Think Progress

Matthew Hoh: ‘I Firmly Believe That We Are Taking Part In A Civil War’ In Afghanistan

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.’”

Daily Show Heckled, Attacked For Airing Interview With Leader Of Palestinian Nonviolent Democratic Movement

This past Wednesday, The Daily Show aired an interview with Anna Baltzer, a Jewish American peace activist and author of Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories, and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, a leading figure in the Palestinian democratic and nonviolent movement for peace.

At the beginning of the interview, Barghouti told Stewart that he thinks the “Jewish people have been in the avante garde of struggling for justice…and democracy,” and concluded that it was “natural” for Palestinians like himself and Jewish activitists like Baltzer to work together for a just resolution of the conflict.

Barghouti explained his experience as a Palestinian growing up under occupation. “It’s Palestinians who have been subjected to the longest occupation in modern history and a system of segregation that is totally unjust,” he said. This prompted a heckler from the crowd to yell, “Liar!” — the first heckling in The Daily Show’s 11-year existence. Stewart responded by joking, “Apparently Joe Wilson is with us tonight.” Watch it:

Following their joint appearance, Baltzer revealed in an open letter that “the show was overwhelmed with angry emails and phone calls prior to the appearance, and up until the last minute it seemed like they might cancel. … The entire staff were very nervous and may come to regret the monumental decision (and not make it again) as they will surely be inundated now that the show has aired.”

While some may feel that views like those of Barghouti should not be aired, the truth is Barghouti represents a Palestinian voice for nonviolence and democracy that is valuable to voice on U.S. airwaves. Despite the suffering he has endured living under occupation — he has been imprisoned and beaten several times for taking part in demonstrations and sit-ins — he has been a leading voice for nonviolent resistance and democratic reform, crafting his philosophy after that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Barghouti’s many accomplishments include founding a leading health relief NGO, removing anti-Semitic programs from the Palestinian airwaves, and running as an independent presidential candidate offering a “democratic and independent ‘third way’ for the large majority of silent and unrepresented Palestinian voters, who favour neither the autocracy and corruption of the governing Fatah party, nor the fundamentalism of Hamas.”

Baltzer is urging viewers who appreciate Stewart’s fortitude in bringing them on to thank him and the producers of The Daily Show by using the show’s contact form here.

Elliott Abrams: Iranian People Wouldn’t Oppose A Military Attack On Their Country

This afternoon, Elliott Abrams, Deputy National Security Adviser under President Bush, appeared on Fox News to discuss U.S. policy towards Iran. Abrams pled guilty to misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan and handled Iran policy under Bush.

When asked if any recent President has had “a successful strategy with Iran,” Abrams implicitly admitted his own decades-long failure. “No, I don’t think we’ve really had any successful strategies with Iran,” Abrams responded. “And you know, meanwhile they’ve been building up their nuclear program and missile program.” But Obama recently established the first high-level diplomatic engagement with Iran in 30 years, which produced results quicker than expected.

But Abrams, “the neocon’s neocon,” still clings to his long-running desire to bomb Iran. And to justify his view that military action against Iran is the prudent course, Abram told Fox News that the Iranian people would accept it:

FOX: 59 percent of respondents to our Fox News poll say that force should be used. How would Tehran react to that?

ABRAMS: It’s a very big question, Alisyn. My own view is that most Iranians now — after June, after the stealing of the election — would not rally around the flag. People used to say that — that if there’s an attack on Iran, you know the population is going to get patriotic. But that’s what Americans would do. I don’t know that it’s what Iranians are going to do, considering the way that regime is hated in Iran.

Watch it:

Certainly, the Iranian regime does have a great deal of opposition on the ground. But that doesn’t mean they would accept bombs falling on their country. For an Iranian populace that has previously expressed concern that the U.S. is trying to humiliate them, Abrams comments aren’t very reassuring.

