A Marine Asks Why

Can anyone handle the truth?

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war, October 27, 2009:

When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.

A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.

But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

Rather than being satisfied with the selective snippets of Hoh’s resignation letter provided in media accounts, I recommend you read the whole thing. Here are the portions I found most interesting.

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. To put it simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

The value of the GWOT is to keep the world safe for plutocracy.

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at least the end of King Zahir Shah’s reign, has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency. The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies.

Another way of seeing it is that Afghanistan is no more than a supporting actor in our so-called “culture war”.

The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

Psy-ops could try calling the Pashtuns “haters” and “racists”. It would take decades of repetition and indoctrination, and its probably essential to have some verbally-skilled Pashtun-looking “anti-racists” to supply the poison, but it really does work in the long run. In a generation or two Pashtuns themselves will be clamoring to import diversity into the most hideously Pashtun areas, just like Whites do.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

The stated reasons, to spread freedom and democracy, are specious. The stated strategy, to have our infidel military win over alien muslim hearts and minds, is absurd.

What’s really going on is the US’s judaized, urban, secular, educated ruling class is at war with its White rural, religious, illiterate (or at least misinformed), traditional class. In this war, the plutocrats kill two birds with one stone by sending a disproportionately White military to stir up trouble and die trying to repress Afghan peasants who quite understandably resent their presence.

All that’s being spread is misery, not freedom or democracy. Here at home the freedoms we Whites require for survival (association, arms, speech) are under constant assault. In the age of mass media, broadcast to a dumbed down, cowed, misinformed electorate our vaunted democracy is only a fig leaf for plutocracy. Our politicians answer to wealthy cosmopolitans, not the citizenry they’re supposedly sworn to serve.

More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

The threat to us comes mainly from the plutocrats and their globalism, and no, they are not tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. They compel our politicians to allow millions of hostile aliens to flood over our borders even as they send our guardians overseas, ostensibly to guarantee peace and safety for other aliens.

Overseas the plutocrats know their enemies, our military men, will be maimed and killed with bullets and bombs. Here at home they employ more insidious legalistic weapons, like “hate” laws and anti-White “civil rights”. Coupled with biological weapons, like immigration and refugee resettlement, the damage is more devastating, and lasting. When the U.S. military finally withdraws the Pashtun will still be Pashtun. Whites face extinction.

Alongside the genocide an epic swindle is perpetrated.

We are spending ourselves into oblivion” a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America’s best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.

Of course “we” aren’t spending ourselves into oblivion. The plutocrats have had their political lackeys hand them monumental sums and stick taxpayers with the bill. The trillions spent on endless global war also end up in their pockets. What’s happening is they’re spending us into oblivion.

19 thoughts on “A Marine Asks Why”

  1. “Highest number of Jewish ‘American’ youths enlist in IDF this year with Israeli officials describing them as ‘most enthusiastic'”

    Yeah, until they get that a nice whiff of some depleted uranium dust floating all around the mid-east from the incessant conflicts waged on ‘eretz yisroel’s’ behalf.

    Ye reap what ye sow, jew.

    Hope ya’ll ‘veterans’ get treated better than the American one’s fighting war’s on *your* behalf.

  2. I think this has become a bullshit war, but I think it’s above all an expression of liberal universalism. Bush clearly believed his own bullshit, and this is why we have had two few troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, little expression of organized hatred of Islam, and little realization that we can’t have open borders and be safe from terrorism. I don’t think, however, that this is a war to destroy whites, other than insofar as it is an expression of a broader liberal viewpoint

  3. The Soviet Union couldn’t defeat Afghanistan with like 100,000 soldiers, almost all ethnically homogenous… but the USA is supposed to win with like 60,000 Affirmative Action soldier types?!?!?!

    There is no way the USA is going to field a military as good as the USSRs was, and with as many soldiers, in this theatre of battle so it is time to just pack it in!!

    PS the real reasons for this war is probably just to keep soldiers over there and not in the unemployment line and also to kill off White soldiers… something the Zionist Occupied Government has turned into something of a sick gruesome hobby.

