Seymour Hersh's Latest Bombshell: U.S. Military Undermined Obama on Syria with Tacit Help to Assad

[CJCRANE]

Interview of Seymour Hersh by Amy Goodman at Democracy Now.

INTRODUCTION:

A new report by the Pulitzer-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh says the Joint Chiefs of Staff has indirectly supported Bashar al-Assad in an effort to help him defeat jihadist groups. Hersh reports the Joint Chiefs sent intelligence via Russia, Germany and Israel on the understanding it would be transmitted to help Assad push back Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. Hersh also claims the military even undermined a U.S. effort to arm Syrian rebels in a bid to prove it was serious about helping Assad fight their common enemies. Hersh says the Joint Chiefs’ maneuvering was rooted in several concerns, including the U.S. arming of unvetted Syrian rebels with jihadist ties, a belief the administration was overly focused on confronting Assad’s ally in Moscow, and anger the White House was unwilling to challenge Turkey and Saudi Arabia over their support of extremist groups in Syria. Hersh joins us to detail his claims and respond to his critics.

LINK Democracy Now:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/22/seymour_hershs_latest_bombshell_us_military

[CJCRANE]

2. So do you support the regime change policy

or the other side?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. Hersch used to be a respectable journalist...

The last few years, however, he's gone deep into conspiracy theory mode, with tons of "unnamed sources" and far-fetched allegations, unconfirmed stories and rumors. I don't know if I can believe anything he says anymore.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Ah yes...kill teh messenger................n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. If someone tells a bunch of lies,

do you believe them when they say something else?

If the story is true, it'll come out in the end. But personally, I have a hard time believing Hersh these days.

[CJCRANE]

10. The basic facts are not in doubt. Isis and about 60% of the other rebels are fundie islamists

who want to enforce an extreme version of sharia law.

They are supported by other islamic regimes in the regime.

Do you find them to be a suitable partner to bring "liberal democracy" to Syria?

How will the results be different from what happened in Libya or Iraq after western intervention?

[Igel]

36. The report this was based on is a bit eccentric.

It analyses groups, not individuals.

Of the groups it examined, 60% fall into the "Salafi-jihadi" or the "Islamist" group. That's something like 15 groups.

33% (23%?) are secular and anti-ISIS. However, the report takes pains to point out that many of the members of those groups are likely willing to fight with Islamists and accept an Islamist settlement to the conflict.

One has to wonder if any of the members of the 60% "sympathetic" are fellow-travellers, at best, and not willing to accept an Islamist settlement. In other words, the report only doubts the loyalty of allies; members of the opposition groups are all steadfast, dyed-in-the-wool loyalists to their cause.

This strikes me as doubtful. The methodology of looking at groups and extrapolating down isn't the most reasonable way of doing things. Looking at alleged numbers of claimed fighters is also squirrelly.

But then the media have fun, because the NSA group are the ones that are doubted, even if their goal is secular and anti-ISIS.

Of course, the media's goal is waffling on the matter. They like self-doubt, because that plays domestically--and "self-doubt" is easily transformed into "doubting the domestic political opposition." When Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us" that slogan was taken up, but never at face value--"We have met the enemy and he is fellow citizens who disagree with us" was the understanding. Those repeating the slogan seldom considered themselves the enemy--they're obviously the good guys.

[CJCRANE]

5. I'll ask the same question: do you support the regime change policy?

Do you support the arming of rebels to bring democracy to Syria?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. I support the rebels taking out Assad, yes.

With how many of them he's killed, he has no right being in charge.

[CJCRANE]

7. Even if the rebels are islamists who will usher in sharia law?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. So long as they are not ISIS, yes.

Assad has killed more Syrians than ISIS, however.

[CJCRANE]

11. About 60% of the other rebels have a similar ideology to Isis

and are supported by nondemocratic islamist regimes in the region.

Many of these other rebels are affilitated to Al Qaeda, the same people who allegedly attacked America on 9/11 and who we apparently fought a war against for over a decade.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. So you support a dictator who openly murders his people?

That is what led to this civil war we are seeing here.

There's no perfect answer in this situation. Assad needs to go. Even if he is Putin's bestie.

[CJCRANE]

13. I've heard this rhetoric and seen this movie before with Saddam and Gadaffi.

It doesn't work on me anymore.

There are much more repressive regimes in the world than those of Assad or Putin, and some of them are our bestest allies.

