World

Partly Sunny with Showers 7° London Hi 11°C / Lo 7°C

Obama's Afghan strategy hit by deaths and dissent

October now bloodiest month in conflict while US diplomat resigns in protest at war

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and State Department official in Afghanistan, said the involvement of American soldiers in the country was only fuelling the insurgency

REUTERS

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and State Department official in Afghanistan, said the involvement of American soldiers in the country was only fuelling the insurgency

The loss of eight more American soldiers yesterday, the resignation of a highly regarded US Foreign Service officer, and new tensions over next week's Afghan election run-off have combined to intensify pressure on Barack Obama as he edges towards a crucial decision on a major increase in US troop strength in Afghanistan.

On Friday the President is to hold a further meeting with his military chiefs. He will be doing so at the end of the bloodiest single month in the conflict. The latest deaths bring to 55 the number of troops already killed in October, more than the previous high of 51 in August. They came the day after 14 US personnel died in separate helicopter accidents. In all more than 900 US soldiers have so far lost their lives in an eight-year war whose end is not in sight.

For Matthew Hoh, the sacrifice has simply become so pointless that he felt no alternative other than to become the first US diplomat known to have resigned over the war, citing reasons that reflect not just his own doubts over the conflict, but those of an increasingly disillusioned American public.

"I have lost understanding of, and confidence in, the strategic purposes of the United States presence in Afghanistan," says the resignation letter of the former Marine captain and Iraq veteran, who joined the State Department to work as the top American official in Zabul province in eastern Afghanistan, close to the border with Pakistan.

The US involvement was simply fuelling the insurgency, Mr Hoh wrote, and was causing American servicemen to die "in what is essentially a far-off civil war", or more accurately a number of small local wars in which the sides are united only in their resentment of a foreign intruder. His problem was not how Washington was pursuing the war – the issue Mr Obama is grappling with in round after round of consultations with his top national security and military advisers – "but why and to what end" his country was fighting it in the first place.

The resignation, revealed yesterday in The Washington Post, has sent shockwaves through the administration, which made repeated and strenuous efforts to change Mr Hoh's mind – including a one-on-one meeting with Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy for Afghanistan. "We took his letter very seriously," Mr Holbrooke told the newspaper. He described Mr Hoh as a good officer, and admitting that he shared much of the diplomat's analysis, although not his conclusion.

Tellingly, Mr Hoh emphasises he is no "peacenik or pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love". As he made clear to the Post, he is a tough former professional soldier, who believes the Taliban and al-Q'aida have "plenty of dudes who need to be killed", and the evidence of his personal courage makes him a difficult target for pro-war voices. Mr Hoh came home from Iraq with citations for "uncommon bravery".

Nor was he a mere grunt: in his time as a Defence Department civilian working on reconstruction in Tikrit, Iraq, he employed up to 5,000 people and handled millions of dollars in cash. Yet despite that experience, he said the weeks spent considering his decision and drafting the four-page resignation letter left him feeling "physically nauseous".

Later this week the now-resigned diplomat will meet with the chief foreign policy adviser of the Vice-President Joe Biden, the leading advocate in the administration of the approach favoured by Mr Hoh: a greater focus on Pakistan coupled with a scaled-down US combat presence in Afghanistan. "We have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to solve."

Complicating matters further is the new dispute over the election run-off, after Abdullah Abdullah, the challenger to the incumbent president Hamid Karzai, demanded the dismissal of the country's top election officer. Mr Abdullah, a former foreign minister, maintains that the supposedly neutral official could not guarantee a clean election, after the widespread fraud that marred the initial vote in August.

But yesterday Mr Karzai rejected that demand and others, with little sign of significant change in the practical organisation of the run-off, scheduled for 7 November. In retaliation, Mr Abdullah has threatened to boycott the vote – a move that would all but destroy the chances of Afghanistan gaining a leader with genuine national legitimacy, a declared pre-condition of a boost in US troop strength.

The request submitted by General Stanley McChrystal, the top allied commander in Afghanistan, reportedly seeks an increase of up to 40,000 men from the currently planned ceiling of 68,000. Failing that, the general argues, the war might to all intents be lost within a year.

