Last week, former Marine captain and State Department employee Matthew Hoh made headlines when he went public with his resignation from the administration over his opposition to the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. In a four-page letter he sent to the State Department, he explained his resignation by writing that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan serves to “bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”

This past Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Hoh about his views on the war. During one segment of the interview, Zakaria asked Hoh why he feels the U.S. should begin to draw down its troops from the country. Hoh replied that he doesn’t see the Afghan conflict as one between the U.S. and the Taliban, but rather as a 35-year long “civil war” between rural Pashtuns “who want to be left alone” and an urban government the U.S. is backing:

HOH: I firmly believe that we are taking part in a civil war. We are on the same side of the civil war that the Soviets intervened on.

ZAKARIA: So, you have a divide among the Pashtuns. There’s the urban middle class. And Karzai, presumably, who is a Pashtun, comes from this urban middle class.

HOH: Correct.

ZAKARIA: Many of them left the country after the — during the years of the civil war. And the ones who have stayed to fight, who fought the Soviet Union and who are now fighting us, are the rural, mountain tribe Pashtuns who resent the central government and its intrusions.

HOH: Who want to be left alone.

Watch it:

Hoh also told Zakaria that he thinks keeping 60,000 troops in Afghanistan is detrimental to U.S. security. “Occupying a location only provides justification and only lends credence to the goals of that organization,” he said. “It only inspires young Muslim men to defend their culture against an occupying army, which is what we are.”

When the CNN host asked Hoh why he was speaking out, the former State Department employee cited support from two groups: Afghan Americans and U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan. “I’ve had a lot of Afghan-Americans contact me and say, ‘Matt, you get it,’” Hoh told Zakaria. “I’ve gotten many e-mails from guys [serving] in Afghanistan…men and women who are saying, ‘Matt, thanks for doing this.’”

Rachel Abrams, The Weekly Standard’s Meir Kahane Writing Fellow, manages to mix sexism and racism into her carefully considered analysis of the Obama administration’s climbdown on settlements:

“Palestinian” “leaders” are afloat in a sea of anti-Zionism and self-pity so deep and so wide, so intractable and so paralyzing, they have made bedfellows — odd as they may be — of Bibi Netanyahu and the U.S. secretary of state. Only a few months ago Mrs. Clinton was pursing her prissy schoolmarm’s lips at the Israeli prime minister over even the minimal “natural growth” of settlements; today she is using those same lips to hail his moratorium on new construction — a considerable compromise — as “unprecedented”.

See, Abrams puts Palestinian in quotes because she doesn’t believe the Palestinians really exist as a people, and thus they have no claim to Palestine, and thus no reason to complain when Israel steals Palestinian water and land for settlements. This was a big Israeli propaganda talking point back in the day. It’s discredited now, but still an article of faith for certain elements of the Israeli hard right.

As for Secretary Clinton’s “prissy schoolmarm’s lips,” I suppose I could feign surprise that The Weekly Standard would publish such stuff, but who would be fooled?

Phoenix’s local KPHO-Channel 5 reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into accusations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is “using his position to settle political vendettas” against those who have been critical of his controversial tactics, primarily his aggressive pursuit of undocumented immigrants.

KPHO lists a series of well-known Arizona public figures who were paid “unwelcome visits” by Arpaio’s deputies shortly after speaking out against the Sheriff. Following previous criticisms made by former Mesa Police Chief George Gascon, the Maricopa County police inexplicably raided Mesa City Hall and the public library in search of undocumented janitors. Gascon was one of Arpaio’s harshest critics who, on his last day on the job, was still slamming the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s (MCSO) “incompetence” and stated that Arpaio’s immigration sweeps make “absolutely no sense” and are contrary to “good policing in general.” Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon asked the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate complaints of alleged racial profiling committed by Maricopa County cops. Just a few weeks later, Arpaio’s deputies demanded all of Gordan’s e-mail, phone logs and appointment calendars. “He knows he never has to prove anything,” Gordon told KPHO. “He just raises the issue, and then he hides behind the badge — and the damage is done.”

KPHO also lists Dan Saban, who ran against the sheriff in 2004 and 2008; Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who tepidly opposed the Sheriff’s immigration tactics; Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, who challenged Arpaio’s handling of inmates; ACLU attorney Daniel Pochoda, who has sued the MCSO several times; and the entire Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. However, all of the sources declined to speak with Arizona Republic on the record because of the a “fear of reprisal from the Sheriff’s Office.” KPHO points out that none of Arpaio’s investigations involving the individuals mentioned have resulted in convictions. Nonetheless, Arpaio has cost them “hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and tarnished reputations.”

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was “fired by Karl Rove for failing to be political enough in his prosecutions,” told KPHO that he would seek an indictment if he were working on the case:

“I’ve been in and around law enforcement for about 20 years — state, local and federal level (and) even some military prosecution work. I’ve never seen anything like this…This is remarkable, I can’t believe this is happening in the United States. This is something that I have seen in South America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. Absolutely unacceptable. We don’t do this kind of thing in this country without some kind of consequence.“

The “normally talkative” Arpaio refused KPHO’s repeated requests for an on-camera interview, but did put out a release stating that KPHO “has an axe to grind against this Office” and slammed KPHO for citing “the same attorney [Iglesias] who was fired in 2006 by the US Attorney General.”

Watch the KPHO report:

In an op-ed that reveals far more about him than about Iran’s Green Movement, Jackson Diehl expresses disappointment that Iran’s dissidents apparently aren’t all Western-style democrats. Diehl kicks things off with a bit of the dusty old Orientalism:

The enduring nature of Iran is to frustrate outsiders who work by the usual rules of political logic or who seek unambiguous commitments. The West relearned that truth last week as the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dragged a straightforward plan to swap its enriched uranium for fuel rods into a swamp of double talk and counterproposals.

Those crafty Iranians — they’re so crafty! Unlike we Westerners, who always do things that make perfect rational sense. In point of fact, the P5+1′s uranium swap plan was itself a response to Iran’s original idea “to refuel the Tehran research reactor through purchasing fuel assemblies from international providers, including the United States.” Iran has apparently refused the uranium swap plan, and that’s bad news, but it shouldn’t be too much to expect the Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post to be able to analyze this without resorting to tired cultural stereotypes.

Diehl:

I was reminded of [Iran's enduring nature] in a recent conversation with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the “green revolution,” who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time.

Ataollah Mohajerani, who has been a spokesman in Europe for presidential candidate-turned-dissident Mehdi Karroubi, came to Washington to address the annual conference of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition.

I have to suspect most of the attendees at the WINEP conference were knowledgable enough about Mohajerani, and savvy about Iranian politics in general, not to expect “a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad” from one of Karroubi’s spokesmen traveling abroad. Iranian opposition leaders tend to be a bit more circumspect about trying to gain political advantage this way than, say, American conservatives.

Diehl:

What they heard, instead, was a speech that started with a rehashing of U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup in Tehran and went on to echo much of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric about the United States and the nuclear program. Mohajerani, who served as culture minister in the liberal Iranian government of Mohammed Khatemi in the 1990s, distanced himself from the current president’s denial of the Holocaust and remarked at one point that Iran “should not be more Palestinian than the Palestinians.” [...]

As for Western support for Iranian democracy and human rights, “the green movement has no expectations whatsoever,” Mohajerani declared with a sarcastic smile. “When we say we have no expectations, then our expectations will be met.” On the contrary, he warned against “taking advantage” of Ahmadinejad’s weak regime to strike a deal “that would not be in Iran’s interest.” The suggestion was that the opposition would consider any concessions to the West by Ahmadinejad illegitimate — a position that was borne out by statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan.

Like most similar dissident movements, including the movement that overthrew the Shah in 1979, Iran’s Green Movement is made up of a number of factions expressing a fair variety of ideas of what a future Iran should look like. Some of those want a reform of the Islamic Republic, others want to move toward a more explicitly secular system of government. But there is a pretty broad consensus among these groups, as among Iranians in general, in favor of Iranian nationalism, in favor of Iran’s right to nuclear power, and against historically interventionist Western powers seeking to exploit the continuing unrest for strategic gain. This seems to me to be very much in keeping with “the usual rules of political logic.”

To put it simply: Iran’s dissidents are, shockingly, not neoconservatives. Those who are expecting them to become so are the ones who are “wasting their time,” and ours. Give Diehl credit for one thing, though: At least, unlike Dick Cheney henchman John Hannah, Diehl didn’t discover anonymous Iranians who would welcome us as liberators.