View Full Version : First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War
LongWire
10-27-2009, 02:26
Seriously doubt that he is the first, but okay................
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/27/official-resigns-protest-afghan-war/
First U.S. Official Resigns Over Afghan War
Senior diplomat in Afghanistan said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A former Marine who fought in Iraq, joined the State Department after leaving the military and was a diplomat in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan has become the first U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghan war, the Washington Post reported early Tuesday.
Matthew Hoh, who describes himself as "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, dated Sept. 10 but published early Tuesday. "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 move sent ripples all the way to the White House, the paper said, where officials immediately appealed for him to stay out of fear he could become a leading critic.
U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff, but Hoh declined. He then flew home and met with Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Holbrooke told the Post he disagreed that the war "wasn't worth the fight," but did agree with much of Hoh's analysis.
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview with the newspaper. "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."
The revelation comes as President Obama pledged on Monday not to "rush the solemn decision" to send more troops to battle in Afghanistan as he weighs military options on what to do next in the troubled war.
The administration is debating whether to send tens of thousands more troops to the country, while the Afghan government is moving to hold a Nov. 7 runoff election between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah. The runoff comes after complaints by international monitors of fraudulent voting in the first election.
ABC News, citing unnamed sources, reported Monday evening that Obama will likely announce his decision for Afghanistan between that nation's runoff presidential election on Nov. 7, and the president's departure for Tokyo, Japan, on Nov. 11.
"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama told service men and women at Naval Air Station Jacksonville on Monday. He promised a "clear mission" with defined goals and the equipment needed to get the job done.
Obama, who is in the process of weighing options put forward by the Pentagon that include various levels of increased troops, spoke of the latest example of the dangers and sacrifices there -- helicopter crashes that killed 14 Americans in the deadliest day for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in more than four years.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The move sent ripples all the way to the White House, the paper said, where officials immediately appealed for him to stay out of fear he could become a leading critic.Wow.
If this assessment is accurate, it speaks volumes to the White House's approach to learning from those who may have useful information and to leading. It also suggests that a reconsideration of the utility of VP Cheney's participation in the public debate over OEF is in order.
In the event that the current administration attempts to pressure the Washington Post to remove Mr. Hon's resignation letter, a copy is attached to this post.
...we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people.
A dangerous dilemma - not only for Afghanistan, but for the free world - and one I doubt will be corrected by the up-coming 7 Nov elections. :(
Richard
"We are spending ourselves into oblivion" a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America's best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation's economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.
Mr. Hoh gives voice to my concern. I suspect the administration should reflect on the possibility that economic developments could compel a hasty withdrawal. Such a possibility might have adverse consequences in Pakistan, with all that implies.
The reasons he states for resigning seem to support the proposed change in our Afghanistan strategy offered by Major Gant in 'One Tribe at a Time.' (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25701)
Minor quibble. Mr. Hoh is not a Foreign Service Officer. He was four months in on a one-year contract as a direct-hire for DoS in Astan. The WaPo headline was eye-catching but untrue. Hoh didn't end a career in the FS to protest policy. He will likely advance his future career prospects - outside the State Dept - by speaking truth to power.
Hoh is a hero for his service as a former Marine captain with combat experience in Iraq.
His arguments support Obama's likely strategy to get out of Dodge. And Kerry-Lugar bill for mammoth civilian security assistance to Pakistan. If only the Pak military didn't so publicly resent strings attached.
I predict Mr. Hoh will soon make the rounds on cable and become a voice for the new Obama strategy.
Minor quibble. Mr. Hoh is not a Foreign Service Officer. He was four months in on a one-year contract as a direct-hire for DoS in Astan.
So, you are calling Mr. Hoh a liar?
From his resignation letter:
It is with great regret and disappointment I submit my resignation from my
appointment as a Political Officer in the Foreign Service and my post as the Senior Civilian Representative for the US. Government in Zabul Province.
