First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War

[pjmunson]

Long day, long week, probably should not enter the fray but can't help myself. I find some of the comments in this thread to be distasteful at best. I question just how much more of a leg to stand on a (fill in the blank, if the shoe fits, wear it) has than anyone else when putting forward an impassioned assessment of what you see as the strategic reality and what you feel as your moral obligation to point out and to opt out of. People love to throw the complexities of Afghanistan out as a card to discount pretty much anything they don't agree to, and that is getting old. Also, just because this guy is a non-tenured FSO, isn't 50+, may look like people you used to boss around, isn't a "civilian planning expert," etc., doesn't mean that he does not have the intelligence, experience, and insight to point out what he sees as broad strategic inconsistencies. While his letter does touch on some specifics of Afghanistan, it is an operational/strategic level assessment, not a tactical one. Therefore, many of the arguments put forth here to impeach his credentials show that the authors of the comments are actually less qualified to comment on the strategic issues than the author of the very well worded and well thought out letter. If you object to his analysis, rebut his analysis. He may have only been on the ground there for X months, but he, like many others, has been living this dream for nearly a decade. He's had a lot of time to think about it and a lot of ugly examples to contemplate. Again, he's not talking about the specifics of Zabul Province really. He's talking operational to strategic level "what are we doing"? There is a lot of room for disagreement with him, but few of the comments here demonstrate an understanding of what he's saying, much less an effort to counter that at the same level.

Finally, why not take the opportunity to stay on the inside and fix things? A cynic would see the offer to take up a high level position as an attempt to co opt you and your views. Even if he didn't take the offer to be such an attempt, if you don't fundamentally believe in the strategy and policy anymore, then why would you continue to serve it at any level?

In sum, I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with him, but I think that, if he truly believes what he wrote, then he is right to have written it and right to have resigned. If he was surrounded by people who were going to cry "PTSD," inexperience, "not tenured," etc. when he voiced his views as opposed to reasoned argument, then I can see why he would not want to stick around, even had he agreed with the grand strategy.

[Ken White]

Aside from the inappropriate and uncalled for branch off into the PTSD issue, no one really knocked him. One guy did say he disagreed with him and another, a FSO with a year in country, did comment that Hoh would not have time to gather a tremendous amount of knowledge of the country. That's an opinion and not a knock. You can say 'the complexities of Afghanistan' are getting old but they are there, they're not going away because some don't think they are...

Several of us asked why that letter is surfacing at this time -- that is not a reflection on Mr. Hoh at all but rather on the Washington Post and politics inside the beltway.

You said you aren't going to say whether you agree or disagree with him. I'm not bashful; I agree with his thrust but not with some facets of his rationale. That, practically speaking, means I agree with his position.

However, I'm still concerned with Winken's location...

[Pol-Mil FSO]

To make a military analogy about the State Department reaction: suppose Mr. Hoh was a Company Commander in the 2nd MEB in Helmand and decided that the war sucked and notified his chain of command that he was going to resign. He then gets called up to Kabul for a meeting with GEN McChrystal, who offers him a promotion to Colonel and a job on the ISAF HQ staff. When that doesn't work, he gets flown to Tampa for a meeting with GEN Petraeus and an offer of a position (again as a Colonel or maybe even BG) on the CENTCOM staff. Wouldn't that generate a WTF reaction or at least raise eyebrows?

I do not believe that Steve the Planner was out of line in mentioning the PTSD issue. Mr. Hoh raised it himself in the WaPo article and stated that he suffered from it due to his experience in Iraq (mentioning that his initial reaction was to "drink myself blind").

Finally, I have to go back to my point in a previous post that Afghanistan is an extremely complicated issue that defies easy understanding or comprehension. Maybe it's a generational issue, but my gut reaction is that Mr. Hoh is naive and/or egotistical for having the moral certainty to not only resign but also publicly speak out against USG policy in Afghanistan. (In the WaPo article he states that "I want people in Iowa, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, Listen, I don't think this is right.") I can accept resignation for disagreement with policy, but taking a public position against policy when he hasn't been around long enough to understand all of the nuances is something that I feel to be close to a betrayal of his oath as a commissioned officer in the Foreign Service. But then again, to offer a criticism of Mr. Hoh - and I'd argue that he is now fair game for criticism since he has entered the political arena - it doesn't look to me like he was a Foreign Service Officer long enough to understand the ethos of the Foreign Service nor the messy and ambiguous realities of foreign policy formulation and execution.

