The Afghanistan war can break the U.S. economy. We don't have
the resources to fight in Afghanistan for years--decades.
The article, below, is excellent. You can read the letter at this
link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/41154.html
U.S. official resigns over war in Afghanistan
Foreign Service officer: GIs dying for what is essentially a foreign civil war
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z276/fayeforcure/MathewHoh.jpg)
Gerald Martineau / The Washington Post
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," Matthew Hoh wrote in a resignation letter.
By Karen DeYoung
updated 7:49 a.m. CT, Tues., Oct . 27, 2009
When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.
A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.
But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."
The reaction to Hoh's letter was immediate. Senior U.S. officials, concerned that they would lose an outstanding officer and perhaps gain a prominent critic, appealed to him to stay.
U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff. Hoh declined. From there, he was flown home for a face-to-face meeting with Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
'Wasn't worth the fight'
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview. "We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him."
While he did not share Hoh's view that the war "wasn't worth the fight," Holbrooke said, "I agreed with much of his analysis." He asked Hoh to join his team in Washington, saying that "if he really wanted to affect policy and help reduce the cost of the war on lives and treasure," why not be "inside the building, rather than outside, where you can get a lot of attention but you won't have the same political impact?"
Hoh accepted the argument and the job, but changed his mind a week later. "I recognize the career implications, but it wasn't the right thing to do," he said in an interview Friday, two days after his resignation became final.
Click for related content
Vote: Is our presence fueling the insurgency?
"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the "second-best job I've ever had," his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve.
"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."
But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there â€" a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.
As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right.'"
"I realize what I'm getting into . . . what people are going to say about me," he said. "I never thought I would be doing this."
'Uncommon bravery'
Hoh's journey â€" from Marine, reconstruction expert and diplomat to war protester â€" was not an easy one. Over the weeks he spent thinking about and drafting his resignation letter, he said, "I felt physically nauseous at times."
His first ambition in life was to become a firefighter, like his father. Instead, after graduation from Tufts University and a desk job at a publishing firm, he joined the Marines in 1998. After five years in Japan and at the Pentagon â€" and at a point early in the Iraq war when it appeared to many in the military that the conflict was all but over â€" he left the Marines to join the private sector, only to be recruited as a Defense Department civilian in Iraq. A trained combat engineer, he was sent to manage reconstruction efforts in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit.
Letter is good, But Lew Rockwell? You do know who that nut case is right? Its almost as bad as Lyndon Larouche, but not quite.
This basically is a civil war with our feet in it.
Does anyone know how many Afghans or Talabanis attacked us on 9/11?
Cricket, easy answer is zero, but like a lot of easy answers it depends. First, there are very few people who live in the area who self-identify as Afghans; mostly city folk and educated. Most identify by tribe or language group; Pashtuns, Kurds,etc. Second, the Taliban, mostly Pashtun, Islamic fundamentalists backed by Pakistan, took over the region and provided a safe haven, support, and funding to Osama ben Laden who DID plan the attack on the US. The Taliban then refused to arrest him and turn him over.
I think we were right to then run the Taliban out of power and destroy this nest of terrorists. Whether we need to still be there is another question. IMO there's not nation there for "nation building" to work, but all of the tribes have traditionally united against foreign invaders. If we leave, they'll go back to fighting one another as they have for a thousand years. We just have to keep terrorists from making a safe base there again.
Don't forget. We toppled the Taliban with just a few special forces, an alliance with one of the tribes and some air power. It didn't take a whole army to deny our enemies a safe haven. Maybe we should forget nation building and trying to change a culture and limit our goals to the first one.
After posting the above, I found this in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/28friedman.html?em
Thanks, Dog Walker. That Friedman article is right on target IMO. And if I may digress slightly from the topic, I would add one observation. The US will never be able to broker a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Why? Because the US has a dog in the fight. It's like asking Steinbrenner to stand in as home plate umpire tonight. ;D
I agree, Afganaland has a civial war going, and we dont need to be involved in it.
I understand why we are there now tho. Afgany is where alot of the insurgancy trains, which is essicantally why we are there.
All of the insurgency training has shifted to the "tribal areas" of Pakistan. Tribal areas means it's not really Pakistan except on the map. They can only come in under the army.
These same areas were used by Pakistan and the CIA to train and arm insurgents to go fight the Soviet Union forces when THEY tried to nation build in Afghanistan. Bet you a large amount of money that there are still countries doing what we did there to keep us tied up and wasting our blood and treasure. It worked against the Soviets, why not us. Hell, some of them doing the funding are probably some of the same people who were doing it with us against the Soviets, like the wealth Saudi businessmen and the Iranians.
It isnt working as well against us becuase they dont have Stinger missles to bring down choppers and other airsupport.
That played a desisive role in helping drive the USSR out of Afgana.
but yes they have shifted to areas in our "allies" country where we cant go (openly atleast)
I think at this point Afgany is a lost cause UNLESS someone does something to Iran.