[markpkessinger]

32. Exactly, thank you!

We all know that neither al-Assad nor Hussein are/were, in any respect, "good" rulers. But in a very interesting way, their positions mirror each other. In the case of Hussein, you had a secular Sunni (Ba'athist) ruler leading an ethnically divided country in which the Shia were the largest ethnic group, who maintained stability through brutal repression of political dissent. In Syria, you have al-Assad, a secular Shia ruler, leading an ethnically divided country in which the Sunni are the largest ethnic group, who is attempting to maintain stability through brutal repression of political dissent. Now, as we saw with the Maliki Shia government in Iraq, the formerly repressed Shia in Iraq, once in charge of the government, were no more interested in giving the Snni minority a political voice, than Saddam had been in giving the Shia (or the Kurds) a political voice. And in Syria, should the rebels overthrow al-Assad, a new SUnni-led government will be every bit as repressive against the Shia as al-Assad had been against them. It may be the case, in both instances, that a strong-man ruler who can maintain stability is as good as it gets, at least for now. This, I think, is what Putin has realized.

[leveymg]

16. What led to mass murder and religious war in the region was a serial regime change operation

The civil war in Syria is part of a regional religious and economic struggle that has drawn in the US and NATO at the prompting of neocons who have sided with the wealthy Sunni oil states of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

That started under Bush with the direct US military invasion of Iraq and was expanded during the present Administration to Libya and then in coordination with Qatar and others, including Turkey, to a Sunni religious war to overthrow the Ba'athist in Syria and the Shi'ia population that support it. In effect, the US has taken sides and restarted a sectarian Muslim war that has periodically reignited for 800 years.

Those who pushed this policy of siding with Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni regimes knew the dangers of spreading this war, but considered the growth of terrorist groups and sectarian bloodshed and genocide to be an acceptable cost of a long-standing neocon agenda. The strategy to overthrow Shi'ia governments in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Iran in favor of relatively "moderate" kingdoms in the Gulf and the Heshemite kingdom of Jordan was laid out in the 1996 "Clean Break" planning document prepared by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and the Wurmsers for PM Netanyahu. It has proven to be a remarkably accurate game plan of the events that were to follow.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. Like I said, there's no easy answer to this...

However, with the destabilization in the area, it's a prime breeding ground for ISIS. Do nothing, and ISIS strengthens. Do something, and something else may/will fill that void. Whether it's another ISIS or another Assad is yet to be seen.

[leveymg]

18. ISIS is far more dangerous to the US than Assad.

The opposite calculus applies in Israel and the Sunni oil states with which it has made a de facto alliance against Iran and its Sh'ia allies. Our national interests are directly in opposition to theirs on this issue. See the additional material in my post above. Google: "A Clean Break: A New Plan to Secure the Realm", that 1996 document (available on-line) laid out the neocon agenda for regional religious war and regime changes. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. You are correct with ISIS being more dangerous to US than Assad.

But on the flip side, Assad is more dangerous to Syrians than ISIS is.

I'll check out that document, although I think I read it back in the early 00's when I was reading up on the PNAC and the lead up to it. If I can get to it in a timely manner, I'll try to remember to respond to you.

[leveymg]

21. Reread today, "A Clean Break" has proven to a remarkably accurate guide to events in the Mideast.

Syria is just one part of a larger, longer strategy.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

27. I'll try to get to it.

It's on my list, though. Thanks!

[bobthedrummer]

25. +1 It was by design, and one would think that most people would acknowledge that fact-let alone

demanding accountability--not "Money trumps peace sometimes" or domestic full-spectrum dominance etc.
K&R.

[saidsimplesimon]

20. I believe there is ample evidence that

our regime change policies have failed. See: Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine

We, the US, have contributed significantly to the current civilian exodus and refugee crisis.

[CJCRANE]

23. Well...yes and no. They've failed in terms of spreading democracy, protecting western citizens

and increasing prosperity.

But when you see "mistake" after "mistake" after "mistake", then you realize that was never the real agenda.

And then you start to ask yourself: what exactly are our western leaders trying to do?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

26. there are no conspiracies

everything is obvious and there for all to see

[CJCRANE]

14. I don't why know Hersh is acting all surprised

because he wrote an article about how the Bush administration initiated the policy of arming sunni radicals back in 2007:

The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

[leveymg]

22. I am not sure that Hersh is really surprised by this. In fact, he was right in 2007 and is correct

again that the Pentagon has pushed back against neocon efforts to pursue regime change across the region in favor of the Sunni states and their Jihadi paramilitary.

[CJCRANE]

28. I bought the whole neolib rhetoric about the "Arab Spring"

hook, line and sinker.

I thought it really was different this time, that these guys knew how to bring democracy and prosperity to the world.

Little did I realize that they were doubling and tripling down on the PNAC agenda...until it all started unraveling (as planned) and their brainwashed berzerkers popped up seemingly out of nowhere.

It was the biggest bait and switch of modern times.

[Nitram]

15. It's sad how Hersh, a once great journalist has sunk...

...into conspiracy theory land.

[Fuddnik]

24. I saw that interview with Hersh. He's spot on.

And it shouldn't surprise anyone.

This has been the Pentagon and CIA's method since at least the Eisenhower administration.