A new poll of the Iranian people demonstrates a great potential for the diplomatic engagement that Obama is pursuing. World Public Opinion find that “two-thirds of Iranians would favor their government precluding the development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions against Iran.” 60 percent of the Iranian public favors “full, unconditional negotiations” between their government and the United States.

Pentagon Official On Military Action In Iran: ‘We Can Imagine A Number Of Destablizing’ Consequences »

Today in Geneva, the United States, along with Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU, engaged in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The talks produced “constructive” progress, with Iran agreeing to allow U.N. inspectors to visit the newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility. Following revelations about the secret facility last week, the right-wing instantly mobilized for war, calling for military action and “regime change” in Iran.

ThinkProgress asked Dr. Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, what the consequences might be if the war hawks had their way. “We’re a long ways away from that being an eventuality,” Kahl said, adding that the U.S. “is committed” to the “diplomatic track.” Noting that “military action is not desirable,” Kahl then laid out the sobering ramifications:

KAHL: [I]t will have an unpredictable set of consequences for the region but we can imagine a number of destabilizing ones. Depending on how Iran chose to retaliate, whether they chose to retaliate through the use of proxies in places like Iran or in Afghanistan through incitement of Shia communities in places like Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. Obviously if there was direct retaliation against U.S. forces in Iraq or Israeli interests. They could activate potentially activate or encourage Hizballah and Hamas to engage in reprisals and you can imagine the second and third order consequences of that on the peace process and on our outreach to the Muslim world and all of that.

“We don’t exactly know how it would unfold you have the prospects for unintended escalation and kind of losing control of what’s going on,” Kahl warned, adding that even though any military strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program, it could also “incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize” their nuclear material. Watch it:

Earlier this year, President Obama made it very clear that “regime change” is no longer the U.S. goal in Iran. When asked if the militaristic right-wing rhetoric undermines U.S. negotiations with Iran, a senior State Department official told ThinkProgress that it “could”:

I just saw the other day a quote from Ahmadinejad that talked about President Obama can’t even get his own job done let alone deal with us effectively. We should not underestimate the sophistication of Iran’s foreign policy apparatus and how they hear the messages from us and again, that’s one of the reasons we spend a lot of time on Capitol Hill is trying to make sure that the message they’re hearing from us are consistent.

Thankfully, Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to have no interest in taking any advice from the neocons, saying on Sunday that “there is no military option that does anything more than buy time.”

Transcript: More »« Less

Huckabee: Let The United Nations, The ‘International Equivalent Of ACORN,’ Float Into The East River

On Saturday, Mike Huckabee gave the keynote address at Phyllis Schlafly’s How To Take Back America conference. Huckabee praised Schafly, calling her book “Choice not an Echo” an inspiration when he was a teenager.

Huckabee spent a considerable amount of his address railing against the United Nations, calling it the “international equivalent of ACORN” and demanding that America should withdraw. As Dave Weigel noted, the crowd greeted Huckabee’s anti-UN rhetoric with a standing ovation:

HUCKABEE: It’s time to get a jackhammer and to simply chip that part of New York City. Let it float into the East River, never to be seen again. [STANDING OVATION] [...]

It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer dollar being spent that may have had a noble idea, but it has become a disgrace. It has become the international equivalent of ACORN, and it’s time to say enough.

Listen here:

The UN and other international diplomatic organizations have been a popular boogieman for Huckabee and his followers for years. During the 2008 campaign, Huckabee scored the endorsement of evangelical leader Rev. Tim LaHaye, whose books predict that the end-times will be accelerated by the secretary-general of the United Nations. During the campaign, Huckabee also — falsely — boasted that he had been consulted on foreign policy by John Bolton, who has made a career out of bashing the UN.

In August, Huckabee traveled to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and rejected a two-state solution. As Matthew Yglesias has noted, Huckabee also called for an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to be removed from the region.