Dozer523
10-27-2009, 21:30
I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of the Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. I think he might have some interesting thoughts on the subject of "how goes Afghanistan". He was the former Commanding General of Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A); I find his silence particularly deafening.
In 2006 - 07 his position was we are not at war in Afghanistan, we are not an occupying force, we are providing security.
Notes from today's DOS Daily Press Briefing:
Ian Kelly, Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC, October 27, 2009
QUESTION: Nick Spicer, Al Jazeera. Could I ask a question about the now rather public resignation of Matthew Hoh, who is --
MR. KELLY: Is there anything else on Honduras? Did you have something on --
QUESTION: Yeah, I do. Do you still think a legitimate election is possible given that it is only a month away?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think the clock is ticking. I think, in order for it to be seen as legitimate and for the authorities down there to conduct a completely open and transparent electoral process, that there needs to be some time, and this is precisely why we see some urgency in this.
So – yes.
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. Kirit.
QUESTION: Just a couple of things from the article about his meeting with Eikenberry and with Holbrooke. Could you tell us a little more about this, and what happened in those meetings?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think he was upfront with his own chain of command, and had the opportunity to discuss with his immediate boss who is the supervisor of the PRTs. And he also talked to the Deputy Chief of Mission out there, Mr. Frank Ricciardone. And it was very much an open and transparent process. As I say, we value his service, we value his background and his skills. This is why we appointed him to this limited non-career appointment to be a political officer, to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul. In the end, he made his own decision, that he decided to resign, and we respect that.
QUESTION: Do you wish he hadn’t gone public with it?
MR. KELLY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Do you wish he had not gone public with that?
MR. KELLY: It’s really his decision. I mean, we don’t – it was a – obviously, a very personal decision, and I think he even told the post that it was a very painful decision. I’m sure it was, but we respect his right to act on his views.
QUESTION: So his tour – his job would have ended on March 29th of 2010?
MR. KELLY: It was a one-year appointment, yeah.
QUESTION: That would have ended on March 29, 2010?
MR. KELLY: It was supposed to end next March, yeah.
QUESTION: And then what would have happened?
MR. KELLY: At that point, he would have – his employment would have been over with the State Department. These appointments can be extended as well. I – there have been some appointments that have been extended up to 18 months, I know.
QUESTION: And the – okay, but then that’s it?
MR. KELLY: And that’s it. Yeah, that’s it.
QUESTION: So there –
MR. KELLY: He signs an agreement that he’ll – that he agrees to stay for a year and then his employment ends.
QUESTION: So that you can’t re-up it at that point.
MR. KELLY: Oh, I said we can extend him, but he has no – it’s a non-career appointment. So he doesn’t have any re-employment rights, per se. Of course, he can compete for other jobs.
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: Is that the same thing as the 3161 or is that different?
MR. KELLY: No, that’s different.
QUESTION: It’s different, right?
MR. KELLY: I don’t know all the ins and outs of 3161. I think that’s more of a Civil – I think that’s for Civil Service appointments.
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.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/oct/130972.htm
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
10-28-2009, 06:29
So, you are calling Mr. Hoh a liar? Easy does it, Tex. Calling him a limited, non-career appointment (might be extended but probably not); a political officer, eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul. But probably not a policy maker, maybe not even a policy implementor. Observer/reporter?
Easy does it, Tex. Calling him a limited, non-career appointment (might be extended but probably not); a political officer, eyes and ears on the ground in Zabul. But probably not a policy maker, maybe not even a policy implementor. Observer/reporter?
Now, we really are quibbling. He either is or is not a Political Officer in the Foreign Service. It appears to me that the complaint is that he is not a career Foreign Service Officer. He was only appointed to a one-year term.