  4. “The Soviet Union couldn’t defeat Afghanistan with like 100,000 soldiers, almost all ethnically homogenous”

    The Soviet army was far from ethnically homogeneous and included many soldiers from ethnic groups that are present in Afganistan, like Tajiks and Uzbeks.

  5. The point of having our troops over there and not at home is so they don’t form Freikorps units here.

  6. Auster Watch time!

    Don’t know how regularly you read VFR, but there were a few gems from that site in the past couple of weeks that are worth mentioning

    First, Auster on Sailer on Podhoretz.


    Steve Sailer writing at Vdare has a long review of Norman Podhoretz’s boring- and unimaginative-sounding book, Why Are Jews Liberals? Sailer makes a variety of good points, but the article as a whole is so disorganized and undisciplined that it produces in the reader the intellectual equivalent of car sickness. It is also marred by Sailer’s repeated cheap shots against Israel and those who defend Israel against a world that is either seeking to destroy Israel or facilitating those seeking to destroy it, a campaign the existence of which Sailer never acknowledges.


    He continues, first quoting Sailer:

    My belief is that criticism is good for you. (I’ve personally experienced a lot of it.) In contrast, people who are treated as being above criticism tend to behave more badly over time.

    For example, criticism by Jews of Christian anti-Semitism has no doubt greatly improved Christian attitudes and behavior. If our culture were to permit it, criticism by Christians of Jewish anti-Christianism would likely have a similar socially salutary effect.

    This is what I’ve said all along.

    Now we’re getting somewhere. It’s actually okay to criticize Jews as Jews. Party at my place!

    But there’s a catch:

    Between anti-Semitism on one side and the ruthless suppression of all criticism of Jews on the other, there is the mean, which is rational criticism of Jews when they deserve it.

    Obviously one has to avoid the taint of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it’s unclear exactly how to do this. What’s the dividing line between acceptable criticism and anti-Semitism?

    For starters, it appears that you’ve got to be kosher on Israel, and rigorously avoid associating with other anti-Semites:

    But is Sailer, who consistently exhibits a bigoted animus against the Jewish state, in a position to engage in such good faith criticism? And is Vdare, a site that has among its regular contributors America’s leading anti-Semite, Kevin MacDonald, and the lunatic hate-monger Paul Craig Roberts, the place to propose such a program?

    …To say that the Jews are the primary force that is suppressing the supposed immigration restrictionist sentiment of the overwhelming majority of Americans, to suggest that but for the Jews the non-Jewish majority would have ended America’s mass Third-World immigration policy by now, goes beyond valid criticism. It is a bigoted statement, expressing, and intended to invoke in others, animus against Jews as Jews.

    If paleocons are going to make rational criticism of Jews, and not just use the word “criticism” as a cover for their anti-Semitism, they need to remove the anti-Semites from their ranks, and the anti-Semitism from their own minds and hearts.

    Cue cheering from his greasy Semitic readership.

    So what it boils down to is that it’s okay, nay, necessary to criticize Jews as Jews, but Larry gets to decide who is qualified to proffer this criticism. He’s the gatekeeper. Goyim need not apply.

    It ends up being quite the bold position on the JQ from Auster. He and the 14 other Jews that are “pro-White” are free to call Jews on their anti-White attitudes. I’m sure that’ll do the trick and get organized Jewry to reform.

  7. Weston, I saw it and noted the same bits you did. My favorite part:

    America’s white gentile majority needs to criticize the Jews as Jews, and even express righteous indignation against them, when they go too far–when, for example, they claim that their Jewishness requires them to promote open borders and support minorities against the majority; or when they speak of white Christian Americans, the most philo Semitic people in history, as though they were all Nazis under the skin and argue that the only way to make Jews safe in America is to reduce white Christians to a minority via Third-World immigration. Jewish intellectuals and spokesmen have gotten away with these vile attitudes for decades, in some cases perhaps not realizing how vile they were, because no one ever criticizes them for them. Let the criticism begin.