[Tom Odom]

To make a military analogy about the State Department reaction: suppose Mr. Hoh was a Company Commander in the 2nd MEB in Helmand and decided that the war sucked and notified his chain of command that he was going to resign. He then gets called up to Kabul for a meeting with GEN McChrystal, who offers him a promotion to Colonel and a job on the ISAF HQ staff. When that doesn't work, he gets flown to Tampa for a meeting with GEN Petraeus and an offer of a position (again as a Colonel or maybe even BG) on the CENTCOM staff. Wouldn't that generate a WTF reaction or at least raise eyebrows?

I do not believe that Steve the Planner was out of line in mentioning the PTSD issue. Mr. Hoh raised it himself in the WaPo article and stated that he suffered from it due to his experience in Iraq (mentioning that his initial reaction was to "drink myself blind").

Finally, I have to go back to my point in a previous post that Afghanistan is an extremely complicated issue that defies easy understanding or comprehension. Maybe it's a generational issue, but my gut reaction is that Mr. Hoh is naive and/or egotistical for having the moral certainty to not only resign but also publicly speak out against USG policy in Afghanistan. (In the WaPo article he states that "I want people in Iowa, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, Listen, I don't think this is right.") I can accept resignation for disagreement with policy, but taking a public position against policy when he hasn't been around long enough to understand all of the nuances is something that I feel to be close to a betrayal of his oath as a commissioned officer in the Foreign Service. But then again, to offer a criticism of Mr. Hoh - and I'd argue that he is now fair game for criticism since he has entered the political arena - it doesn't look to me like he was a Foreign Service Officer long enough to understand the ethos of the Foreign Service nor the messy and ambiguous realities of foreign policy formulation and execution.

Well said,

Tom

[Steve the Planner]

PolMil:

I do not believe that Steve the Planner was out of line in mentioning the PTSD issue. Mr. Hoh raised it himself in the WaPo article and stated that he suffered from it due to his experience in Iraq (mentioning that his initial reaction was to "drink myself blind").

Actually, as the story emerges, I'm amending my speculation.

First, there are a few online sources, including his online resume:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-hoh/4/920/712

and a few articles which suggest that, while a riveting piece of journalism, it does not tell the whole story of who he is or what his role was:

http://washingtonindependent.com/653...ervice-officer

Ranging from "Senior US civilian" to Iraq Hero to mid-level temporary appointee, with four months on the ground in Zabul

Andrew Exum explains that Zabul is one of those uniquely God forsaken places (where "rural" is too urban a term) from which the ability to apply it's Biblical-age lessons to broad strategic assessments of Afghanistan is limited. He suggests that Hoh was beaten down by the experience.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...too-urban.html

One Examiner story I read suggested instead, after citing interviews with some of his Marine colleagues, suggested that he was, in fact, a political aspirant, but that the letter looked to be soemthing written by someone else for him.

From all that, I can only conclude that there is much more going on than meets the eye with this fellow and his message. We will probably learn more once he sells the rights... or as most suggest, declares for office.

As for the contents of the message, I, too, scratch my head as to how much broad strategy I could surmise about any country based on a small view of an anomalous area during a four month window.

More important to me is that his message, even if correct, was grandstanded in a way calculated to drive national political debate---this from a serving federal appointee. Had he resigned first, or waited til it expired last month, then made a statement, it probably would have been a non-event.

These kinds of grandstanded, out-of-school press events disregard the emotions and fears of relatives of serving members in a way that I personally find disrespectful. Better for the President to review these types of positions, as we all know he is, and make his determination and statement.

If Hoh was a "former" appointee, he was free to make any observation he wanted. But that was not the case.

[Cavguy]

PolMil:

"I do not believe that Steve the Planner was out of line in mentioning the PTSD issue. Mr. Hoh raised it himself in the WaPo article and stated that he suffered from it due to his experience in Iraq (mentioning that his initial reaction was to "drink myself blind")."

Actually, as the story emerges, I'm amending my speculation.

First, there are a few online sources, including his online resume:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthew-hoh/4/920/712

and a few articles which suggest that, while a riveting piece of journalism, it does not tell the whole story of who he is or what his role was:

http://washingtonindependent.com/653...ervice-officer

Ranging from "Senior US civilian" to Iraq Hero to mid-level temporary appointee, with four months on the ground in Zabul

Andrew Exum explains that Zabul is one of those uniquely God forsaken places (where "rural" is too urban a term) from which the ability to apply it's Biblical-age lessons to broad strategic assessments of Afghanistan is limited. He suggests that Hoh was beaten down by the experience.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...too-urban.html

One Examiner story I read suggested instead, after citing interviews with some of his Marine colleagues, suggested that he was, in fact, a political aspirant, but that the letter looked to be soemthing written by someone else for him.

From all that, I can only conclude that there is much more going on than meets the eye with this fellow and his message. We will probably learn more once he sells the rights... or as most suggest, declares for office.

As for the contents of the message, I, too, scratch my head as to how much broad strategy I could surmise about any country based on a small view of an anomalous area during a four month window.