I just finished a good book, "The Devils Chessboard" by David Talbot. It tells how they've run their own policy, under the table, for 60 years. I'd give details, but there's so much, so just read it yourself.

Obviously, he must have said something to embarrass Obama or Clinton sometime, and committed blasphemy to draw this kind of wrath.

[PatrickforO]

29. The situation in Syria is very confusing.

The Assad regime is against ISIS.

We are against ISIS.

Yet, we are supporting the rebels against Assad.

The rebels support ISIS in ideology if not in name.

Russia is against ISIS.

Russia is supporting Assad.

Russia has a naval facility in Tartus, Syria, and is expanding it to Latakia so it can accommodate major warships.

Russia will go to war to protect this naval base.

Russia is a net exporter of oil and has been suffering because of current low oil prices.

Russia's intervention in Syria is part of a long term strategy to get oil prices up so more money will flow in from its own oil exports.

Russia is attacking both ISIS and the rebels who support ISIS in ideology if not name.

Now we find the Joint Chiefs are indirectly supporting Assad while officially we are against Assad and ISIS, and for the rebels who support ISIS in ideology if not name.

I'm thinking our foreign policy may be lacking a certain continuity here. Maybe we should go in, disarm the so-called 'moderate' rebels, wipe out ISIS, and then leave Assad alone. And perhaps instead of selling MORE guns, bombs and other weapons, maybe we should target some aid to Syria to help build its economy and create a strong secular middle class.

But, as always, we are really stupid with our foreign policy, which makes no real sense because it has no real continuity.

[2naSalit]

30. The only continuity would be

that we keep funding this sh*t and get far less for it than if we just took a few palettes of t-notes and set them on fire.

[PatrickforO]

31. LOL. I love your analogy!

When I think we are being bamboozled in some way, I often say, "Well, we might as well just burn our money right here in the living room!"

Very cute, and scalable! I was thinking about individual bills, but here you've upgraded to whole pallets! That's thinking BIG...

[2naSalit]

33. Why, thank you

it was a coffee fueled outburst but it's how I see it.

I remember when I was a kid that a hundred dollars was a lot of money... now we talk trillions like we used to talk about millions back then.

But what sparked the thought was a recollection of the "...palettes of cash" seen in Iraq which subsequently disappeared shortly after arrival... I have no doubt that SH has blurted out what we all should know. He's been on this story forever. Most of our hard-earned $$$ pays not only our military habit for our side, we supply our enemies to keep the game in play. I have had no doubt about this for a very long time now.

[karynnj]

35. From what I see, the US is helping Russia and Assad attack both ISIS and Al Nusra

We are aligned with him on this and the US has been clear that the number 1 goal has to be fighting ISIS -- that was said all the way back to fall 2014 at the Congressional hearings. IN fact, the fact that we did not prioritize attacking Assad is why Republicans like McCain did not support the Obama anti ISIS resolution.

The new UN resolution includes a ceasefire between all but (the world) and Al Nusra and ISIS. It also calls for a transitional government that can include all Syrians and new elections where the Syrians will determine their leader. The elections will be overseen by the UN and will allow the people who fled to vote. NOWHERE in the resolution does it say that Assad can not run. Many westerners, including French, British and American leaders have said that they do not think that Assad after brutally attacking his own people -- to the point where nearly half have fled, are refugees in the region or dead -- has the ability to unite the country. Note, though, that is stated as opinion -- not a prohibition.

Obviously the goal is to start the interim government/ceasefire in Syria -- enabling everyone to focus on ISIS. The best possibility is that this could be a first step ending the nightmare in Syria -- and I hope if that happens, the world helps Syria. Remember that even before the protests, there was trouble in Syria with hundreds of people from rural areas fleeing to the cities as their fields became too dry to farm. Even had there not been political turmoil, Syria would have needed a lot of aid from elsewhere.

[karynnj]

34. Alternative version - Obama/Kerry/Hagel etc said that Goal #1 was defeating ISIS, not removing Assad

Go back and read any of the fall 2014 Congressional hearings -- and see how virulently McCain attacked all of them for that. There are many quotes where various US leaders spoke of conflicting with Syria and then Russia because they are all fighting ISIS. Note the US was also attacking both Al Nusra and ISIS.

The problem now is major concern that Syria and Russia are prioritizing attacking other rebels. However, passing them intelligence on Al Nusra and ISIS - if they are better positioned to strike them - is completely in line with what they are doing.

Hersh has had an agenda for years against Obama - and has always been willing to believe the worst ... while ignoring anything positive.

To me, if this is true, it is definitely in line with everything I have heard John Kerry say. (It is also interesting that he rather minimizes the effort of Kerry, Lavrov and others in at least getting a UN resolution -- something that has not happened in the past 5 years of war.