58 Comments

1. Lola:

Indeed . . . it will be interesting to see what Bush undertakes after the inaugration. I wonder if he’ll say something significant in his inaugration speech to indicate what direction he plans to go in.

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:22 pm 2. Juliette:

Here’s the DOD slam…er…statement from Lawrence DiRita: Link Doesn’t seem to contradict SH’s essential point, just takes a whack at his flights of fancy and real ignorance of the military. You may be onto something.

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:22 pm 3. Lem:

My stepmother used to leave the door open when she went.

It didn’t occur to me why until I was an adult that she did so to be able to hear us, know our every move, even when she was supposed to be indisposed.

We are supposed to be busy in Iraq. Seymour reports; somebody listens to hear if anybody flushes.

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:29 pm 4. Jim in Chicago:

If I were the admin, and particularly the new CIA Dir, I’d want the big story — our interest in Iran — made public, but I’d also want to find out who Syd’s sources are . . .

so I’d tailor the individual details, all of them pure b.s., so that each one or two passed across only a handful of desks at CIA or State.

Tidbit 1(a) showed up in the NYer story? Hmm, we know that only crossed the desk of Mr. X at Langley.

Tidbit 1(b) too? Only Ms. Y and her 10 person staff got passed that juicy item.

Pretty good way to figure out who gets that next 10 year liason assignment in Eastern Siberia, no?!

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:35 pm 5. Doug:

I can’t imagine we would take action against Iran. But I defintely want the Mullahs to think Bush is crazy enough to do so. As for Hersh, I wonder what goes on his head. I imagine he thinks he’s reporting “truth to power” but he’s practically a traitor to this country.

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:42 pm 6. Lem:

There are a couple of leakers leaving ? so we are probably not talking about these two.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=414311&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Jan 17, 2005 - 7:52 pm 7. richard mcenroe:

I understand President Bush intends to borrow from Reagan for his inauguration speech. “I have just signed legislation outlawing Iran. The bombing starts in five minutes… why are you laughing?”

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:01 pm 8. Dishman:

That’s a classic Reagan…

I was thinking of “Evil Empire” myself… particularly being able to drive a signal through a known distortion.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some things got blown up in Iran.. and blamed on “US Special Forces”.

“No, it wasn’t us.. it was a couple guys dressed like bushes”

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:10 pm 9. John Pearley Huffman:

Seymour “The Credulous” Hersh gets one big scoop in his life and he’s been believing whatever he hears that confirms his own prejudices ever since. In other words, he’s the perfect dupe — and the perfect conduit for an administration that wants to communicate resolve and a threat of force to a regime that only trembles at the threat of force, and for various diplomatic and domestic reasons can’t do publicly.

What’s disappointing is that The New Yorker, a magazine I respect on so many levels and which continues to publish some astonishingly good articles, takes Hersh so seriously. It’s not so much that such hysteria is outside The New Yorker’s tradition (see: Jonathan Schell’s “Fate of the Earth” articles from the early Eighties) but that The New Yorker keeps being sucked in with such paranoid, anonymously sourced, lightly supported “reporting.” As an institution, it just doesn’t seem to be able to help itself. Too bad.

Meanwhile Roger is exactly right: Any administration ought to be damn near obsessed with Iran right now. And Sy The Credulous’ reporting doesn’t strike fear into my heart as much as it does comfort and reassure me.

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:12 pm 10. Roberts:

Don’t forget that Hersh was flogging forged documents in his JFK book before Rather ever heard of the Texas Air National Guard.

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:32 pm 11. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

It is handy to have a credulous fabulizer like Hersh around. Leaks can get wide coverage, with appropriate uncertainty due to Hersh’s general incompetence. Then carefully worded denials can focus the attention on the important, while leaving in ambiguity where appropriate. The Iranians or whoever get the message, and Hersh once more demonstrates his resemblance to the rear end of a jackass.

He is a national resource.

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:45 pm 12. Lem:

Jordan’s king Abdullah just told Charley Rose that “we” have too much on our plate with the Palestinians, Israelis and Iraq – “I don’t think the president wants to threaten Iran.”