More important to me is that his message, even if correct, was grandstanded in a way calculated to drive national political debate---this from a serving federal appointee. Had he resigned first, or waited til it expired last month, then made a statement, it probably would have been a non-event.

These kinds of grandstanded, out-of-school press events disregard the emotions and fears of relatives of serving members in a way that I personally find disrespectful. Better for the President to review these types of positions, as we all know he is, and make his determination and statement.

If Hoh was a "former" appointee, he was free to make any observation he wanted. But that was not the case.

1) Hoh did not leak the memo.

2) Memo was dated Sept 10, 2009

3) My understanding is he already left his job a few weeks ago, therefore is not a fed employee.

[Steve the Planner]

Cavguy:

1) Hoh did not leak the memo.

2) Memo was dated Sept 10, 2009

3) My understanding is he already left his job a few weeks ago, therefore is not a fed employee.

Good points. Learning more as it goes along.

Still trying to figure out from press reports whether he contacted them or they contacted him. (Small point?)

Steve

[Schmedlap]

1) Hoh did not leak the memo.

Who leaked it?

Added:
Just saw this in the comment section at Kings of War: a commenter under the name of Joshua Foust (whom I suspect is the real one), wrote:

You know, he’s not actually an FSO or even really a U.S. official, but a one-year contract employee. Just to be clear; not a single career FSO has resigned over Afghanistan, despite there being many hundreds there.

[Bob's World]

This guy appears to have performed his duty with honor.

When he couldn't square what he was being told to do with his own personal assessment and values, he risigned when he found his personal and professional honor in conflict. Sadly Afghanistan is a political hot button right now, mostly for reasons that have little to do with either Afghanistan, GWOT, or the larger security concerns of the US, so such statements will be used as fodder in that game of political power between the Dems and Reps.

I see no news here. Hopefully those working on policy for this don't just dismiss this guy for disagreeing, and take a moment to step back and conisder if there are other options than approaches currently on the table for debate. They probably won't though.

Worth remembering is that American interests and security concerns are global and multi-facted, and to keep Afghanistan as whole, as well as the US role there in the proper perspective.

[desrtrat6]

I could understand the State Department leadership and the media making a big deal over his resignation if he was an SES or political appointee or if he had an extensive background in Afghanistan and counter-insurgency; however, none of that was the case. He was simply a foreign service officer that decided to quit when the going got tough.

-Tom

[Schmedlap]

From Greyhawk's post, above...

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 couldn't gut it out for 18 more days?

There is so much about this case that just reeks of someone trying to make a news story, rather than report one. Everyday, we learn another detail that begs the question: why does this guy's opinion merit billing in the WashPo? I suspect that anyone with similar experience and credentials would be lucky to have their 300-word letter to the editor published.

[Steve the Planner]

Schmedlap:

Had a discourse with Karen DeYoung, the WP Editor who brought the Hoh story forward. Along the lines that she had heard these positions so many times from people in the field, but couldn't find a venue to float them into a story.

His story and letter provided that venue. She wasn't interested in him, but getting the positions out there.

I'm pretty satisfied with her position.

Steve

PS- Got Halloween call from a friend in Afghanistan. He has endured much worse for much longer, including our prior tour together. Four months in, he is just starting to feel productive after a lot of bumpy experiences. Trying to talk me into joining him, but I still promised my wife/daughter I would be home for a spell. Something about the intestinal fortitude to stand by your commitments once you make them?

[Bill Moore]

What I found interesting is that Hoh came across as very thoughtful, bright, and deeply concerned about our policies. The conversation reminded me of many of the discussions on SWJ.

I'm deeply disappointed at the amount of shoot the messenger posts that have absolutely no substance. Far below the norm for SWJ.

I heard one of Hoh's interviews also, and he was very thoughtful, whether you agree with his assertions or not. He asked some hard questions that he hoped would be discussed. Instead, at least in this forum we sound like some overly opinionated media person who is incapable of seriously addressing the facts, but perfectly capable of slander.

Someone many of us respect named McMasters wrote a book titled the "Dereliction of Duty" that highlighted the failure of officers to take a moral stand. It is easy to see how our culture encourages this.

Hoh's observations are very much in synch with another respected author named Kilkullen.

For Steve the Planner, if the plan is flawed, is it still wrong to question it? You are too quick to slay this kid, and didn't address any of his points. Agree or disagree he had the right to offer his resignation. I too would like to know who surfaced the letter publically, and I'm sure the list of suspects is a long one, but that really isn't the point now, the issue is public, time to discuss the points he surfaced.

[Schmedlap]

Bill,

I think you're misinterpreting the push back to this story. It's not about the messenger or the message. It's about the media making news rather than reporting it.