Foreign Service Officers, also known as Foreign Service Generalists, follow one of five career tracks. If you're interested in becoming a Foreign Service Officer, you'll first need to select the track you want to pursue from one of the following:
* Consular: Consular Officers protect Americans abroad and strengthen U.S. border security
* Economic: Economic Officers promote economic partnerships, development, and fair trade
* Management: Management Officers run our embassies and make American diplomacy work
* Political: Political Officers analyze political events
* Public Diplomacy: Public Diplomacy Officers explain American values and policies
http://careers.state.gov/officer/index.html
The guy was a temp hire and not a career FSO - BIG difference in position, status, assignments, and influence.
Having been in an embassy, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts this is necessary because the DOS can't get enough of the Foggy Bottom 'striped pants' set to take the assignments under such 'hardship' conditions.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reaper
10-28-2009, 07:28
I have to agree, the media has promoted Mr. Hoh far beyond reality.
He was a former Marine Captain and a DoS contractor, not a "senior State Department official."
TR
Dozer523
10-28-2009, 08:33
Now, we really are quibbling. He either is or is not a Political Officer in the Foreign Service. It appears to me that the complaint is that he is not a career Foreign Service Officer. He was only appointed to a one-year term. O - kay. . .
Since you asked . . . I'll tell you what I really think.
A former Marine I'm not real crazy about Marines operating in a COIN environment. Marines do not train for COIN and IMO the USMC does not attract the kinds of people who embrace the underlying precepts of COIN.who fought in Iraq, IMO it has been shown time and time again that the lessons learned in Iraq do not apply to Afghanistan and it is human nature that people that have been in one theater are prone to use what they know instead of/before they can learn/adapt to a new environment. joined the State Department after leaving the military which means he quit the USMC as a junior officer forgoing contibuting to the effort from that direction and was a diplomat in a broad interpretation of the word, just as all Army personnel are Soldiers whether you are an Infantryman or a Graphic Illustrator in a Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan has become the first U.S. official to resign in protest took a one year job in March, pulled the plug less then six months later after serving in two different provinces of the Afghan war, the Washington Post reported based on a personal letter Hoh wrote but the WP got from. . . ? Hoh! Tuesday.
Matthew Hoh, who describes himself as "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," said he believes the war is simply fueling the insurgency. I thought the Insurgency was fueling the war.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, dated Sept. 10 but published early Tuesday. "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 why and to what end" is pretty fundamental, and if he doesn't understand it; if his leaders -- to include the Ambassador cannot enlighten him, it appears his resignation is a wise choice.
The move sent ripples all the way to the White House, the paper said, where officials immediately appealed for him according to the paper to stay out of fear according to the paper he could become a leading critic. Again, according to the paper according to an interview with Hoh. Based on his time in Iraq and 8 months as a contractor. . . right.
U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry brought him to Kabul and offered him a job on his senior embassy staff, At best, sounds like a mobility kill and being on senior staff isn't always being a senior staffer but Hoh declined. He then flew home and met with Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I wonder if they reviewed the provisions of his Non-Disclosure Agreement?
Sorry, Mister Hoh sounds like a guy who has been plagued by doubts and reservations about the way a lot of things were, are, might be; quits; and then -- with nothing better to do -- trys to get his full fifteen minutes of fame. He is not worth making a fuss over. $.02
His arguments support Obama's likely strategy to get out of Dodge. And Kerry-Lugar bill for mammoth civilian security assistance to Pakistan. If only the Pak military didn't so publicly resent strings attached.
I predict Mr. Hoh will soon make the rounds on cable and become a voice for the new Obama strategy.
When first hearing this news it sounded like John Kerry, Jr. Hoh's letter is an articulate summary of what are proported to be his own observations.
I have to agree, the media has promoted Mr. Hoh far beyond reality.
Something tells me this is the other risk. I see a large wooden horse at the gates.
Expect Mr. Hoh to present his new book soon. Does anyone know what his major was in college? Poly-Sci? International Studies? Communications? Curious...
dividebyzero
10-28-2009, 16:26
The erstwhile Abu Muqawama links to a great comment about Mr. Hoh:
Putting Matthew Hoh in Context ... and Asking Hard Questions of the Washington Post
October 28, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:28am | 28 Comments
A great American, sure, but a reader noticed this important comment posted by "gadstian" on the Washington Post's website at 11:50 yesterday morning.