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:51 pm 13. Mister Ghost:

Seymour is rapidly approaching Hunter S. Thompson certifiably insane status. By the way, how can Hunter not have required a liver transplant by now?

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:52 pm 14. Mister Ghost:

You know DEBKA is far more reliable than Hersh,

and if you think of DEBKA as the National Enquirer

of intelligence sources, they don’t come off looking half bad. . .

Jan 17, 2005 - 8:57 pm 15. Calico Jack:

It amazes me that Hersh gets credit for ‘breaking’ the Abu Ghraib story, when the story was essentially ‘broken’ by the DOD a few months earlier. Even withstanding that, CBS ran their 60mins piece before his was published in the NY’er.

The substansive material in the article itself consisted entirely of quotes from the Taguba report, with the rest being unsubtantiated and unattributed allegations regarding direct administration culpability for what took place.

(A lot of this took quite a hit, I think, from last week’s Graner trial, where not one witness could be offered by the defense to testify that he was acting under orders. Graner himself, probably fearing perjury, declined to testify and repeat the quote featured on Sullivan’s page right now.)

Regardless, whatever Hersh reports is given front-page treatment promoted by Sy himself on the Sunday morning jibber-jabber shows. It’s like reliving days gone by.

Jan 17, 2005 - 9:03 pm 16. Allan Courtney:

You would think Hersh would be smart enough to realize he was being played.

But I guess his ego is bigger than his intellect.

Jan 17, 2005 - 9:19 pm 17. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Being played still gives him headlines and his career continues onwards. I doubt he cares. There is no indication that he is a person with any scruples or a sense of honor.

Jan 17, 2005 - 9:26 pm 18. Spear Shaker:

Hersh also broke the “story” about the Rangers and Delta force being beat back by the Taliban during the raid on Omar’s compound. . . just another presstitute.

Jan 17, 2005 - 10:03 pm 19. VirginiaReal:

I doubt that Hersh is being played. Story fabricated from whole cloth? Probably. Played by the Government? I have a hard time believing it. We are talking about a Federal Government that can barely conspire to deliver the mail. IF they were playing someone, why a lunatic like Hersh? This has to be like feeding alien abduction stories to The Weekly World News.

Jan 17, 2005 - 10:11 pm 20. Sandy P:

DEBKA and Daily Briefing, think Syria’s next up.

After the Iraqi election.

Jan 17, 2005 - 10:34 pm 21. Ed Poinsett:

No question that Hersch is a useful idiot here. Hell, it would be criminal if we haven’t been running intel ops there for a long while.

Remember Bush is headed to Europe next month. Nothing like affirming a little cowboy action to get the attention of the Mullahs and the Euroweenies ahead of the trip. Now our Lefties are beside theselves with visions of Bush, Stetson in hand and properly chastised, begging Jock Le Strop for forgiveness and hope he can heal any wounds from his illegal unilateral action in Iraq. RIGHT!

The Euros recognize what a threat Iran is and have been feverishly trying to cobble a deal together with them, but the mullahs stiff them at every turn. The Euros and the UN have failed in all of their attempts at diplomacy with the mullahs and know they need Bush on their team if anything is going to move the ball forward. There’ll be outreach aplenty going on all right but it will be Jacques and company doing the reaching, regardless of what the MSM reports.

Jan 17, 2005 - 11:02 pm 22. nikita:

totally OT but this is interesting:

A South Korean group said on Monday it had obtained what it said was the first visual evidence of dissent in communist North Korea that indicated an organized attempt at a movement against its leader, Kim Jong-il.

A 35-minute video clip viewed by Reuters showed a portrait of Kim taken inside a factory building and defaced by writing that demanded freedom and democracy.

Such an act would be considered a grave crime in the North and bring capital punishment without trial to the perpetrator, said Do Hee-youn, who heads the South Korean group that made the clip available.

“It’s no ordinary group of people who took this video,” Do told Reuters. He represents the Seoul-based Citizens’ Coalition for Human Rights of Abductees and North Korean Refugees.

The footage was obtained through a network of activists operating in China from a group of young North Koreans who taped it in the North’s northeastern border city of Hoeryong.

“The gentle and ordinary people of North Korea need a new leader,” a male voice narrates in the background as the clip showed the defaced portrait of Kim in full military uniform.

Kim inherited the leadership of the world’s most reclusive communist state in 1994 on the death of his father, Kim Il-sung. He rules as chairman of the powerful national defense commission.

“There is a great potential for democracy in this country,” the narrator said.

Do said the group who took the footage were people who would be able to exercise influence on the North Korean public, but declined to say whether they were members of the North’s communist party or the military.

Still frames captured from the clip and a partial transcript were made available Monday on a Web site (www.dailynk.com) operated by a group of former North Korean defectors and refugees who have settled in the South.

The group, the Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights, is headed by the highest ranking North Korean official to defect to the South, Hwang Jang-yop.

“Down with Kim Jong-il. Let’s all rise to drive out the dictatorial regime,” read the poster seen on the wall inside a factory.

The footage, said to be taken in November, showed a largely deserted and run-down town with patches of snow on the ground.

The only sign of life was in an area beside a railroad crossing where people were seen selling grain and household supplies.

One vendor sold tobacco leaves and scraps of Rodong Sinmun, mouthpiece of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party.

Do said the people who organized production of the clip were taking a great risk to their own safety.

“But the risky nature of this also shows that these are people who have a good understanding of the regime and are ready to make a bold move against it,” Do said.

Persistent reports of a possible weakening of Kim’s grip on power surfaced last year but have been largely discredited by South Korean officials and foreign officials who visited Pyongyang.

Jan 17, 2005 - 11:12 pm 23. Cecil Turner:

“DEBKA and Daily Briefing, think Syria’s next up.”

Unless I’m missing something big, that doesn’t make much sense. Iran is a bigger threat (more active terror sponsor, closer to developing nukes), and less likely to be daunted by the negative example of Syrian regime change. The logical approach would be to put whatever pressure is required on Iran to make them come correct, and follow up with Syria later. (And finally mop up the support structures in Saudi Arabia–diplomatically of course.)

I’m not sure what to make of Sy Hersh’s piece. Maybe an intel source, possibly a lucky guess. But the President in the ABC story also focuses on Iran, and it’s the obvious choice. And though it might be a Byzantine head fake, there’s no apparent motive, and so far the Administration has been almost painfully straightforward. Norman Podhoretz has a similar assessment, in more detail (with just a bit too much emphasis on the DPRK).

Jan 17, 2005 - 11:16 pm 24. PeterUK:

It could be reasonably presumed that Hersh had two stories,the current one and one about the scandal concerning of the lack of a plan of action for the Iranian nuclear projects.After all Seymour has to eat.

Jan 18, 2005 - 2:01 am 25. Vulgorilla:

“DEBKA and Daily Briefing, think Syria’s next up.”

This makes sense if you believe that Sadaam stashed all of his WMD’s there before the US invasion, which means that Syria has deployable WMD’s now. Iran, on the other hand, is trying to get their “mushroom cloud” generator up and running, so if that’s the case, Syria would be at the top of the list with Iran a close second.

Just a thought……

Jan 18, 2005 - 3:54 am 26. Mikey:

This story falls under the “Well, duh!” category. I should hope that they’re planning to do nasty things to Iran. Isn’t that sort of their job? The navy used to have war plans to deal with everybody, from the British on down, including domestic insurrection. To show any surprise at this is to demonstrate a lack of common sense.

Jan 18, 2005 - 4:24 am 27. Hermie:

How long did it take Hersh to come up with that story…I’d say about 5 seconds, if he had kept up with his reading.

The Iranians have made claims about having a nuke program for quite a while. There were all these stories in the last few months about how the UN was ‘negotiating’ with the mullahs for the ability to inspect; and the mullahs telling the UN to shove it.