Huckabee Rejects Two-State Solution

On a visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories this week, former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee supported Israel’s right to build settlements on Palestinian land. He also stated his opposition to a two-state solution, saying that there is no room for a Palestinian state “in the middle of the Jewish homeland”:

Speaking to a small group of foreign reporters in Jerusalem, Huckabee, seen as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, said the international community should consider establishing a Palestinian state some place else.

“The question is should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That’s what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic.”

This isn’t the first time Huckabee has come out against a two-state solution and endorsed the idea of Palestinian population transfer. In August 2008, Huckabee said, “The two-state solution is no solution, but will cause only problems,” insisting that “the Palestinians can create their homeland in many other places in the Middle East, outside Israel.” Ironically, the Jerusalem Post reported that Huckabee “did not want to impose his views on the situation or to Americanize it.”

Huckabee’s current visit is being sponsored by the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim, a non-profit organization “that sends millions of shekels worth of donations to Israel every year for clearly political purposes, such as buying Arab properties in East Jerusalem.” Israel’s Haaretz reported that the group “is registered in the United States as an organization that funds educational institutes in Israel,” but that its financing of settlements in East Jerusalem would “seem to violate the organization’s tax-exempt status.”

Yesterday, Huckabee attended a reception at the Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem, which “became the focus of American-Israeli tensions last month.” The Obama administration has objected to Israeli plans for construction of a new Jewish settlement at the hotel, which is “located in the heart of a Palestinian neighborhood.”

Israeli Consul Recalled After Authoring Memo Critical of Israel’s Approach To Obama Administration

Last week, an internal memorandum written by Boston-based Israeli consul general Nadav Tamir was leaked to the Israeli press, causing a media “firestorm” in Israel. In the memo, Tamir writes that the US-Israeli relationship is suffering as a result of Israeli hostility towards President Obama’s efforts to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end:

During a visit to Israel, I became more aware that we have a damaging misunderstanding regarding the intentions and policies of the American administration. I must note that even if I am wrong in my assessment of the American administration, the way in which we manage our relations nowadays is causing strategic damage to two very important aspects that make up our special relationship and they are the level of intimacy in coordinating policies, and the support of US public opinion towards Israel. [...]

In many American circles, there is a feeling these days, that while the Obama administration tries to resolve global conflicts, it must deal with the refusal to cooperate by governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel. Aaron Miller’s words, spoken after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, clearly show this feeling. He said it was a meeting between Obama yes we can and Netanyahu no you won’t. [...]

There are, of course, players in American and Israeli politics who oppose Obama ideologically and are willing to sacrifice the special relationship between the countries to further their own political agenda, but we cannot let these players damage the bipartisan attitude that rightly characterized the conduct of Israeli governments toward the US.

As a result of his memorandum, Tamir was recalled back to Israel and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman angrily told the press that “if someone is not happy and can’t live with government policy, the way is not to criticize and leak but to resign.” Some in the conservative community in Boston have sympathy for Lieberman’s position. Tom Mountain, a right-wing columnist for the Jewish Advocate, wrote in response to the controversy, “The bottom line is that the Obama government has been hostile to the Israeli government from the beginning. … Tamir is writing as an apologist for the Obama administration.’’

Yet many in the Jewish community around Boston have come to Tamir’s aid. Jonathan Sarna, a Jewish historian at Brandeis University, told the press that Tamir has “been seen as the most effective [consul] that anyone can remember.” And Michael Ross, the President of the Boston City Council and a son of Holocaust survivors, called Tamir a “dedicated advocate for Israel.”

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe defended Tamir in an editorial titled “Called out for telling the truth” today. The Globe writes, “Tamir was acting well within the rules of his position…when he offered his government some frank advice about how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies are alienating some Americans. Monitoring local opinion is part of what consuls do, and Tamir shouldn’t be punished for doing his job.”

Torture By Mexican Government In Drug War Highlights U.S. Loss of Credibility On Human Rights

The Washington Post reports today that the Mexican government has employed numerous torture techniques to extract confessions from suspected drug traffickers. The techniques included beatings, suffocation with plastic bags, electric shocks, the insertion of needles under suspects’ finger nails, water torture, and other abuses.

