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