First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War

[Schmedlap]

JKM,

I wasn't even concerned about whether he was or was not an FSO (Foreign Service Officer... if he was a Fire Support Officer then I might have given him some credit).

My concern about the whole fiasco was this: even if he was a 10-year veteran of the Foreign Service, who cares? There are thousands of people in Afghanistan who have equally insightful views - or more insightful views - than this guy does. This is a PR stunt, plain and simple.

On the other hand, I take great pleasure in one aspect of this. This might turn into something very bitter sweet...

The Washington Post's Dan Rather Moment

Oh, how I hate the media. How sweet it would be.

[wm]

I suspect that this letter was leaked to the media because Hoh's "biography" is convenient. Someone apparently thought that his background would make this opinion more important than opinions of other people whose opinions might have been formed with far more information and understanding of the situation.

To paraphrase Alex Karas' character Mongo in "Blazing Saddles" :

"Hoh just pawn . . . in game of life."

[RKhan]

This story just doesn't ring true. First of all, is this guy really a Foreign Service Officer? As I understand it, it takes months to get into the Foreign Service and then you have a year or more of training. This guy got wind of the job last autumn and was in the field within six months or less. I suspect he was a temporary civil service guy--essentially a personal services contractor. If that is the case, I have to wonder if this report properly characterized the reactions of the senior folks mentioned in this article. It is no surprise they’d be informed about the resignation of a DOS rep on a PRT, but would they really take such a strong personal interest in a temp guy who is really working a very junior position? Would McChrystal really send a DOS body to check on Korengal? It all seems a bit odd.

Given this guy's likely status, why did this rate above the fold coverage in the Washington Post? I don't have access to the facts, but my impression is that this is an overblown story that is the product of some questionable journalism and uninformed editors.


Lastly, the guy is likely "honorable" and all that, but I am not the least bit over awed by his bio. There are hundreds if not thousands of us who could match or better his background. I have three long tours in Afghanistan and I spent one of those tours in Zabul. I know the governor mentioned in the srticle. This guy had a couple months up around J-bad and a couple more in Zabul and he is being presented as an expert on Afghanistan. I wish WaPo would approach me for my opinion.

[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.

[MikeF]

Matthew Hoh was a guest on Fareed Zakaria's 360 today. They haven't posted the entire interview yet, but here is a short clip.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...n.strategy.cnn

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 guess someone should have introduced him to this site earlier on.

v/r

Mike

[Greyhawk]

One more

Washington, D.C.: Don't you think it's ridiculous that you are getting so much attention for quitting your job, yet, those who fight and die for us on a daily basis get little to no coverage in the media?

Matthew Hoh: I agree with your last part. I do believe coverage of those are the ground is severely lack both in quantity and quality. I am happy for the attention to my issues and to the points I am raising, because I believe they have been absent in the public debate of the war. On a personal note, I am ready for my 15 minutes to be up.

[Schmedlap]

From the same interview...

Washington, D.C.: Do you think there's anything those of us in the F.S. could do to further push the administration towards your understanding of the war?
Matthew Hoh: Continue to write and report honestly and candidly. Speak truth to power at every opportunity.

[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