Official resigns over Afghan war

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 Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala - via Digg, Drudge Report, Memeorandum, Washington Post , Publish2 (World)

See All Reviews »

Review

Marsha Iverson
4.5
by Marsha Iverson - Dec. 30, 2009

Outstanding, thoughtful account of a dramatically important action by a courageous former Marine who has resigned from the US Foreign Service because of his disillusionment with US policy in Afghanistan. Extensive quotes from Matthew Hoh, other diplomatic and military officers give a fully-formed portrait of one man's careful analysis and evaluation of the situation in Afghanistan. A "Must Read" for anyone who wants to understand what is happening and why.

What greater credibility can anyone have to evaluate the perilous and ill-advised continuation of US occupation in Afghanistan? Matthew Hoh is an experienced combat Marine with extensive military, executive, and foreign policy experience on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is no kumbaya-singing pacifist, and and has experienced the worst of war. He knows the people of Afghanistan, and the irresolvable differences between the urbanites and the tribal villagers. Hoh understands that no amount of US military presence will bring peace to Afghanistan, that our concept of Afghanistan as a nation is incorrectly applied to an untamed land of tribal groups who want to be left alone to live as they see fit. The Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan. The British Empire failed in Afghanistan. Conquerors Alexander and Darius the Great were unable to subdue Afghanistan. Surely it is time to merge Matthew Hoh's analysis with some 4,000 years of history as we revise our policy in Afghanistan, and make the most graceful exit we can.

See All Reviews »

Marsha's Rating

Overall
4.5

Very good
from 13 answers
Quality
4.7
Facts
5.0
Fairness
5.0
Sourcing
5.0
Style
5.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
5.0
Relevance
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »