Talk about "Much Ado About Nothing!" The minor case of one Matthew Hoh's resignation from the Foreign Service over our war in Afghanistan (or Foreign Circus, as it is often dubbed by those who know it from the inside) is the kind of molehill our media (and admittedly, politicians too) enjoy blowing into something "significant." It's not.
First, it's worth noting that Mr. Hoh had joined the Foreign Service "earlier this year." Should we think that whatever policy views he managed to formulate in his few short months' experience are worth more than a passing glance?
Some will point out that Hoh had a more successful and somewhat longer career as a U.S. Marine, where he attained the rank of captain and had combat experience in Iraq. Fine. Certainly, a lot of the kinds of peacekeeping work the Marines and Army have taken on in these recent conflicts is germane; and people with Hoh's background will be needed as these basically civilian functions are transferred from the military to civilian agencies.
But there are drawbacks to that experience, also. Hoh wouldn't be the first military man to move into the civilian world to discover that there are some deep differences in the "institutional culture" of how things are done, how decisions are made. Moreover, Hoh's experience was in Iraq, not Afghanistan, and few would argue they're the same; so how, in the space of a few short months, did he become "the senior civilian in Zabul Province?" Afghanistan isn't Vietnam either, of course, but an equivalent position in Vietnam would have been held by the civilian equivalent of a one- or two-star general - four or five grades above Hoh's military rank, and about 20 years more than his total work experience. It's hard not to conclude that those who appointed him to the job may have been too hasty.
Finally, look at what Hoh actually says about his reason for resigning: "I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan." So, it's not about policy, it's about him. As a foreign affairs professional, you get to have a hand in formulating policy, weighing pros and cons, arguing for your preferred course of action but (as in the military) once those who are charged with the political authority do make a decision, your mission is to execute it, not to second-guess it. There have been occasional resignations of junior officers from time to time, and in every case I can recall, there's been this prima donna element.
From one perspective, perhaps it's good that if you really can't "understand" a policy, you should resign rather than trying to implement it. But the fact is that our entire civil and foreign government service is built on the concept of nonpartisanship, i.e., that government officials (except at the very highest appointive levels) carry out legal policy decisions regardless of whether they agree with them politically. Thankfully for the continuity and effectiveness of our foreign policy, the attitude that each employee should decide for himself whether to resign or to carry on with a course of action determined by wiser heads (as one hopes and assumes they are) has not caught on widely. [Oh - except in Congress, where it's become the fashion to hold up or even reject the appointments of Foreign Service officials to senior slots because they may have implemented the orders of your political opponents.]
None of this is to impugn Mr. Hoh's sincerity, or his motivation. Nor do I mean to suggest that his opinions about our nation's approach to Afghanistan are wrong. They're not news, but they may be right. In fact, we are in the midst of a policy review/reformulation right now, and many people are expressing views like his. Perhaps new decisions will bring a strategy for Afghanistan that is more in line with Hoh's, but patience doesn't appear to be one of his virtues, and he's eager to move on to the next chapter in his life. If will be interesting to see what that is, and whether it may be in politics.
Comments