If the Isralies finally go in at them I think we will stay in Afganistan, or if we finally have to.
I truely belive(along with some Army intel officers who remain nameless) that is why we are still there.
BTW
I purpose we change that country's damn name to something I can spell without having to resort to google!
The word "insurgency" is an interesting word. According to one dictionary, it means "insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own". This Foreign Service Officer says the Afghans that have taken up arms and are killing our troops are doing so because their country is under occupation. There can be no better motivation for a people to want to resist.
IMO we think of them as insurgents because it only serves our argument for being there alongside a de facto government when in reality we are occupiers, and that alone gives the enemy moral justification to resist and kill us. When England was invaded by the German blitzkrieg I don't think anyone thought of the English resistance as an insurgency.
NO MORE TROOPS FOR THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! Sorry for the Caps to start, but its time we Bring OUR Dad's, Mom's, Brothers, Sister's back from Afghanistan! How do we win this (War) do we open up TEN McDonald's in KABUL? Or we could ship Pontiac over there and build cars. Now we all know that some level of troops will have to stay to keep peace between the Good and Evil in this country. But to put Good Men and Women up in these Crazy Mountains is just dumb. During good flight times we should Carpet bomb these area's or send in the Smart Planes without pilots to target the people we want to KILL! President Obama if I had your (Ear Today this is what I would tell you. It's time to Bring Most of are Troops Home and send no more so they can Die for no good reason Yours Truly Jaxborn1962
QuoteWe just have to keep terrorists from making a safe base there again
Seems simple enough... But it isn't. The Taliban is keenly interested in reestablishing itself as the government of Astan. Currently they employ hit and run tactics on villages and bases intimidating the residents and leaving when US or Afghan forces move in.
If we pull out as some seem to advocate are you prepared for the Taliban to once again rule and dominate the populace? Are you ready for them to invite al qaeda back to safe havens free from Pakistani army attacks? If we are gone... how do we keep terrorists from making training camps and bases free from attack and interference?
Currently al qaida and Taliban forces are trapped between paki forces and coalition forces. They are not free to move or set up bases in the open. They must hide, they must be careful, they must be on guard. Coalition forces leaving Afghanistan allows Taliban and al qaida to cross back into Afghanistan and continue what they began 10 years ago.
"Nation building" may not be the answer... but neither is leaving.
BridgeTroll are we still in Vietnam? That war was ever won by us and the people we put in power. I can grant you this we will have to keep some Troops there but to send 40,000 more is just Dumb!
BT, I am suggesting that we can keep the Taliban and other bad guys from organizing and having bases for terrorists without a large presence throughout the country. We overthrew the Taliban and destroyed the al Quida bases with just a few hundred special forces, a cooperative tribal ally and air power. I think we need to go back to that profile and goal and stop trying to drag a primitive, tribal society into something resembling the West.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 29, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
BT, I am suggesting that we can keep the Taliban and other bad guys from organizing and having bases for terrorists without a large presence throughout the country. We overthrew the Taliban and destroyed the al Quida bases with just a few hundred special forces, a cooperative tribal ally and air power. I think we need to go back to that profile and goal and stop trying to drag a primitive, tribal society into something resembling the West.
Very Good Post to quote rush DITTO!
Quote from: JaxBorn1962 on October 29, 2009, 08:42:48 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 29, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
BT, I am suggesting that we can keep the Taliban and other bad guys from organizing and having bases for terrorists without a large presence throughout the country.
Al Qaeda has bases in Somalia, Indonesia, Yemen and parts of West Africa, among other countries. Are you suggesting that we also send troops to those countries to stop the bad guys from organizing?
Quote from: JaxBorn1962 on October 29, 2009, 08:42:48 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 29, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
BT, I am suggesting that we can keep the Taliban and other bad guys from organizing and having bases for terrorists without a large presence throughout the country. We overthrew the Taliban and destroyed the al Quida bases with just a few hundred special forces, a cooperative tribal ally and air power. I think we need to go back to that profile and goal and stop trying to drag a primitive, tribal society into something resembling the West.
Very Good Post to quote rush DITTO!
spare me
QuoteAl Qaeda has bases in Somalia, Indonesia, Yemen and parts of West Africa, among other countries. Are you suggesting that we also send troops to those countries to stop the bad guys from organizing?
No. But the situation is dfferent. Yemen has a legitimate government(though hostile) and does not allow these entities to operate freely. Somalia has no government and we have attacked al qaida as needed. Al qaida in Indonesia and west Africa is not allowed to operate openly. Same for Pakistan.
With the money we are spending on troops and "nation building" in Afghanistan we could probably buy a lot of very good intelligence on terrorist operations around the world. It's working in Somalia.
For me... it all comes back to this...