You say that the issue is public and thus it is time to discuss. No. The issue was public before this. What new issue did Hoh raise that hasn't been discussed on this site alone, let alone elsewhere, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here? This story was a stunt to thrust specific arguments to a position of greater prominence than the arguments could achieve on their own merits. It was not an effort to inform the debate. Words in this story were chosen carefully for rhetorical effect.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not playing the game. It's BS. The media is trying to shape the debate rather than inform it. They're trying to dictate the issues rather than report them. I know, it's standard fare and it's how the system works. But when it is blatantly obvious, I see no reason to play along and pretend everything is kosher.

[Steve the Planner]

Bill:

Personally, I believe the plans I've seen playing out to date are very flawed, but I don't agree with his position or his actions.

Do I believe we are going home anytime soon? No.

Do I believe that even if we left, we will be back? Yes.

Do I believe that there are valid objectives to accomplish there? Yes.

Having said that, a plan (or plans) for Afghanistan must be drawn around the realities and possibilities of Afghanistan, and not all the US delusions to date.

Those realities and possibilities are not what is on the ground today, perhaps, and it sure looks like a lot has been screwed up aka our regular practice of trying everything else first.

As far as Hoh is concerned, he looks like he picked up things from around, and had no significant depth of experience or background to move to the next question. If everything we are doing now is going nowhere (or worse), what is it that should be done given that we are going to be going back again and again until something remotely stable (or minimally benign) is achieved?

Why else is the PRT in Zabul opening a girls high school with strong community showing? Granted Zabul is tough, but that picture is not at all consistent with his report. Are other alternatives possible?

Remember that it is the peace that was flubbed, not the war-fighting part (until after the peace part failed). So, how many different ways are there to start a viable post-conflict process.

Genuine Afghans, and people like Rory Stewart and his associates, have some pretty substantial ideas, as one example. They just don't happen to involve pouring large volumes of troops and billions of dollars of unfocused aid. Is that a problem?

Tom Ricks and David Ignatius have proposed the two phased strategy of securing the cities while aggressively striking in Taliban controlled areas. I'd have to leave the viability of that to military planners.

A political expert ought to know that, even if he can't proceed under the current marching orders, there are still ways to identify and pursue alternative objectives. At that point, it is time to get to work, not to quit.

Just my opinion.

Steve

[Tom Odom]

I'm deeply disappointed at the amount of shoot the messenger posts that have absolutely no substance. Far below the norm for SWJ.

I heard one of Hoh's interviews also, and he was very thoughtful, whether you agree with his assertions or not. He asked some hard questions that he hoped would be discussed. Instead, at least in this forum we sound like some overly opinionated media person who is incapable of seriously addressing the facts, but perfectly capable of slander.

Someone many of us respect named McMasters wrote a book titled the "Dereliction of Duty" that highlighted the failure of officers to take a moral stand. It is easy to see how our culture encourages this.

Hoh's observations are very much in synch with another respected author named Kilkullen.

For Steve the Planner, if the plan is flawed, is it still wrong to question it? You are too quick to slay this kid, and didn't address any of his points. Agree or disagree he had the right to offer his resignation. I too would like to know who surfaced the letter publically, and I'm sure the list of suspects is a long one, but that really isn't the point now, the issue is public, time to discuss the points he surfaced.

Bill

First of all "yellow blogging" is a group indictment, one little better than those you seek to admonish. My opinion differs from yours; we can agree to disagree.

My issue is with Mr. Hoh and his actions, not his opinions, as indicated in his letter, not the Washington Post or any other news media outlet.

I pushed back on Mr. Hoh because he signed for a year and quit after 4 months. I see too much of that.

I read his letter and his points may or may not be valid. They are, even as he wrapped himself in the flag to make them, irrelevant because he quit during his tour when he should have gutted it out.

Regards

Tom

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Steve the Planner,

Remember that it is the peace that was flubbed, not the war-fighting part (until after the peace part failed). So, how many different ways are there to start a viable post-conflict process.

Please elaborate on this comment. I'm not sure I'm following your line of logic on this.

Tom,

I'm not so sure we disagree on your points, my disappointment is that no one addressed his points except RYNO, and he basically dismissed them without explaination. Is the issue Hoh quitting or his resignation letter? As you said, many folks are quitting, and some are only quitting because its hard, not because they disagree. Either way not a behavioral trait to encourage.

I think you're misinterpreting the push back to this story. It's not about the messenger or the message. It's about the media making news rather than reporting it.

I don't know if it has always been this way, but it has definitely been this way since the advent of 24/7 news. It's a business that has long lost its professional ethics. Giving the power of information, professional reporters should be licensed and their license should be revoked if they violate an agreed upon code of ethics. That's just an opinion, and of course it will never make it past the SWJ Council.