First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War

[Cavguy]

From a friend, some history:

“It has long seemed to me that the hard decisions are not the ones you make in the heat of battle. Far harder to make are those involved in speaking your mind about some harebrained scheme which proposes to commit troops to action under conditions where failure seems almost certain, and the only results will be the needless sacrifice of priceless lives."


Matthew Ridgway, on the need for officers to be leaders who will go beyond physical courage and display moral courage.


"It is hard to get men to do this, for this is when you lay your career, perhaps your commission, on the line."


George Marshall, ibid.

also this:

I've been to Zabul and know the problems there pretty well, so I can understand why Hoh was frustrated.


As for what he did, I can certainly see why folks like him would get frustrated and want to resign in despair. However, Holbrooke was right, you can probably have more impact as an internal critic than an external one, especially given that he wasn't/isn't a big name who would get big time, extended attention from the media. He'll say his piece, have his 5 minutes, and likely disappear - so he probably should have stayed in the fight inside if he wanted to maximize impact.


On the issue of the State Department, I think that they should be actively recruiting people like Hoh (or like me for that matter, not that I'm eager to go back there) with experience in/on Afghanistan (and outside relevant expertise) - esp given the complexity of the problem set and the requirements of COIN. Unfortunately, they rotate in folks with inexperience and little desire to be in such a fight --- they want to be in Paris and Brussels doing "diplomacy", not Kabul or out in the country as one leg of the COIN stool!


[the error] --- it is not a failure to send folks like him there, it is a failure to send the same old people in State that in many cases do nothing useful in the rest of the world but have a claim to "experience"! Professionalized bureaucrats have their advantages but we should recognize their deficits as well, particularly for outside the box missions.

I don't understand the personal vindictive coming out here against Hoh. Perhaps the Wapo should or should not have featured him given his level. Rather than attacking the messenger and his motives because you disagree or have personal axes to grind against the media or junior officer "experts", a better use would attack his case. Just my opinion.

Niel

[Schmedlap]

I don't understand the personal vindictive coming out here against Hoh. Perhaps the Wapo should or should not have featured him given his level. Rather than attacking the messenger and his motives because you disagree or have personal axes to grind against the media or junior officer "experts", a better use would attack his case. Just my opinion.

I don't think many (or any) of us are vindictive. I think most are wondering why this particular individual's opinion matters so much more than most other peoples' views. The answer to that question seems to be that the WashPo was looking to make news rather than report it.

[OfTheTroops]

This Hoh case reminds me a great deal of the Watada case. Does anyone else see the parallel? Vastly different in detail but eerily similar as in "hey, I heard this story before."

[Steve the Planner]

Of the Troops:

Perhaps the most interesting counterpoint to the Watada Case is that fact that regardless of what Watada argued as the merits of his argument against serving in Iraq, the subsequent facts on the ground stood in contrast to his initial claims.

Certainly, there were some bad chapters in the book of Iraq, but, had he joined in the surge, he would have been a part of one of the better chapters, including laying the foundation for ultimate troop withdrawal.

Looks like the folks in the Army PR machine wanted to show the same thing in Zabul yesterday:

http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=news...w.php&id=40714

While I am not big on US school building projects unless they have teachers, financial support etc...,, that is because I saw to many built that never opened, in part because the condition, location or staffing (due to Iraqi buy-in) was inadequate, I know that schools in Afghanistan can have different outcomes.

So, this godforsaken biblical era place full of nothing but backward, radical anti Americanism somehow turned out a large crowd on October 22 to celebrate the opening of the girls' high school.

And the Zabul PRT seemed to be pretty proud of it, too. (And well-accepted by the locals).

Or was that just well-timed PR counter-battery fire?

Steve

[RKhan]

Hoh's opinions and analysis can be supported through argumentation and even though I don't agree with him on his ultimate conclusion, he is not a loon. He is more than right in making his opinion known. Perhaps he may even be right.

However, in order to get an audience he has decided to essentially distort the reality of his level of experience and the heft of his duty position. Since this is how he has decided to conjure up credibility to get attention, he has to expect to receive some fire for it.

Hoh made his position rather than his opinions the issue as did Wapo. If you look at his discussion the other day on the Wapo site he contiues to do this without the filter of a reporter.

[jcustis]

Hmmm...gotta agree...so what?

[Greyhawk]

Apologies for excerpt length - State Dept presser:

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 27, 2009

QUESTION: Can I just – now pick up the question about – the resignation of Matthew Hoh, who was working for the State Department in Afghanistan and has made public a somewhat depressing three-page letter about the reasons for his resignation, and he talks about his loss of understanding and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States presence there.

Is this – how does the State Department view this? Is this an embarrassment of sorts, the fact that it’s become so public? It’s on the front page of the Post today.

