Me, crabby? I'm actually in excellent spirits, JohnM, thank you very much. Happy as a lark. I do like to use the needle when the discussion is stale, moribund, etc., as unfortunately seems to be the case with FADG since ken's illness.
But let's put the personal stuff aside, huh?
I read Hersh's article in excruciating detail last night as I had the benefit of my hard copy. Got a bit sidetracked by the excellent article on Australian aboriginal art, one of my interests since reading Chatwin's book in the 80s.
Hersh's article was clearly at the bottom of the pile in terms of quality, integrity, and reasoning.
But first, a factual matter: The article said nothing, zip, nada about Iran toning down its support of terrorism, as you suggested here, so please let's not follow Hersh's example. :0
Message 19137705
The issue is Syria. The question in my mind is this: Even if we give Hersh the benefit of the doubt and accept everything he says as Gospel truth--a big if--his article is logically flawed for many reasons. First, the contradictions. Hersh tries to paint Syria and Bashir Assad as somewhat benevolent, feeling America's pain after 9/11, and therefore willing to contribute intelligence concerning AQ to the US. In point of fact, Assad and the Baathist Party are secular creatures. They despise Islamic fundamentalism and are in turn despised by its leaders, Hizbollah being a notable exception that I'll return to in a minute.
Assad's father crushed fundamentalism--the Muslim Brotherhood variety which is closely akin and allied with AQ--a few years ago when he decided to teach it a "once and forever" lesson by utterly destroying the Syrian city of Hama. Many, many thousands of innocents died as did many fundamentalists. An incident that was not widely reported here but which had huge repercussions in the ME. It was the reason Assad died in his sleep instead of at the hands of a fundamentalist's bullet. The repression of Islamic fundamentalists--except for Hizbollah--in Syria is severe and effective.
As a result of the massacre at Hama, the vast majority of fundamentalists detest Assad. For Hersh to suggest that Assad's act in allegedly providing intelligence to the US stems from charitable motives is a bit naive.
Hersh admittedly touches upon Syria's self-interest but only in a marginal off-the-cuff way. In my view, that is the gist of the story--the tale of a young, inexperienced guy who can keep three balls in the air while his father could easily maneuver five trying to manipulate the US into doing his bidding.
A bit crass, a bit stupid in this kind of game. No wonder he was rejected. Not very nuanced.
Imagine the consequences if the US had gone along with Assad's silly scheme. People like Hersh could have potentially discovered the game, and raised holy hell about the CIA being in bed with Syrian intelligence. Shades of Iran contra all over again. Not a pretty public spectacle. Do you for a minute think that this would not be the liberal media's angle upon discovering the alleged cooperation?
I said I'd get back to Hizbollah, which Assad supports because he simply has to as it is very powerful and influential in Syria. Nasrallah, its leader, is revered in Syria. What happens when the US asks for intelligence about Hizbollah or takes steps to confront it? Assad is trapped, is what happens, and the relationship breaks down.
What guarantee does the US have that Assad won't allow Hizbollah to conduct terror strikes overseas or in US territory like it did in Argentina? None, Assad is hamstrung by Hizbollah.
Imagine Hizbollah, supported by a reluctant Syria, conducting a terror operation in the US and the link between US intelligence and Syria's being discovered as a result of the investigations? Can you say major blowback?
As a result of US/Syrian intelligence cooperation, then, the US faces the risk of public disclosure causing an embarrassing spectacle during an election year plus there is nothing in the relationship to suggest that it would result in Syria curtailing Hizbollah's activities which it may not be able to do in the first instance.
I think that if Hersh's tale is true, a big if, then US policymakers acted very prudently by refusing Syria's entreaties. The anti-terror game is not centered in Syria anyway but in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where Syria is simply little or no help. At the end of the day, it's likely that what Syria offered was simply not worth the trouble.
Granted, Hizbollah has been quiet recently, but that won't be the case for long. It has a lot of resources it is undoubtedly itching to use. And here is where one of Hersh's most fundamentally dishonest statements comes into play. In his pathetically transparent attempt to suggest that Baathist Syria is somehow benevolent, he said in his article that Syria had not engaged in terrorism since 1980. Not a word, of course, about what Syria-supported Hizbollah has done, which is not inconsequential.
The more I read Hersh, the more I see him turning into a caricature of his former self. He is, of course, a tasty meal for the true believers. Fortunately, he has little or no clout anymore. |