I am very disturbed by the journalistic standards of this article and strongly encourage Washington Post readers to contact the paper directly.
First, I am currently serving in a PRT in Iraq. I trained with Matt in northern Virginia in April of this past year before we both moved on to our respective assignments. Matt is a smart young man who has honorably served his country, but by no means was or is he an expert on counterinsurgency, Afghan tribal culture, or U.S. strategic policy.
Second-- this article is riddled with inaccuracies to an extent that almost shocks me, and really makes me question its intent and veracity, coming as it does at a critical time in the debate over Afghan policy.
Matt Hoh is NOT a Foreign Service Officer. This basic fact, central to the article and its headline, is wrong, despite the wording in his letter.
Matt is a "3161" State Department employee, a special category of temporary appointments brought on for 12 month assignments in certain areas of expertise-- engineering, ag, business, rule of law, etc. Some may sign on for a second 12-month tour.
This is a very different thing than being an FSO-- a commissioned, career diplomat who is a generalist and is appointed not as a result of an online job application and single interview (sometimes over the phone), but after a series of competitive oral, written, and physical exams.
Referring to Matt as a "U.S. Official" is about as accurate as referring to a postal employee as a U.S. official.
I am not trying to denigrate 3161s or postal employees! But this article gets such basic facts wrong about Matt that I am astounded, and either bespeaks very poor journalism or, worse, an article produced primarily to push a specific political agenda and that knowingly uses false facts to give a certain impression.
There are hundreds, perhaps over 1000, 3161s in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many, many of them are ex-military (having done multiple tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan), and have also faced combat, death, etc., just like Matt bravely did. In my own PRT, we are rocketed frequently, have small arms fire, IEDs, etc., hit our movement teams, you name it.
My point is that as compelling as Matt's story sounds to civilians, it is a fairly typical story here in theater, and by no means gives one any special insight.
There are so many people here with the same experience--or much more experience--that would passionately disagree with Matt's assessment.
Maybe Matt is right; maybe not. But to present his memo and resignation as a significant event of a "U.S. official" with special insight is, with all due respect to Matt, patently absurd. He is a de factor contractor that was on the ground in his PRT about 4 months! On that, one assesses strategic counterinsurgency??
And I absolutely guarantee the only reason Matt warranted an audience with Holbrooke and sudden offers of a Kabul job on the Embassy's front office was that the State Department was well aware of plans to go very public at a critical time-- plans for articles like this splashed over front pages, offers from detractors of Afghan policy to meet and speak, etc. I don't know Matt well and will not impugn his motivations, I believe he is no doubt sincere. But there is nothing special about him that's not special about hundreds of others still in theater, and I cannot believe that he has simply stumbled into the current publicity without discussions with many people about how to use this situation for maximum effect.
I wish Matt luck, and don't doubt that he will do well, with a career jump-started by the current affair. Again, maybe he's right.
But I challenge the Washington Post to explain what I note above-- How and why do you assert Matt is a Foreign Service Officer? Did you not confirm that with him, or did he present himself as such? How did he come to your attention? Why did you not interview other 3161s or FSOs with different views? And, finally, WHY does someone on the ground for a few months warrant such front page coverage?
I'm a fan of the Washington Post, but as I told a family friend in Tennessee this past weekend who was asking me for good news sources on Afghanistan, the "down-range" reporting the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal produces on Afghanistan is worlds better than anything produced from Washington. Datelines, in other words, matter. I have a little less respect for the Washington Post after this article.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/10/putting-matthew-hoh-context-and-asking-hard-questions-washington-post.html
Mr. Hoh may have captured the zeitgeist with his statements, but I tend to agree more with the statements of Dozer and Mr. Exum over the triumphant crowing of the press over this one.