    You see, it’s no jew’s fault for doing vile anti-White things – it’s America’s white gentile majority’s fault for never criticizing them in the proper way!

    I long ago figured out how Auster defines anti-semitism: it is any thought or action that isn’t premised on what’s best for jews. It’s that simple. Thus “criticizing” jews for fouling their own philo-semitic nest isn’t anti-semitism. But condemning the jews who have actually aided and abetted non-White immigration and anti-White civil rights and the genocide produced as a consequence, because you care most about Whites, is in Auster’s words, “exterminationist anti-semitism”.

    He can take his moralizing, as a jew, and stuff it.

    There’s more to say about how Auster’s criticism of Britain (which he calls the Dead Island) and ordinary Britons is more harsh than anything Sailer ever says about israel, and about how Auster finds Podhoretz’s book about “anti-semitism” and jewish “liberalism” so boring that he never addresses it, even though both topics are precisely what Auster is most concerned about. But I’ve lost the interest to take apart Auster’s fruitloopery in detail.

  8. “…there is the mean, which is rational criticism of Jews when they deserve it.”

    Is this hebrew for “If you cant say anything good about jews, dont say anything”?

  9. “Now we’re getting somewhere. It’s actually okay to criticize Jews as Jews. Party at my place!”

    Glad Auster is giving us his permission to do what is already part of our natural constitutional and civil rights.

    Your quite a ‘mensch’ there, Larry!

    Now move to Israel.

  10. I long ago figured out how Auster defines anti-semitism: it is any thought or action that isn’t premised on what’s best for jews. It’s that simple. Thus “criticizing” jews for fouling their own philo-semitic nest isn’t anti-semitism. But condemning the jews who have actually aided and abetted non-White immigration and anti-White civil rights and the genocide produced as a consequence, because you care most about Whites, is in Auster’s words, “exterminationist anti-semitism”.

    Brilliant. It’s all coming into focus now for me.

  11. We Americans are very lucky to have patriotic young AMERICAN men serving in our military. We just need to make sure that our government and military are serving AMERICAN interests.

    Below is an example of the type who are not needed:

    ” And maybe that is why Tsvi Mark had this to say about his betrayal of the United States:

    “I had always wanted to join the U.S. army and train at West Point, but once I was there I realized that what I really wanted was to go home, to our land, our people, and our army.”

    Yes, this future child killer might also even get a chance to kill some of his fellow West Pointers. Israel likes to kill graduates of America’s service academies. Just ask any of the USS Liberty Survivors.

    But it gets worse. Much worse. Let’s learn a little more about Tsvi Mark and about an on-going large scale operation whose goal is to create traitors.”

    From an article, “Zionist Traitors on a Plane”:


  12. More from the Lobby:


    FBI Investigates AIPAC
    Posted – November 5, 2009

    Washington, D.C. November 5, 2009 – “A declassified FBI document reveals an espionage related investigation into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee over stolen classified government documents during the 1984 US-Israel Free Trade Area negotiations. The FBI also had allegations that an agent of the Israeli intelligence services worked as a member of AIPAC’s staff.”

  13. A well-stated comment from Mr. Anon to Sailer’s “Should Hasan be charged with treason?”:

    I know our government and our courts call him a citizen. He isn’t. Not in my book. If the government can base their policies on lies and willful disregard of reality, then I feel justified in making my own personal policies without regard to what they misconstrue to be the law.

    I would point out that Hasan broke two oaths. His oath as a soldier to perform his duty and obey our laws, and his oath as a doctor to “do no harm”.

    Still I wound not hang him as a traitor, for his loyalties never lay with our country anyway.

    Instead, I would hang him as a spy.

    My comment directs attention where the blame for treason truly belongs:

    It will take a new regime to officially recognize our invaders and colonizers as enemies, but when this happens the former regime officials who violated their sworn duty to protect and defend our country will be pursued and prosecuted.

    These people, and the corruption goes right to the very top, are indirectly responsible not only for Hasan’s actions, but for an untold score of other violent crimes committed by “undocumented migrants” and their issue.

Comments are closed.