I would think the President would be crazy NOT to be prepared for any possible scenerio. Remember the outcry about Bush not ‘connecting the dots’? (Hmmm.. Crazy mullahs + Nuke program + advocating martyrdom against the U.S. + UN getting slapped down by the mullahs)

Jan 18, 2005 - 5:06 am 28. charlotte:

I agree with “Vulgorilla”. Dealing with Syria is key to helping to stabilize post-election Iraq because it has been serving as a base for Hussein’s Ba’athists and other terrorists; any WMD hidden in Syria that are recovered or destroyed helps the cause of US cred and US/ME security; a reckoning with Syria is also pivotal to Israeli security, Lebanon’s stabilization and clearing out of terrorist support, and an eventual Israeli/Pali rapprochement; last, it seems to be Chirac’s fave ME tyrant client state and would send a message to our Gallic allies to choose their friends more carefully (which they won’t heed, of course).

Anyway, perhaps we have enough intell to justify a major incursion into Syria. Would we take Iraqi forces along for more legitimacy? What a guessing game! Yes, Bush has played it pretty straight up to this point, but now we’re down to the really sticky problems facing us and ME and a determined Bush is starting his second and final term in office (and without a relunctant Colin Powell).

Iran HAS to be dealt with, and Bush has made it clear that the mullahs will not be allowed to have the big one. His administration has let the EU dither with Iran and exhaust diplomatic options, while we have been busy with Iraq and surveiling Iran. Hersh’s story about Iran and ensuing brouhaha could be a feint and a warning of tough action to come in several places.

Jan 18, 2005 - 5:21 am 29. charlotte:

Um, Sec. Powell may be often hesitant and leery of our projecting hard power, but he certainly is not “reluNctant”. Apologies to the General.

Jan 18, 2005 - 5:38 am 30. Hankus1:

Perhaps good old Seymore sees more than us mere mortals are allowed. Perhaps his fiddle like shape has something to do with it.

Jan 18, 2005 - 5:47 am 31. Syl:

I don’t believe for one minute that anyone in the Administration (pro-Bush) leaked this info on purpose. This is CIA shenanigans aimed against the Defense Dept and Bush. The big problem here is that it may put our undercover guys in danger.

We here are perfectly okay, and relieved, that undercover ops are going on in Iran. But the Left is not okay with it at all and will attempt to embarrass the administration with it. Dumb as well as treacherous since the majority of Americans are probably just as relieved as we are.

Jan 18, 2005 - 6:26 am 32. TmjUtah:

Doug -

“I can’t imagine we would take action against Iran. But I defintely want the Mullahs to think Bush is crazy enough to do so.”

I really don’t understand that comment.

FDR was crazy enough to take action against Germany.

The Axis has two memebers left. My personal opinion is that Syria will be next, primarily because when it’s time to take out the mullahs we want to limit the fronts available for distraction attacks against Israel to one (Egypt), secondarily because they are an easier target logistically speaking, and third because we do indeed want to look inside their warehouses and in the Bekka.

Putting Lebanon back on the road to democracy will be a benefit, too.

Korea? Ask me in a year. After Syria and Iran.

Jan 18, 2005 - 6:44 am 33. Cecil Turner:

“Dealing with Syria is key to helping to stabilize post-election Iraq because it has been serving as a base for Hussein’s Ba’athists and other terrorists; any WMD hidden in Syria that are recovered or destroyed helps the cause of US cred and US/ME security . . .”

Have to admit I hadn’t considered chasing WMDs into Syria, but don’t find it persuasive. In the first place, it’s unlikely weapons mobile enough to be shipped are going to be there after an invasion, and we’d look awfully stupid holding another empty bag. In the second, there’s little doubt both Syria and Iran have at least a rudimentary BW capability, which is all that’s really required for a terrorist attack–the next big jump is a nuke–it’s hard to see what a shipment of Iraqi weapons would have added to the equation. (Even if significant weapons were transferred, and I’m skeptical.)

And again, strategically, it makes little sense. Attacking Iran makes a Syrian campaign unnecessary, while attacking Syria just turns the heat up on the Iranian nuclear program and diverts resources from the more difficult objective. If we assume the Administration walked into the War on Terror without a campaign plan, I suppose it’s possible we’d be blundering about aimlessly. But I prefer not to believe that, and militarily, Iran has always been the main event.

Jan 18, 2005 - 6:45 am 34. MrP:

What’s it to be ?

