[paraclete]

Why would a US diplomat resign because he has lost confidence as to why the war is being pursued in Afghanistan
US diplomat 'resigns' over Afghan war | World Breaking News | News.com.au
Thus surely tells us that things are not as they seem

[ETWolverine]

Because he's a leftist.

Leftists tend not to believe in ANY war, no matter how necessary or justified. They tend to be believers that "violence never solved anything" despite thousands of years of history to the contrary.

Of course when the $h!t hits the fan, as it did on 9/11, those same leftists tend to be the first people to demand that the military Do Something.

And don't give me any crap about this guy having been a Marine in Iraq. The fact that he's a State Department weenie is proof enough of his leftist leanings. Retired combat vets who want to enter civilian government service generally enter the Department of Defense, not the Department of State.

Hoh can claim to not be a "peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love" all he wants. Fact is that's how he's acting.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Normally the dinosaur media wouldn't give a "senior State Department official " the time of day.This guy is getting more press than Evita.

My question is if he is resigning ,not based on disagreement with strategy ,but disagreement that the war is worth fighting; then why did he accept the post in the first place?

Whether the war is worth fighting has not changed over recent events. The only thing that has changed in my view is the President's willingness to commit to the effort.

And that may be what he is really basing his decision on . Maybe he is saying (and I can't tell because what the press says is in the letter is muddled reasoning ) that he is not willing to serve in his capacity if the President isn't committed to winning.

For the time being I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If the Obots throw him under the bus we will have the answer.

[excon]

Hello Elliot:

Matthew Hoh resigned last month from his position with the Foreign Service, where he was the senior U.S. civilian in the Taliban-dominated Southern Afghanistan province of Zabul, because he became convinced that our war in that country will not only inevitably fail, but is fueling the very insurgency we are trying to defeat. Hoh's resignation is remarkable because it entails the sort of career sacrifice in the name of principle that has been so rare over the last decade.

In his resignation letter, he begins by noting that "next fall, the United States' occupation will equal in length the Soviet Union's own physical involvement in Afghanistan," and contends that our unwanted occupation combined with our support for a deeply corrupt government "reminds him horribly of our involvement in South Vietnam." He then explains that most of the people we are fighting are not loyal to the Taliban or driven by any other nefarious aim, but instead are driven principally by resistance to the presence of foreign troops in their provinces and villages.

It's a simple truth, yet it's beyond you.

You mentioned in another thread that the only way to win is to essentially occupy (my word - not yours) the bulk of South Asia. I don't disagree... But, it ain't never going to happen in the real world.

Given that it isn't, do you have a solution other than a permanent state of war?

excon

PS> By the way. How come you're willing to put the war on our credit card, but not health care?? Why don't you ask where THAT money is coming from? Of course, McCrystal's tactic, is nation building.. Why is the health of the Afghans more important to you than your neighbor down the street?

[ETWolverine]

Given that it isn't, do you have a solution other than a permanent state of war?

Yes I do.

KILL THEM.

Once that's done, the war's over.

PS> By the way. How come you're willing to put the war on our credit card, but not health care?? Why don't you ask where THAT money is coming from? Of course, McCrystal's tactic, is nation building.. Why is the health of the Afghans more important to you than your neighbor down the street?

Let's see... why are we willing to borrow for the cost of the war but not for the cost of nationalized health care? Aside from the fact that one is a good idea where the other one is not, you mean?

Cost of nationalized health care... $2.3 Trillion per year.

Cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan... $864 Billion per year (as per the Congressional Research Service report to Congress on May 15, 2009)

You do the math.

Elliot

[paraclete]

Hello Elliot:


You mentioned in another thread that the only way to win is to essentially occupy (my word - not yours) the bulk of South Asia. I don't disagree.... But, it ain't never gonna happen in the real world.

We are full circle again, have you forgotten history, we tried that solution with Afghanistan already. The British empire did occupy the bulk of South Asia up to 1948. They fought three "wars" with the Afghans and lost all three, all they could really do is keep them quiet by staying the hell out of their country. This lesson is lost on America because ego and bravado has taken over. "Yes we can" will not work in Afghanistan, these are not reasonable people, they are Muslim fanatics

[galveston]

these are not reasonable people, they are Muslim fanatics

Agreed!

Now if we can just keep them all in Afghanistan.

[paraclete]

Agreed!

Now if we can just keep them all in Afghanistan.

I'm sure the Pakistani government echos that sentiment as does the Australian government. The answer of course is to leave so the fighting will stop and the Afghans can return home. While ever there are foreign troops there they will fight. Good intentions means nothing to the Afghans. I see my government is starting to make noises about the duration of our stay which they weren't doing a year ago. I would say the corruption in the recent election has soured the deal, they well remember Vietnam

[paraclete]

Yes I do.

KILL THEM.

Once that's done, the war's over.



Elliot

I was wondering how long it would take for the nuclear solution to all problems to emerge.

Blow something up; the ultimate US solution to all problems. You don't have enough troops for a conventional solution but since Afghanistan is a wasteland anyway there is a quick solution. Thank you for those humane thoughts Elliot, that solution had escaped the rest of us.

[galveston]

Has my memory failed me?

Were we in Afghanistan when we were being attacked for about 30 years and then the attack on 9/11?

I DON'T THINK SO!

I don't know how to get it done, but these fanatics MUST be defeated. Leaving them alone simply gives them opportunity to plot further attacks, not just against the USA, but apparently against all the rest of the world.

Pulling out of ANY conflict with them simply gives them an edge.

[ETWolverine]

I was wondering how long it would take for the nuclear solution to all problems to emerge.

Blow something up; the ultimate US solution to all problems. You don't have enough troops for a conventional solution but since Afghanistan is a wasteland anyway there is a quick solution. Thank you for those humane thoughts Elliot, that solution had escaped the rest of us.

This is about the fifth time you've done that... assumed that taking military action to destroy the enemy means dropping nukes. On what basis are you making that assumption.

The fact that you are so clearly against taking military action against terrorists must mean that you support terrorism.

Hey... that assumption makes about as much sense as your nuclear assumption does, and it uses the same logic.

Now, I know that you guys on the left hate it when I do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. I'm going to give you the FACTS.

The US military has approximately 1,445,000 people (active) in it today. (As per Airforce Magazine, May 2009.) That number consists of 548,000 Army personnel, 203,000 Marines, 332,000 Naval personnel, 323,000 Air Force personnel, and 41,000 Coast Guard.

Additionally, there are 850,000 reserves, including 353,000 Army National Guard, 205,000 Army Reserve, 40,000 Marine Force Reserve, 67,000 Navy Reserve, 107,000 Air National Guard, 67,000 Air Force Reserve, and 11,000 Cast Guard Reserve.

This gives us a military force of 2,295,000 to call upon.

These are rounded numbers of course.

We can assume that Navy people won't be of any use to us in ground combat in Afghanistan. Neither would Coast Gurad personnel. So we'll eliminate them from the pool of available personnel (including their reserve units).

That gives us an available pool of 1,844,000 troops that would be useful in ground combat situations. I include the air force because the supply air support and suppression of enemy firepower for ground troops and are therefore necessary components of ground combat. (I could include Naval Aviators as well, but I don't know the breakdown of personnel within the Navy, so I've just eliminated them completely.)

Do you think that with an avialable military that size, that we couldn't find the troops levels necessary to destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan? Especially if we could get the help of Pakistan and the Afghani military as we have in Iraq?

Why does everyone assume that we don't have the troop strength to fight it out in Afghanistan? We have over 1.8 million military personnel to call on if we need to.

Elliot

[paraclete]

This is about the fifth time you've done that... assumed that taking military action to destroy the enemy means dropping nukes. On what basis are you making that assumption.

The fact that you are so clearly against taking military action against terrorists must mean that you support terrorism.

Hey... that assumption makes about as much sense as your nuclear assumption does, and it uses the same logic.

Now, I know that you guys on the left hate it when I do this, but I'm going to do it anyway. I'm going to give you the FACTS.

The US military has approximately 1,445,000 people (active) in it today. (As per Airforce Magazine, May 2009.) That number consists of 548,000 Army personnel, 203,000 Marines, 332,000 Naval personnel, 323,000 Air Force personnel, and 41,000 Coast Guard.

Additionally, there are 850,000 reserves, including 353,000 Army National Guard, 205,000 Army Reserve, 40,000 Marine Force Reserve, 67,000 Navy Reserve, 107,000 Air National Guard, 67,000 Air Force Reserve, and 11,000 Cast Guard Reserve.

This gives us a military force of 2,295,000 to call upon.

These are rounded numbers of course.

We can assume that Navy people won't be of any use to us in ground combat in Afghanistan. Neither would Coast Gurad personnel. So we'll eliminate them from the pool of available personnel (including their reserve units).

That gives us an available pool of 1,844,000 troops that would be useful in ground combat situations. I include the air force because the supply air support and suppression of enemy firepower for ground troops and are therefore necessary components of ground combat. (I could include Naval Aviators as well, but I don't know the breakdown of personnel within the Navy, so I've just eliminated them completely.)

Do you think that with an avialable military that size, that we couldn't find the troops levels necessary to destroy the terrorists in Afghanistan? Especially if we could get the help of Pakistan and the Afghani military as we have in Iraq?

Why does everyone assume that we don't have the troop strength to fight it out in Afghanistan? We have over 1.8 million military personnel to call on if we need to.

Elliot

My we do live in a fool's paradise, don't we. The US can hardly meet it's recruitment quotas and you talk of putting millions in the field. Many of those you quote have done their rotation and are entitled to R&R, long R&R. This is not WWII, Elliot, it is a minor skirmish in a minor war in a minor country.The only reason it gets any news coverage is the US is there. Forget Pakistan, they used 28,000 troops to oppose the Taliban and refuse to move their troops from the Indian border, even for their own internal purposes. They will not help you murder their fellow Muslims enmasse. The US has thousands of soldiers and thousands of allies chasing 100 Al Qaeda, and perhaps 10,000 Taliban and you are still getting your buts kicked. What will it achieve to give them more targets..

The only way to deal with a fanatical enemy is with overwhelming force and as with Japan the way to demonstrate that is nuclear, they don't respect a gun. Having said that you are not at war with Afghanistan

I am not against taking military or any other action against terrorists but I am against taking military action against a population on the general suspicion they may sympathise with some of the fighters. I know you think the same solution should be tried on Gaza. Now you could take your air force and carpet bomb Afghanistan as you did Vietnam but for some reason you choose not to do this. You could use Agent orange on the poppy fields and deny the Taliban finance but you choose not to do this. No it suits the US to have a presence there on both sides of Iran, so there will be no quick end to this war. I see the US will now use the Italian solution rather than more troops

[ETWolverine]

My we do live in a fool's paradise, don't we. The US can hardly meet it's recruitment quotas and you talk of putting millions in the field. Many of those you quote have done their rotation and are entitled to R&R, long R&R. This is not WWII, Elliot, it is a minor skirmish in a minor war in a minor country.The only reason it gets any news coverage is the US is there. Forget Pakistan, they used 28,000 troops to oppose the Taliban and refuse to move their troops from the Indian border, even for their own internal purposes. They will not help you murder their fellow Muslims enmasse. The US has thousands of soldiers and thousands of allies chasing 100 Al Qaeda, and perhaps 10,000 Taliban and you are still getting your buts kicked. What will it achieve to give them more targets..

Really? Can you name any battle that we have lost in Afghanistan? In fact can you name any confrontation with the Taliban in which we have not only won, but won OVERWHELMINGLY?

No, you can't.

But like every other lib, you think that a single casualty means that 'we're getting our butts kicked'.

In point of fact, in close to 9 years of operations in Afghanistan, there have been fewer than 1,000 casualties for the entire coalition. 834 of them have been US casualties.

That does NOT constitute "getting your butt kicked".

The only way to deal with a fanatical enemy is with overwhelming force and as with Japan the way to demonstrate that is nuclear, they don't respect a gun.

That is opinion, not fact. Again, the reactions of Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists to Israeli shows of conventional military strength show that they DO fear conventional weapons. They DO respect a gun. So any statement that we need a nuclear strike to deal with the terrorists is YOUR opinion. It is CERTAINLY not mine. And I would prefer it if you not state that it is.

Having said that you are not at war with Afghanistan

That's fine, because I'm not talking about taking action against Afghanis unless they are terrorists.

I am not against taking military or any other action against terrorists but I am against taking military action against a population on the general suspicion they may sympathise with some of the fighters.

Nor am I. On the other hand, if they are doing more than sympathizing, such as offering support, then they are no longer innocent bystanders according to the rules of war.

I know you think the same solution should be tried on Gaza. Now you could take your air force and carpet bomb Afghanistan as you did Vietnam but for some reason you choose not to do this.

Because it isn't necessary or even effective to do so in the mountains of Afghanistan.

You could use Agent orange on the poppy fields and deny the Taliban finance but you choose not to do this.

Because it would mean a disruption of the major agricultural crop that is produced in Afghanistan, and thus would destroy the economy of Afghanistan, effecting millions of real innocents.

no it suits the US to have a presence there on both sides of Iran, so there will be no quick end to this war. I see the US will now use the Italian solution rather than more troops

Not sure what having a presence on both sides of Iran has to do with anything. Nor do I understand why having such a presence would be considered a BAD thing.

And if we do use an Italian solution (I assume you mean buying the support of the terrorists) it will only be because the President is an a$$, not because it is an effective method of ending violence or suppressing terrorism.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I think McChrystal needs to evoke Lincoln and say to the President, "If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while."

[tomder55]

... when speaking of McChrystal ,Obama should evoke Lincoln ,who said of Grant 'I can't spare this man; he fights.'

[excon]

Hello righty's:

You're not big picture people, are you? You don't appear to see any further than the next 40,000 troops, or what ever the Army wants.

Of course, the Army wants to WIN, and I don't blame 'em. But, in the BIG picture, it's going to take a commitment of troops that the populace is NOT going to support.

I know you don't like hearing this, but the dufus broke it sooo badly, that I don't think it can be repaired militarily. Now, if the dufus had requested the troops needed to DO THE JOB, 7 years ago, the populace WOULD have said yes.

But, to think that they'll say yes NOW, and ignore the past is not looking at the big picture.

Besides, from a military point of view, 40,000 additional troops ain't going to cut it - not even close. It's wishful thinking of the WORST sort, because that kind of thinking gets our people KILLED with NOTHING to show for it.

That's the big picture.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I know you don't like hearing this, but the dufus broke it sooo badly, that I don't think it can be repaired militarily.

Obama, also still blaming Bush for Afghanistan, announced his own strategy six months ago. It's HIS war now, it's HIS strategy now and while he's dithering over what to do next he's seriously eroding the morale of HIS troops that are ready and eager to come to the aid of their brothers and sisters already in the battle. If he didn't want this he shouldn't have applied for the job and campaigned so hard to fight this "good" war.

[speechlesstx]

And with perfect timing, Spiegel is complaining about Obama's dithering over Afghanistan. Oh my...

Obama's silence stands in contrast with the impassioned rhetoric that carried him into the White House. He risks squandering the biggest advantage of his term in office: the serious attempt to make an honest assessment of his predecessor's legacy. It also represented a great opportunity to restructure the Atlantic alliance. But why should countries like Germany and France believe the verbose promises of a president who is not even sending a clear message at home, even though he has a majority in both houses of Congress?

There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

We're waiting, Mr. President.

[excon]

it's HIS strategy now and while he's dithering over what to do next he's seriously eroding the morale of HIS troops If he didn't want this he shouldn't have applied for the job and campaigned so hard to fight this "good" war.

Hello again, Steve:

Maybe if Johnson had dithered he might not have sent me and my brothers off to fight that "good" war... But, somewhere along the way, THAT good war turned very bad. Maybe if he dithered, 58,000 of my brothers would be alive...

Maybe if the dufus dithered, we wouldn't have invaded a country that was NO threat to us whatsoever, and we could have been fighting the "good" war...

Considering who dithered over the last 7 years, and who accused who of dithering, I'm not too concerned about a couple weeks.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Considering who dithered over the last 7 years, and who accused who of dithering, I'm not too concerned about a couple weeks.

Obama firmly and boldly announced his strategy six months ago. A couple of weeks are gone.