Hama was a village in nothern Syria that was destroyed in a terroris insurgency during the early 80s. The Allawi* erm, sorry, wrong Hama.
Larry Hama's writing is, to be perfectly frank, seriously overrated. He does better than average dialogue, competent idea/premise based writing, and can clearly articulate a moral arguement that incorporates elements from cultures that are often seen as exclusive. (It is amazing that he could credibly write ninjas with western sensibilities.)
And, Hama is able to demonstrate real world knowledge, be it technical, historical or anthropological, in his writing, often without seeming like he is trying to show off what .
But, look at many of his plots. They are contrived as all get out. So, how many characters are related, or know somebody involved in one of several car-wrecks?
Additionally, Hama was prone (even by the standards of the time) to leaving plot threads hanging for excessively long periods of time. Along similar lines, he stayed on GI Joe too long. After the first 80 issues or so, the comic got drifty and expecially contrived. (So, how many characters were in VietNam, under various banners?) I am all for thematic consistency, but in excess, it can seem juvenile.
Along the same lines, Hama is not the only writer to produce a good GI Joe story. There were very intelligently written episodes of the cartoon (No Place Like Springfield), and even non-Hama issues of the comic (some not even American). By any objective standard, Josh Blaylock's "Return of Serpentor" equals, if not surpasses, anything Hama wrote. (And, it avoids Hama's tendency to get heavy handed with showing how much history he new.)
So, is Hama terrible? No. He recent track record aside, he has a good body of work (GI Joe and otherwise) to his credit. But, his track record hardly justifies any special claim to any franchise.
(I assume this will turn into a a larger discussion of the GI Joe comics.)