-Qaida. But that was eight years ago, and things have changed. And we have just basically – because we have been unthinking in our approach, I think, because we’ve been unflexible in our approach, we just continue to march down this path. We’re – now, we have 60,000 troops, we’re looking to bolster it to 80 or 100,000. And we just keep going into more valleys and finding more enemies because we’re going into their valleys. But yes, I do believe that we’re now in a position where we have to really change – fundamentally change our approach to fighting al-Qaida.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh, you end your resignation with this thought: Families must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made. What message do you think that sends to families of the more than 800 troops who’ve already died in Afghanistan? Was it a lost cause? Did – were those deaths do you think in vain?

Mr. HOH: This is a very – that’s a very difficult question. And it’s a very emotional question. I just had a friend this week pass away in Afghanistan. It’s – it’s very hard to say that. It’s very difficult. It was very difficult for me to write that, but I don’t believe we should continue losing and sacrificing our young men and women for goals that meet no strategic purpose to the United States. And the idea that we should continue fighting there just because we have been fighting there for the last eight years, I think, is completely irrational.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh, thanks for talking with us today.

Mr. HOH: Thank you, Melissa.

BLOCK: Matthew Hoh resigned his post with the State Department in Afghanistan last month. You can read his resignation letter at our Web site, npr.org.

Update (Oct. 31): VAIN TALK. Waxing poetic about whether soldiers fighting a futile war to no end are dying “in vain”: that was some vain talk, “bolstered” by flawed “comparisons.”

Whether you’re saving your buddies or just dying by your lonesome in Afghanistan or Iraq—you are dying for nothing.

From “PAT TILLMAN AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH” (2004):

“That Tillman was the antitype to the Ugly American that has emerged from the Abu Ghraib jail does not mean that his death was not a horrible and futile waste. To believe otherwise, one has to buy lock, stock and barrel our government’s claim that American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are defending Americans on U.S. soil. This is at best a stretch; at worst, an obscenity.”
“To believe that Tillman and the 900-plus other soldier victims did not die in vain one must have internalized the abstractions our politicians have force-fed to a torpid public. No one’s ‘freedoms’ are more secure now that Pat Tillman is dead; good is no closer to obliterating bad, nor will it, certainly not by conquest and coercion. As for democracy, it is the tyranny of a slim majority that has brought us this far.”
Philosopher Adam Smith’s wisdom runs contrary to the neoconservative nonsense espoused by these Beltway lap dogs. Smith would have advised Tillman to act in enlightened self-interest, and reject the state’s definition of the common good, especially in the era of ideological wars. ‘By pursuing his own interest,’ wrote Smith in The Wealth of Nations, ‘[man] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.'”
“Had he been guided by Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand,’ Tillman would have truly benefited himself and many others, not least his wife. Instead of his ashes, she would still have his love, companionship and, quite possibly, his gorgeous offspring (Pat Tillman was a glorious specimen of a man). Tillman’s immense earning power, scorned by our collectivists, would truly have redounded to the public good. Instead of once-off work for the undertaker, Tillman would have generated jobs for years to come.”