"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan..."
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan..."
A U.S. Foreign Service officer and Iraq combat veteran quits over the ongoing American military presence in Afghanistan, which he says he merely aiding the insurgency:
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.
We need a few dozen more Matthew Hohs, before it's too late.
Comments (38)
"Saddam was a "radical" Muslim? Do yourself a favor dope, stop embarrassing yourself." Did I say that Saddam was a radical Muslim? Try reading comprehension -- start with monosyllabic words first. I'll even help you out -- those are words with one syllable, like "a, or, not, be". You should refrain from posting until you can understand and comprehend words that have 3 or more syllables in them.— IggleFan68- .....}} Some places, and some peoples, are just not going to change simply because we put a few hundred thousand boots on the ground. {{{....... Who said that would happen? II said it will take a committed effort on multiple fronts. AQ is the significant threat to the U.S. The Talibin, at least in the short term, isn't. We shouldn't be going after the Taliban in Afghanistan because they pose a direct, short-term threat to us. We should be doing so because the Taliban is a horrendously oppressive group. It is that simple, in my perspective. Watch the movie "Osama," and get back to me with your opinion that we should just get out. We can't just prop up the government and get out - we have to help build the social infrastructure that will enable the government to survive.— Talking point sleuth
- "We shouldn't be going after the Taliban in Afghanistan because they pose a direct, short-term threat to us. We should be doing so because the Taliban is a horrendously oppressive group. It is that simple, in my perspective." This sounds amazingly similar to the rhetoric that many were using prior to the Iraq invasion. Simply substitute "Saddam in Iraq" for "Taliban in Afghanistan".— legatus
Bill AT, if the Cheney/Bush trainwreck hadnt diverted Bush's limited attention capacity to Iraq so he could prove his manhood to daddy, we might not be in an 8 year war with no end in sight. So, what do we do billyat? Send in 200,000 troops or so?— Les Ismore- "Read the rest of Matthew Hoh's own story in the Washington Post -- his bouts and treatment for depression, post-traumatic stress, alcoholism and you'll begin to learn what went into his rather shaky decision. " Sorry, I ain't gonna bash the guy for PTSD. I'll evaluate his decision on its own stated merits.— db_cooper
- ---}}}} This sounds amazingly similar to the rhetoric that many were using prior to the Iraq invasion. {{{--- Couldn't be farther from the truth, leggy. The invasion of Iraq was, specifically, justified (falsely, by the way) on the contention that it represented an "eminent threat."— Talking point sleuth
To abandon a nation of our fellow man at the mercy of the Talaban would be immoral.— ocjones- "The invasion of Iraq was, specifically, justified (falsely, by the way) on the contention that it represented an 'eminent threat'." Oh, I understand now. Regardless of the oppression of the Saddam regime, you were against the invasion because you disagreed with the sales pitch of the Bush administration. If they had only sold the war by proving that the Saddam Baathists are a horrendously oppressive group, they would've had your full support. It's words that matter, not the reality of the oppression, right?— legatus
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: