27 October 2009

Hoh resignation

Matthew Hoh has resigned from the State Department in protest over the Afghan War. Hoh says that the war is simply fueling the insurgency and that he has "lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," In his resignation letter, published early Tuesday, he stated: "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end." Richard Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told the Post he disagreed that the war "wasn't worth the fight," but did agree with much of Hoh's analysis.

Ultimately, our perplexity must extend to the entirety of U.S. military involvement overseas. Without an analytical rubric, U.S. actions make no sense. And a coherent analytical rubric can only come from the Left--from an understanding of wars as attempts by elite actors to monopolize resources to gain greater profit and relative advantage. Any other rubric--for example, the smug notion that all these wars somehow involve a concern for human rights, democracy, or women--isn't analytical in the true sense of the word since analysis, by definition, involves looking beyond the outer veneer of historical events (propaganda and slogans) to understand the true motives and mechanisms driving change.

4 comments:

ddjango said...

Hey, Karlo!

Though I agree with your piece, I must suggest that in the larger context of the elitist's unified program to drain wealth from the US, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do make sense.

There is too much money to be made from war for the government to seek peace. These wars also serve as a distraction, creating false political alliances and conflicts within the country. We have been sold on the delusion that we face a powerful foe in the Islamists; a false threat which is used to justify all manner of state policies to suppress the people.

The elite, unfortunately, is a lot smarter than we dare give them credit for.

Karlo said...

The "wars" represent a highly successful propaganda campaign. The hallmark of oppression throughout the world has always been to destroy the population's power to think clearly. A good example of this is the dribble that passes for "news" in the NK press. It's all silly nonsense, but it probably succeeds in getting people to simply give up trying to understand much about the world. The idiocy presented to the America people is the same. The notion that there's a "war on terror" and that this should be the great campaign of our times is lunacy in the highest degree. If anyone thinks otherwise, I challenge them to take a blank sheet of paper, draw some simple rows and columns, and write down the number of deaths and money lost to various causes. (Hint: Terrorism ends up on about the 20th page below lightning strikes, somewhere in the viscinity of meteor strikes and tick bites.)

libhom said...

"The hallmark of oppression throughout the world has always been to destroy the population's power to think clearly. A good example of this is the dribble that passes for "news" in the NK press."

A microcosm of this is happening with the Mayor's race here in NYC. We are being bombarded with an endless stream of bs trying to get us to think that a mayor that has run the city like a failed bank is the best mayor ever.

Diana said...

"...the smug notion that all these wars somehow involve a concern for human rights, democracy, or women--isn't analytical in the true sense of the word since analysis, by definition, involves looking beyond the outer veneer of historical events (propaganda and slogans) to understand the true motives and mechanisms driving change."

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Always a pleasure to read you.