Mr Obama has said he will not be rushed, and will make up his mind only when the election produces a clear-cut, accepted winner. In the meantime relations are by all accounts highly strained between the Obama team and Mr Karzai. The latter's agreement to accept a run-off was secured not by Mr Holbrooke, who reportedly has clashed with the Afghan President, but by the visiting John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Hoh's resignation letter: 'This reminds me horribly of Vietnam'

"In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan... I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States' presence in Afghanistan

"My resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing the war, but why and to what end... I fail to see the value or worth in continued US casualties... in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war

"Like the Soviets we continue to bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its people

"If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that... has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional.

"The Pashtun insurgency... is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The US and Nato presence and operations... provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified

"The bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but... against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes

"[This] reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam... against an insurgency we arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology."

Bloodiest month: US losses in October

27 October 2009 Eight American troops die in two separate bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for US forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

26 October 2009 Eleven American soldiers are killed in separate helicopter crashes. One helicopter goes down in western Afghanistan, killing seven soldiers and three civilians working for the US government. In a separate incident in the south, two other US choppers collide in flight, killing four American troops.

3 October 2009 Eight US soldiers are killed when their outpost in Kamdesh, Nuristan, is attacked by as many as 300 militants. Another soldier dies in Wardak province when a bomb detonates as he attempts to disarm it.

The US military has suffered 905 fatalities since the invasion of October 2001.

Source: AP

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]kristoph09 wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 02:14 am (UTC)
mysterious helicopter "crashes" and incidents that are altogether undetailed leave me wondering how much we get from media is genuine truth and not "softened" for the western palate, this conflict has been marred by bad military journalism, just like vietnam. I'm no accredited j0urnalism but i can see when people are being intentionally vague. Just recently in the canadian military press, an interview was released that "everything is going well" and positive results from a "policing force" which as we can uderstand is meant to curb inter-secular and religous violence. The political situation is a very dangerous one, can we as the western powers easily pull out without a great deal of collateral damage? why is the "war on terror" still going on, its not going to be fixed by a foriegn body of invading "policemen" imagine if you will an army invading your country, telling you your ways are wrong, your poitics are broken, and you and your culture are under our firm and well advised direction. War begets war folks, set up a provisional government through the UN and NATO, dont dilly dally with a WAR ON TERROR. ive been to vietnam and seen what the American military did, and guess what, the Vietnamese are doing great these days, let people be themselves, i beleive in the UN, not the american military might.
[info]reinertorheit wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 05:14 am (UTC)

Frankly I dunno. Most of the troops fighting in Afghanistan are on the bazillionth troop-rotation and they are fighting in their sleep. Fatigue is endemic and very likely one of the causes of the helicopter crashes. Another cause is poor training - new recruits are being rushed from basic training to battlefront deployment in just weeks, and you have raw recruits in charge of highly sophisticated technology that they simply cannot handle. In it's own way it;s tragic, although I have *zero* sympathy for the USA, its army, or those who serve in it. The tragedy really is that these GIs are too stupid to realise what's being done to them, and done with them.

I saw a film yesterday about how the Georgian Army (that's Georgia in the Caucasus) is being trained from scratch to fight in Afghanistan. Now these poor kids are conscripted recruits who haven't got a choice about fighting or not. Within just a few weeks of being kidnapped from their jobs and homes in Tbilisi, these poor bastards are being shipped-out to Afghanistan. And guess what? Uncle Sam is going to deploy them in the most dangerous regions where USA troops refuse to serve. And why? So that President Suck-Arse-Vili of Georgia can fellate his masters in Washington and hope to have his suckarse country fast-tracked into NATO. The price in human lives doesn't concern him... after all, he's not even Georgian, and holds a USA passport that he doesn't like to talk about.
[info]thomasth wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 06:18 am (UTC)
So what's wrong with being a peacenik? Or is killing other humans a virility test? much as AA Gill murdered a baboon which turned him on ...
THE AFGHANISTAN IMBROGLIO
[info]fabian2009 wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 07:09 am (UTC)
PRESIDENT OBAMA SHOULD QUICKLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WAR ON AFGHANISTAN HAS FAILED AND HE SHOULD CAREFULLY CHOREOGRAPH HIS MILITARY RETREAT SO THAT IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE HUMILIATION.AVOID THE HELICOPTER RIDE FROM THE EMBASSY ROOF.

AMBASSADOR K.P.FABIAN
war is the absolute terror
[info]humanright wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
I do not understand the British: many questions:
1- Why did they participate in the Bush wars?
2-Why did they elect three times a war criminal who is responsible for hundreds of thousands of killings,lies,..etc?
3-Why did the government promote for the presidency of Europe the same person?
4- Why did they elect a successor who supported the same policy?
5-Why do you allow the government to send these young British to be killed for nothing?
6- Why do^nt you ask your members of government and MP^s to send their sons and daughters instead?
7-Where are the peaceful British people?
Re: war is the absolute terror
[info]admzaa wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 11:11 pm (UTC)
Those are all very good questions that we British can't really answer. The peaceful British people are now a part of a Nazi-controlled superstate called European Union, they have forgotten the loving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and its message of hope and everlasting life. We are trying hard to do something about getting rid of the EU and rediscovering Christianity but it is taking a long time getting there. We need God to intervene and answer our prayers quickly. Then we can share the Good News in Afghanistan together with its people. Christians have found a way to share the gospel with Moslems in a loving and peaceful way by referring directly to the Koran, as this book has actual references in it referring directly to the holiness and godliness of Jesus/Isa but not to Mohammed! We only discovered this news in recent times and will a major development in stopping Islamic terrorism once and for all.
Re: war is the absolute terror
[info]matt_91912113 wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
He's talking about stopping British terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. The Koran refers to the holiness of Jesus AND Mohammad.
Re: war is the absolute terror
[info]admzaa wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 01:01 pm (UTC)
Evidently, you haven't actually read the Koran then? The Koran actually does not refer to the holiness of Mohammed, it just calls him a prophet and nothing more.
Re: war is the absolute terror
[info]matt_91912113 wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC)
It calls Jusus the same.
Re: war is the absolute terror
[info]humanright wrote:
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC)
my questions have nothing to do with religion. The questions are related to the British democracy where the people themselves determine their destiny and not waiting for God to do for them.
Obummer from hero to zero
[info]find_empire wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 04:26 pm (UTC)
It's almost fun to witness the transformation of the black JFK impersonator into LBJ. It's as if Obama had his own internal Dallas 1963 moment, blown off his internal JFK's head from the grassy knoll, and replace him with a corrupt warmonger who could lose wars and waste money with far greater incompetence and brutality. The only difference is, LBJ set up medicare, Obama is set to destroy it (nominally to finance his bogus "health care reform" but really to pay for Wall Street's welfare checks).
Re: Obummer from hero to zero
[info]truth_will_out wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 06:32 pm (UTC)
Obama inherited this war. He didn't start it. I, for one, trust that he will take the only realistic step of getting out and finally ending the insane Neocons' modern day "crusade against evil".
Re: Obummer from hero to zero
[info]find_empire wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 04:44 pm (UTC)
You for one trust that based on what? Obummer escalates the war and you think that's a sign he's trying to end it? He turns Dumbya's Afghanistan war into his very own AfPak war, turning a quagmire into a certain defeat for NATO, with the fragmentation of Pakistan and the capture of its nukes by the Taliban added as a bonus, and that makes you trust his realism?

Suppose he actually said anything about ending the war - which he hasn't, quite the contrary - how would that be any different from the countless broken promises he's made before, like closing Gitmo or getting out of Iraq?

Your "trust" is in fact nothing but blind faith, faith that the Obama myth will somehow prevail over the Obama reality, that it will all somehow work out in the end, because you just can't bear to contemplate the contrary.
Get out NOW
[info]stickytruth2 wrote:
Wednesday, 28 October 2009 at 07:52 pm (UTC)
No country in this world has ever won a war in Afghanistan, wake up America and your supporting armies.
GET OUI NOW
Can't anyone see?
[info]hmuhammad wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
It's an open secret. They were there because of the natural resources i.e. natural gas, petroleum, gold,copper, iron ore and minerals. Check it out on the internet.

You would not spend millions of dollar just to help a troubled nation standing on his own feet again. That just does not make sense, fromany view you try to look at it.

They have to gain something from the war, that's why they want to stay. I think that's the end.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date