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, we admire Mr. Hoh. We respect the sacrifice that he’s made for his country, both in Iraq and signing up to join our effort in Afghanistan. We take his opinions very seriously. Senior officials on the ground in Afghanistan and here in Washington have talked to him, have heard him out. We respect his right to dissent. This is an old and respected tradition in the Foreign Service, that Foreign Service personnel have the right to express their dissent.

Just to give you a little more background on his affiliation with the State Department, he signed on for a limited appointment. It is a non-career appointment. He signed on March 29th of this year and his employment lasted up until September 28. He submitted his letter of resignation a few weeks before that. He was signed on as a political officer in a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan in Zabul. And his role as a PRT political officer was to monitor and report on political and economic developments in his province.

As I say, we take his point of view very seriously. But we continue to believe that we are on track to achieving the goal that the President has set before us, and that’s – you heard Deputy Secretary Lew lay out some of those objectives: improving Afghan governance; providing security, infrastructure, jobs, basically giving the Afghan people an alternative to the very negative vision of the Taliban and al-Qaida. And this is the strategy, and as I say, we believe we're on track reaching the goals...

QUESTION: Then I’m not – I’m unclear as to how he actually fits into the Foreign Service.

MR. KELLY: It’s – there is a provision of the Foreign Service Act that gives the Secretary the right to designate certain positions as limited with a time certain end date in order to fill positions that have not been filled through the normal Foreign Service process. And so this was one of them. We have, I think a total in the world, about 16 of these type appointments. It’s not – it’s fairly rare...

QUESTION: So this is under Foreign Service, but he is not considered --

MR. KELLY: This is under Foreign Service.

QUESTION: -- a Foreign Service officer, he’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer?

MR. KELLY: He’s not commissioned as a Foreign Service officer, yeah...

QUESTION: Pardon me, last question about how we bill this story. It – I mean, it’s – is it – it’s not really comparable to, say, the career diplomats who left the service over Bosnia or, you know, other big disagreements.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, I actually – I have a few friends who --

QUESTION: Or is it?

MR. KELLY: -- who resigned over Bosnia and Iraq. And these were people who had career appointments, who had a number of years into the Foreign Service, a real investment in the Foreign Service. And because they could not accept the policy, they made a principled decision to resign.

I mean, I would draw – I mean, without minimizing the obvious passion and depth of feeling of Mr. Hoh in terms of his perception of the mission in Afghanistan, I would draw a distinction between his situation and somebody who had been in the Foreign Service and had a stake in the Foreign Service for 20 years or more.

QUESTION: So to your knowledge, there haven’t been any career Foreign Service officers who have resigned over Afghanistan?

MR. KELLY: To my knowledge, nobody has resigned over Afghanistan. No career officers, yeah.

CNN:

Foreign Service Officer Matthew Hoh, a 36-year-old former Marine Corps captain, submitted his resignation letter on September 10...

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the administration respected Hoh's decision.

"We take his opinions very seriously," Kelly said. "Senior officials on the ground in Afghanistan and here in Washington have talked to him, have heard him out. We respect ... his right to dissent."

Hoh's resignation from a special one-year appointment appears, at least so far, to be an anomaly. No career Foreign Service officers have resigned from the State Department over Afghanistan policy, according to Kelly.

AFP:

Describing Hoh as the State Department's "eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul," spokesman Ian Kelly said the department respected his departure.

"We take his opinions very seriously. Senior officials on the ground, in Afghanistan and here in Washington, have talked to him, have heard him out. We respect his right to dissent," said Kelly.

"In the end, he made his own decision that he decided to resign, and we respect that," Kelly said, adding that he agreed with some of Hoh's arguments, but not his conclusions.

PBS

Meanwhile, a former U.S. Marine captain, Matthew Hoh, became the first U.S. official to resign in protest over the war. The Washington Post reported he quit his diplomatic post last month, saying the fighting only fueled the insurgency.

Today, a State Department spokesman had this to say.

IAN KELLY: Senior officials on the ground in Afghanistan and -- and here in -- in Washington have -- have talked to him, have -- have heard him out. We respect his -- his right to dissent. This is an old and respected tradition in the Foreign Service, that Foreign Service personnel have the -- have the right to express their -- their dissent.

And back to State:

QUESTION: Well, on the same topic, publicly, some of the reports stated that Ambassador Holbrooke had actually agreed with some of Hoh’s analysis – not his conclusion, but some of his analysis. I wanted your reaction on what it is that Ambassador Holbrooke agreed with him on.

MR. KELLY: I’m not – just to be very frank, I’m not sure exactly what Ambassador Holbrooke – what specifically in the letter he agreed with. I’ve read the letter.

QUESTION: The date?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: The date?

MR. KELLY: The date? I’m not sure I understand.

QUESTION: It’s a joke. Don’t worry.