Marine Captain resigns in Protest over Governmental Policy in Afghanistan

[Ferdinand Foch]

Hey guys,
these were articles that my history teacher sent me way back last semester. I just read them, and thought that some members here might want to see this. I don't totally believe everything he says, though he does have some good points. Wanted to see what you guys thought of it.

Matthew Hoh resigns from his post in Afghanistan
This has his resignation letter.

Matthew Hoh: Foreign Service official resigns in protest over Afghan war - washingtonpost.com
This is a Q and A that he answered.

 

[BombTaxi]

He makes some good points, primarily that we are not fighting Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, but an entirely indigenous Pashtun insurgency. It was probably only protocol that prevented him from pointing out that this insurgency is backed by elements of Pakistan's ISI, who are theoretically on 'our side'. He is also dead right that effectively combating Al-Qaeda would require invasion and subjugation of vast swathes of Central Asia and East Africa, not to mention our erstwhile partner Saudi Arabia.

NATO is already losing smaller EU members like the Netherlands as they decide that this war isn't worth fighting. I fear that in a few years, it will just be the US and UK, still trying to foist a corrupt and unwanted govt on the Afghans. We should learn from the Soviet mistake and get out while the going isn't appalling, IMHO...

 

[Ferdinand Foch]

Yeah,you may have a point there BT. My biggest fear, though, is the amount of face that we might lose if we pull out without at least accomplishing something worthwhile. Pulling out of Somalia in '93 showed Al Qaeda that if pushed hard enough, the U.S. will back down-and this was just a small incident, comparitively speaking. If we withdraw to quickly from Afghanistan-in my opinion- without leaving behind some positive change, than any face or integrity that we have left may just evaporate into thin air. We have to show these punks that were still in this, and were not gonna back down that easily.

 

[BombTaxi]

Yeah,you may have a point there BT. My biggest fear, though, is the amount of face that we might lose if we pull out without at least accomplishing something worthwhile. Pulling out of Somalia in '93 showed Al Qaeda that if pushed hard enough, the U.S. will back down-and this was just a small incident, comparitively speaking. If we withdraw to quickly from Afghanistan-in my opinion- without leaving behind some positive change, than any face or integrity that we have left may just evaporate into thin air. We have to show these punks that were still in this, and were not gonna back down that easily.

Problem is, the punks left town years ago. We're now fighting a domestic insurgency which is not Islamist or Jihadist; like Mr. Hoh stated in his letter, they don't want to destroy the Western way of life; they just don't want it in their country. It's a feeling not too dissimilar to that of the people who oppose the Cordoba House project at Ground Zero; they feel something totally alien trying to insert itself into their space, and they don't like it. The US and UK have already lost face in failing to find Bin Laden, in failing to stabilise Afghanistan and in having two of the most sophisticated armies in the world tied down by a bunch of guys with home-made bombs. I don't see much face left to be lost...

 

[Ferdinand Foch]

Eh, yeah. Your right about that BT. But, if we leave now, won't the situation in Afghanistan just get even worse-though I actually have no idea on how worse it can get. I also worry about what will happen to all the Afghani's that aided us-I have this nasty flashback of what happened to the South Vietnamese who helped us out that were captured when the Vietnam War ended.
I know that we need to leave Afghanistan (we weren't going to be there forever anyway), I just don't know when.

 

[BombTaxi]

If we leave, Afghanistan will go back to the way it always has been - a fiercely tribal country governed by local strong-men and dependent on the opium trade for money. The UK has been intervening in the country since the1840s and every time we have scaled down our intervention, the status quo has been restored. They will probably bring the Taliban back, or a similarly unhinged theocratic govt. I don't think that's right, but we already know that we can't change that by military means, and we can't create a pro-democracy environment without wiping out most of Central Asia. It's a big lose-lose

 

[woodbutcher17]

If you keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results its past time to do something different.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you keep doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results its past time to do something different.

Just so you know, this thread has been dormant for over 11 years.

 

[woodbutcher17]

Just so you know, this thread has been dormant for over 11 years.

Thanks, interesting, still applies.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just so you know, this thread has been dormant for over 11 years.

And the two main posters both made points long ago that have been shown to pan out by the events of the past year.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Seems like a good zombie thread to resurrect.
My son is a Marine officer who earlier this year was detailed to babysit Afghan refugees here in the States. He encountered many who had been high ranking military or governmental officials, who were demanding special treatment. His response"I don't care who you were. You are now a refugee in America, because you did not defend your country. And now it is controlled by the Taliban."

 

[Admiral Beez]

Seems like a good zombie thread to resurrect.
My son is a Marine officer who earlier this year was detailed to babysit Afghan refugees here in the States. He encountered many who had been high ranking military or governmental officials, who were demanding special treatment. His response"I don't care who you were. You are now a refugee in America, because you did not defend your country. And now it is controlled by the Taliban."

