Category Archives: The Military

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.”

Update II: Taleban Storm Nato Outpost

Foreign Policy, Terrorism, The Military, War

One of the most ruthless generals of the French Wars of Religion was Blaise de Monluc. Unlike our military’s modern-day cheerleaders, he had no illusions about the saintliness of his warriors and their commanders. “Acknowledging the atrocities of soldiers, he declared that princes carried a heavier load of sin, for ‘there is no evil in war of which they are not the cause.'” (TLS, September 25, 2009)

Yet dare to even entertain the idea that the American military is not always a force for good, and that the princely Stanley McChrystal, commander of the 100,000-strong US and Nato force in Afghanistan, is not omniscient and should never be made omnipotent with respect to the Afghanistan war—and you are unpatriotic.

Left and Right: this is the prevailing wisdom.

By now you’ve heard that, by Times’ telling, “300 insurgents swarmed out of a village and mosque and attacked a pair of isolated American outposts in a remote mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan with machineguns, rockets and grenades.

They first stormed the Afghan police post at the foot of the hill in the province of Nuristan, a Taleban and al-Qaeda stronghold on the lawless Pakistan border. They then swept up to the Nato post. The battle lasted all day. American and Afghan soldiers finally repelled them, with the help of US helicopters and warplanes — but at heavy cost.”

What does the fact that “Eight American soldiers and two Afghan policemen were killed,” and that the Taleban “captured 35 policemen whose fate would be decided by the movement’s provincial council” tell you?

Americans are fighting to the death for a futile fantasy; while the Pashtun police men wink and nod at their Taleban brethren, not quite able to decide whether the latter are friends or foes.

To wit: One battalion “lost two soldiers, with three wounded, late on Friday when an Afghan policeman opened fire on his American colleagues during a joint operation to clear the Taleban from villages around the Nerkh valley.

US and Afghan investigators are trying to determine whether the policeman was a covert member of the Taleban or made a mistake. Either way, the attack fuelled the distrust that many Nato soldiers feel towards the Afghan security forces they are training as part of the coalition’s eventual exit strategy.

‘You don’t trust anybody, especially after an incident like this,’ said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose close friend died in the attack.”

Save your breath; Most Afghans have more affinity for the Taliban than for the democracy wielding Wilsonians.

Update I (Oct. 5): The Neocons-cum-Republicans, who have no principles other than to line up behind their man and against Obama, are cheering Gen McChrystal’s London sojourn to lobby for more troops. What’s next on the army commander’s media blitz? An appearance alongside McKenzie Philips on Larry King? Is there any aspect of American life that is not conducted in public or on camera?

It’s got to be obvious that the general knows nothing about the chain of command. He lacks discipline or a code of conduct. McChrystal’s a lobbyist in fatigues, guarding his fiefdom.

More importantly, Gen. David Petraeus conducted himself similarly. Although he didn’t lobby abroad for his cause, he assumed a decidedly political role. However, at the time, Republicans and their boy, Bush, were on board with Petraeus’ push for more war.

Update II: Diana West excerpts extensively from “From New Deal to New Frontier in Afghanistan: Modernization in a Buffer State.” This is worth a read, as are most of Diana’s posts.

With respect to the Helmand-Valley project in Afghanistan, Diana has mined Prof. Cullather for the Money quote:

Nation-building did not fail in Afghanistan for want of money, time, or imagination. In the Helmand Valley, the engines and dreams of modernization had run their full course, spooling out across the desert until they hit limits of physics, culture, and history.

More good material via Myron, written by Jim Sauer, “a retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service. Since retiring he has worked in support of U.S. Government efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel”:

The hard fact is that the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan “people” are not for sale! The descendants of “The Great Khan” and their tribal cousins have no interest in being Westernized in any way. And, the human sewers that serve as their political leadership can only be rented. Americans are interlopers in a land where interlopers generally have their heads lopped off.

Magnificent Marine To Lead The Revolution?

Constitution, libertarianism, Liberty, Politics, Propaganda, Socialism, The Military

“Unlike YOU,” David William Hedrick tells U.S. Congressman Brian Baird, “I did swear an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The disabled, fire-breathing marine veteran has a couple more succinct messages for the self-important, tyrannical representative: “Stay away from my kids.” “It is not your right to decide whether I keep or forfeit my current health plan; that’s my decision.” CAN IT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS? As for protesters being branded “Brown Shirts” by the media, Hedrick offers a none-too subtle corrective: “The Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They were leftist; they took over finance, health care and the car industry. If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika, the first place she should look is on the sleeve of her own arm.” And the coup de grâce: “I kept my oath, do you ever intend to keep yours?”

Updated: Memorial Day Message (On Just War & Against Pacifism)

Foreign Policy, Free Will Vs. Determinism, Just War, Propaganda, The Military, War

Since the Messiah was anointed (1/20/09), 72 soldiers have died in Iraq. He campaigned on bringing them home.
Glenn Beck asked every American encountering a uniformed man or woman to thank them in person for their sacrifice. No! Enough of this meaningless jabbering. I thank all the Ramos’s and Compeans of this great nation, who stand on this country’s soil and defend their countrymen from the worst of mankind.

To those who fight phantoms in far-flung destinations; I’m sorry. I’m sorry you’ve been snookered into living and dying for a lie. But I will not honor a lie, or those who give their lives for it. I cry for them, as I have from day one, but I can’t honor them.

To those who enlisted thinking they’d fight for their country and were subjected to one backdoor draft after another in the cause of illegal, unjust wars—I am sorry. My heart hurts for you, but I will not worship Moloch.

I honor those sad, sad draftees to Vietnam and to WW II. The first valiant batch had no option; the same goes for the last, which fought a just war.

“What I learned growing up in a war-torn region is that a brave nation fights only because it must; a cowardly nation fights because it can.”

LET THE SUNSHINE IN. This wonderfully executed tract of a lost soul shipping-out says it all for me (watch this classic antiwar film again, if you can):

Update (May 27): AGAINST PACIFISM. Pacifism is evil. Myron, whose delicious postings on BAB we relish—and who deserves a fan-base—has fallen into that error. There are most certainly just wars, just as surely as there is evil in the human heart. Myron, quit hanging around anarchists in cyberspace, or else you will, as the hard-left has and does, continue to reduce human evil to the state’s doing, thus relinquishing the philosophical cornerstone of civilization: free will and human agency. Here on BAB I argue from the vantage point of those tenets. Anarchism, invariably and by default, argues from the stance of social determinism. Or, in simple terms: the State made me do it.