Quoteare you prepared for the Taliban to once again rule and dominate the populace? Are you ready for them to invite al qaeda back to safe havens free from Pakistani army attacks? If we are gone... how do we keep terrorists from making training camps and bases free from attack and interference?
My answers are... No, No, we will not. What are everyone elses answers?
Additionally... I hate the "Nation Building" term. We are attempting to stabilize the government so it can build and defend itself. Difficult task... no doubt.
Quote from: civil42806 on October 29, 2009, 08:54:14 AM
Quote from: JaxBorn1962 on October 29, 2009, 08:42:48 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 29, 2009, 08:40:03 AM
BT, I am suggesting that we can keep the Taliban and other bad guys from organizing and having bases for terrorists without a large presence throughout the country. We overthrew the Taliban and destroyed the al Quida bases with just a few hundred special forces, a cooperative tribal ally and air power. I think we need to go back to that profile and goal and stop trying to drag a primitive, tribal society into something resembling the West.
Very Good Post to quote rush DITTO!
spare me
Ok
BT, the point is that there isn't any "there" there. There are some officials in Kabul. They might even be the government of Kabul, but the certainly are not the government of Afghanistan. Their is a tribal society i.e. first allegiance is to the family, the clan then the tribe. Most of the people in that region have no recognition of any government other than that. "Are you an Aghani?" "No, I am a Pashtun of the XYZ clan."
The only "government" in such areas are simply the best organized thugs with the most guns. That's what the Taliban was and wants to be again. The government to most people like those in Afghanistan and indeed in the "tribal" areas of Pakistan are just "those guys" who come in with guns and take money from us and we don't like them for it.
QuoteThe only "government" in such areas are simply the best organized thugs with the most guns. That's what the Taliban was and wants to be again.
So this can be be accomplished with
less of a presence in the country? Or are you conceding that the Taliban will take over... that al qaida will be back and we just slowly throttle back until we are gone.
No, I suggest we hold some bases there and nearby with special forces, drones, etc. on call and constant intelligence surveillance so that when the bad guys start to organize again and cause us trouble that we then whack them. We did this in the first place and can do it again. (I hope!)
I think we are creating enemies there by our overwhelming presence and we would be better off if we backed off a bit and played one group off against another and supported those who support us and did our work for us.
Holding elections in a place like that, as recent events have shown, is just a joke.
Look at Kurdistan as an example. We did it there successfully
Is A Third Surge Needed in Afghanistan?
QuoteThe real question we should be asking in Afghanistan is not "Do we need a surge?" but rather "Do we need a third surge?" The number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in January 2008 was 26,607. Over the next six months, the Bush administration raised the total to 48,250. President Bush described this policy as "the quiet surge," and he made the standard arguments about the need for a counterinsurgency capacityâ€"the troops had to not only fight the Taliban but protect the Afghan population, strengthen and train the Afghan Army and police, and assist in development.
In January 2009, another 3,000 troops, originally ordered by President Bush, went to Afghanistan in the first days of the Obama presidency. In February, responding to a request from the commander in the field, Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops into the country. In other words, over the past 18 months, troop levels in Afghanistan have almost tripled. An additional 40,000 troops sent in the next few months would mean an almost 400 percent increase in U.S. troops since 2008. (The total surge in Iraq, incidentally, was just over 20,000 troops.) It is not dithering to try to figure out why previous increases have not worked and why we think additional ones would.
In fact, focusing on the number of additional troops needed "misses the point entirely," says a senior military officer who has studied Afghanistan up close. "The key takeaway" from his assessment "is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate." That officer is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and that assessment is his now famous 66-page memo to the secretary of defense. The quotes are from the third paragraph. These changes in strategy have just begun.
To understand how U.S. troops had been fighting in Afghanistan, consider the Battle of Wanat. On July 13, 2008, a large number of Taliban fighters surrounded an American base in the village of Wanat in the southeastern corner of Afghanistan. After a few hours of fierce fighting, nine American soldiers lay dead, the largest number killed in a single engagement in years. The strategic question surely is, "Why were we in Wanat in the first place?" Tom Ricks, the superb defense expert, points out that the area around Wanat is a mountainous region with few people, many of them hostile to outsiders. So, he asks, "Why are we putting our fist in a hornet's nest?"
In fact, General McChrystal has since pulled U.S. forces out of Wanat. Washington Post reporter Greg Jaffe, reporting on the town a year later, concluded recently that "ceding territory to the Taliban is more effective than maintaining small, vulnerable bases in forbidding terrain. In the past several weeks, U.S. commanders, based about six miles outside the village, have detected growing friction between Wanat residents and the Taliban commanders responsible for last year's attack." In other words, let the Taliban try to set up bases in these remote areas with prickly locals. NATO forces can then periodically disrupt the Taliban rather than the other way around.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219380
As Hoh says:
"The Mission is Not Worth The Human Cost"