For those that might not be up to date with DoS assets in Astan, "State Department officials also said they were close to their target of having 974 aid workers in Afghanistan by year’s end as part of what they called Mr. Obama’s civilian 'surge.' They said 575 civilians were on the ground now."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/wo...2civil.html?hp
The striped pants set has not embraced service in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yes, they are relying on very unusual term appointments in the FS to get needed civilian expertise in theater. You'd think the 70% uplift for hardship and danger pay - plus serving in a country critical to US foreign policy - would be enough to attract career FSOs.
I happen to agree with Mr. Hoh. A'stan strategy is adrift - even with recent announcement of an additional 20,000 troops.
If his goal was to bring attention to the jackassery of putting troops at risk while the WH dithers, I think Mr. Hoh succeeded.
ZonieDiver
10-28-2009, 17:27
O - kay. . .
Since you asked . . . I'll tell you what I really think.
A former Marine I'm not real crazy about Marines operating in a COIN environment. Marines do not train for COIN and IMO the USMC does not attract the kinds of people who embrace the underlying precepts of COIN.who fought in Iraq, [COLOR="orange"]IMO it has been shown time and time again <SNIP>
Sorry, Mister Hoh sounds like a guy who has been plagued by doubts and reservations about the way a lot of things were, are, might be; quits; and then -- with nothing better to do -- trys to get his full fifteen minutes of fame. He is not worth making a fuss over. $.02
Very well, said! You're great at being humorous (just check GBTFS's monitor), and you are even better when you are dead serious.
I have a question some what related: Since the Pashtun tribes gained worldwide attention with the rise and fall of the Taliban, which is a Pashtun dominated movement, and the fact that they are now the primary force we are confronting….and they are the main ethnic contingent....in the AO....
And the Pashtun tribes are also the second-largest ethnic group/ community in Pakistan, where they are prominently represented in the military …why should we think they will continue to side with the Pakistanis and not their fellow Pashtun tribesman Taliban?
greenberetTFS
10-29-2009, 00:17
I have a question some what related: Since the Pashtun tribes gained worldwide attention with the rise and fall of the Taliban, which is a Pashtun dominated movement, and the fact that they are now the primary force we are confronting….and they are the main ethnic contingent....in the AO....
And the Pashtun tribes are also the second-largest ethnic group/ community in Pakistan, where they are prominently represented in the military …why should we think they will continue to side with the Pakistanis and not their fellow Pashtun tribesman Taliban?
Good point Penn,"why" is right......:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
...why should we think they will continue to side with the Pakistanis and not their fellow Pashtun tribesman Taliban?
I don't think the idea takes into account the sub-regional differences and - from my readings - this idea may be key - Pashtun tribes - because left to themselves, the numerous tribes don't appear to agree with each other any better than any other group out there.
The Jeremy Kotkin piece posted earlier in another thread is a thought provoking paper which states:
...the "new normal" is one of populations feeling the perceived social and economic injustices of local poor governance and now being free to align themselves with groups to force change.
Well...lots of choices there - and even in a multi-polar world, maybe the decades old and proven theory of 'containment' is - after all - the most practical strategic solution to these types of issues for whichever region of the world we're concerned. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
FYI, Mr. Hoh did an online Q&A yesterday. The transcript is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/27/DI2009102703143.html).
The dissicussions of Mr. Hoh's credentials, experience, and credibility have been thorough here and elsewhere. IMO, the probing analysis underscores my initial bewilderment. If, as has been convincingly demonstrated, Mr. Hoh is not the most credible voice in Afghanistan, then why would the White House seek to co-opt him in the first place?:confused:
Dozer523
10-29-2009, 21:32
Thanks Sigaba. Read it, yawn. Mr Hoh is a two inch deep two acre pond.
His assessment sounds like he has read The Kite Runner and Wikipedia.
Why, indeed, was he given anything more then a "Leavin'? . . . Oh. Bye"