It's as much the Taliban's country as theirs. Afghanistan's government changed, through its historical violent means. The West's mistake was in trying to impose a way of life that the people themselves did not want, quickly reverting to their natural state once the West's occupation was over.

 

[Greg Boeser]

It's as much the Taliban's country as theirs. Afghanistan's government changed, through its historical violent means. The West's mistake was in trying to impose a way of life that the people themselves did not want, quickly reverting to their natural state once the West's occupation was over.

It's not that they didn't want it. They could not comprehend it. Historically, if you want to impose your culture on another, you first have to violently suppress the existing culture. That is something most western nations have soured on over the last 75 years or so. At least externally.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's not that they didn't want it. They could not comprehend it. Historically, if you want to impose your culture on another, you first have to violently suppress the existing culture. That is something most western nations have soured on over the last 75 years or so. At least externally.

I hope the people of Belarus and ultimately Russia, through seeing it at the neighbours in Poland and the Baltics, and watching Ukraine fight so hard to grow and protect it, can finally comprehend and thus demand truly democratic, free societies.

 

[michaelmaltby]

How many 'democracies' in the world today have shrugged off autocracy and fundamental corruption to evolve their standards of governance in a modern world?

Japan - a shining example of transformation that has paid off for the country and the world. But there was the BOMBING
Taiwan, S Korea. Singapore/Malaysia
Warsaw Pact states, yes but with displeasure from EU Brussels.
India/Pakistan - colonization set the standard for law and justice but local reality determines outcomes. Factional.

What will change the mindset of the, still majority, Russians who think Putin policies and vision are the RIGHT ONES, the historically justified ones, that put Russia on some self-serving moral high ground? I keep asking people that question. Diplomacy won't work. NATO will always try to limit Ukraine's force projection into Russia.

The world is watching and waiting for Putin's "Elephant' to stumble into an elephant pit.

SHOCK and AWE will, IMO, be needed.

 

[SplitRz]

If we leave, Afghanistan will go back to the way it always has been - a fiercely tribal country governed by local strong-men and dependent on the opium trade for money. The UK has been intervening in the country since the1840s and every time we have scaled down our intervention, the status quo has been restored. They will probably bring the Taliban back, or a similarly unhinged theocratic govt. I don't think that's right, but we already know that we can't change that by military means, and we can't create a pro-democracy environment without wiping out most of Central Asia. It's a big lose-lose

These were proven wise and prescient words indeed!!!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

SHOCK and AWE will, IMO, be needed.

I don't see that happening at all due to nuclear deterrence. I do, however, think a defeat in Ukraine could possibly give rise to Putin's downfall and then a civil war that washes away the entire current political structure. I don't give that possibility high odds, though; I think if Putin falls, he will be replaced by palace intrigue, which implies that the essential political structure lays largely unchanged.

 

[SplitRz]

Seems like a good zombie thread to resurrect.
My son is a Marine officer who earlier this year was detailed to babysit Afghan refugees here in the States. He encountered many who had been high ranking military or governmental officials, who were demanding special treatment. His response"I don't care who you were. You are now a refugee in America, because you did not defend your country. And now it is controlled by the Taliban."

Some food for thought, perhaps?

Your son might temper that feeling slightly if he considers how many millions of Americans are descendants of those who left their own home nations because of repression, pogroms, torture, lack of religious freedom and constant threat? If those officials were living the high life and were guilty of corruption, and are demanding milk and honey at tax payers expense, fair enough.

But if its simply because they escaped the fate of a bullet or a noose, I'm not necessarily minded to completely agree. An additional thought might be to ponder what did the USA learned about itself when reconsidering the similar treatment of Japanese nationals in WW2

My two buddies who saw service there are aghast of the blanket abysmal treatments and suspicion being meted out to our own asylum seekers in the UK. That's not to say for an instant that there aren't a high proportion of economic migrants and chancers amongst them, but seeing the reality of Afghanistan made them see life in a a lot less black and white.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It seemed obvious to me that his context was VIPs demanding the royal treatment.

 

[SplitRz]

It seemed obvious to me that his context was VIPs demanding the royal treatment.

As I said, then I would say fair enough - and completely fair comment.

But unfortunately, its a sentiment that has spilled over in the minds of some into the attitudes an treatment of many ordinary Afghan refugees too. The lack of provision of asylum or support for the rank-and-file translators, fixers, guides etc etc. has been abysmal and a direct reflection of the rushed and bungled way the pull-out was enacted.

Some have levelled similar accusations about those who have managed to escape certain death 'not having stayed and fought for their country' too.