Following Matthew Hoh's resignation, I'd like it if some of the Very Serious People who craft Beltway groupthink take this perspective more seriously:
In both RC [Regional Commands] East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.
The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people.
Now, it's clear that public opinion in Afghanistan is complicated--certainly more positive toward U.S. troops than the Taliban, but that doesn't mean Hoh is wrong about the U.S. presence doing more harm than good. Where you come down on Afghanistan in large part amounts to whether, like Peter Bergen, you believe that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have fused--or like Hoh, you think that Taliban strength is largely a function of the American presence there. My issue is that Hoh's view is one that hasn't been taken seriously because it's not within the spectrum of acceptable political opinion within the Beltway--believing there's a limit to what American military force can achieve is seen as "unpatriotic."
-- A. Serwer