Under what’s known as the Mérida Initiative, the U.S. government agreed in 2007 to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion in funding to fight the war on drugs, but 15 percent (or $90.7 million) of the original funding and $24 million authorized under the Obama administration will be released only after the “secretary of state reports that Mexico has made progress on human rights.”

The reports of torture put that money’s release in jeopardy. As a result, Mexican human rights workers are accusing the U.S. of hypocrisy when it comes to human rights abuses, citing the mistreatment of suspected terrorists under President Bush. The Post explains:

Many Mexican human rights activists do not support the [human rights] conditions, noting that they were imposed by a U.S government widely accused of torturing prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“It really takes a lot of cynicism, a lot of hypocrisy, for the United States to say, ‘We will give you money to fight drug trafficking as long as you respect human rights,’” said José Raymundo Díaz Taboada, director of the Acapulco office of the Collective Against Torture and Impunity, which documents abuses in Guerrero.

The accusations of hypocrisy highlight one of the hard-to-quantify costs of the Bush administration’s use of torture against suspected terrorists to extract unreliable intelligence: the loss of credibility as a champion of human rights. In recent months and years, in fact, a growing number of nations have rejected calls from the U.S. to end human rights abuses, citing the Bush administration’s actions:

China: In response to the State Department’s annual human rights report critical of the Chinese government, a government spokesman said the report “exposed the double standards and downright hypocrisy of the United States on the human rights issue, and inevitably impaired its international image.” [3/12/2008]

Iran: The L.A. Times reported on Iran’s latest response to the State Department’s latest human rights report, writing, “Iranian officials regularly accuse the West of hypocrisy in zeroing in on Iran’s human rights record, citing prisoner abuse allegations in the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay. [3/11/09]

Russia: In response to criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney regarding Russia’s human rights abuses, then-Russian President Vladimir Putin asked, “Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?” [5/11/06. Similar remarks: 3/27/08]

Venezuela: The Venezuelan government responded to a recent State Department report on Human Trafficking, saying, “It is scandalous that a country…where torture has been practiced and terrorists are protected, pretends to prop itself up as a judge of human rights in the world.” [6/19/09]

As Matt Yglesias recently explained, the abuses that go on in Iran, China, North Korea, and other nations are perpetrated on a much wider scale and have gone on far longer than those that occurred in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. But the fact remains that “whenever you read about these kind of techniques being applied in Iran or North Korea, it’s immediately apparent to everyone that it’s torture, it’s cruel, it’s inhumane, and it’s wrong.” Indeed, it was immediately apparent to the world that the U.S. abuses were torture as well. Now, Obama must work to rebuild the credibility that his predecessor squandered.

The Israel Project: Ending Settlements = ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

Columnist Douglas Bloomfield reports that The Israel Project (TIP) — a Washington- based group that describes itself as “devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace” — advocates accusing those who support removing illegal Israeli settlements of promoting “a kind of ethnic cleansing to move all Jews” from the West Bank.

Bloomfield obtained a copy of TIP’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, “a manual on how to talk to journalists and opinion molders about the Arab-Israeli conflict.” The manual states:

“The single toughest issue” to defend among Americans generally and American Jews in particular is settlements, says the manual, and “hostility towards them and towards Israeli policy that appears to encourage settlement activity.” [...]

Similarly, TIP says the “best argument” for settlements is this: Since Arabs citizens of Israel “enjoy equal rights,” telling Jews they can’t live in the Palestinian state “is a racist idea.”

As Bloomfield notes, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said recently that Jews who choose to live in the new state of Palestine “will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel.”

Last Thursday, TIP organized a press call with Israeli spokesman Mark Regev, who defended continued building in Israel settlements. Given the numerous Israeli administrative and security measures that function to divest Palestinians of their property and put it into the hands of Israeli settlers, TIP’s use of the term “ethnic cleansing” is patently ridiculous.