*The New Yorker keeps being sucked in with such paranoid, anonymously sourced, lightly supported “reporting.”

*This story falls under the “Well, duh!” category.

*How long did it take Hersh to come up with that story…I’d say about 5 seconds, if he had kept up with his reading.

*Hell, it would be criminal if we haven’t been running intel ops there for a long while.

So, is this ‘infusion of goo’ a story planted by devious government sources or is it a story that was so obvious it wrote itself? And if the latter how on earth is:

*The big problem (here is) that it may put our undercover guys in danger.

Don’t Iranians ‘keep up with their reading’

The truth is this is pure speculation and in that respect this post is no better than the story it seeks to criticize.

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:14 am 35. OJ:

Hersh might well have been used, however, I think it is more likely that he has stumbled on one of many existing contingency plans. The US government undoubtedly has files of drawn up scenarios and how to best respond to some of the most unlikely events. Most of these will never see fruition.

Here is what we have to say about the matter:

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=263

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:17 am 36. charlotte:

Attacking Iran makes a Syrian campaign unnecessary, while attacking Syria just turns the heat up on the Iranian nuclear program and diverts resources from the more difficult objective

Cecil, it just seems to me that the heat is high as it can go in the Iranian nuke program, and I’m not so sure our trying to take out their sites (which we’re probably going to attempt somehow) will effect any change in Syria. A major war and regime change in Iraq didn’t seem to intimidate Assad and/or nefarious parties in his country, and all of our warnings to Syria haven’t cleared out the insurgency base there. All will be lost with our war in Iraq if a post-election new Iraq cannot effectively staunch the flow of terrorists and materiel across their borders and if the Hussein Ba’athist holdouts in Syria entrench and strengthen in their new host country.

Also, getting Syria in line will be important to achieving any Israeli- Palestinian settlement, which is no mere sideline consideration of our total ME strategy. All of this dovetails fairly cohesively and I wouldn’t characterize a direct chastening of Syria as “blundering” in any sense, especially since the state or powerful parties within it are acting to thwart our success in Iraq.

Meanwhile, might we be doing more surveillance, covert ops and support of democratic forces in Iran until factors are optimal and then pray like hell that the internal Iranian backlash against the US will be small? Perhaps you’re right in thinking that our going after the Iranian program alone will force Assad and other Syrian interests to pay attention to us the way we wish for them to. That would be a terrific secondary benefit. Meanwhile, though, Iraq has to stabilize and soon, or we’ve lost much of what we’re fighting to achieve in the ME.

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:29 am 37. DANEgerus:

Very Nixonian… remember tricky Dick wanted the jaded NorthVietnamese leadership to believe he was crazy enough to use the bomb?

But…

I personally think that for the ‘one-hit’ drama queen every event is the next My Lai (pronounced My Lie)

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:31 am 38. dan wismar:

Sy Hersh’s involvement as a CIA asset is well established.

His career-making books on the My Lai massacre denied any CIA involvement in those programs, and even after Colby’s “Phoenix Program” was widely believed to be involved in My Lai, Hersh was tasked with denying it in print.

They trotted him out when he was with the NY Times to deny any CIA association with the Watergate break in (wrong!), and earlier he was used in the JFK character assassination effort. His articles in Vanity Fair claimed, (using documents later found to be bogus) that JFK had cut a deal with Marilyn Monroe to buy her silence about their supposed affair.

His track record is long and consistent.

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:37 am 39. Catherine:

My guess is Syria, because that country is apparently a staging ground for Iraqi insurgents. As far as I can tell, dealing with Syria is essential to settling Iraq down. Insurgents have to have a base of operations to be effective, which means we have to deprive them of that base.

You may be able to pull this article at WEEKLY STANDARD, called “Getting Serious about Syria.”

http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/020udbsz.asp

In case it’s subscription only, here are highlights:

THE STORY was in the December 2, 2004, London Daily Telegraph, on page 14, by Jack Fairweather, datelined Damascus. Its headline: “All aboard the terrorists’ bus to Iraq. Mujahideen mosques are springing up all over Syria to arm militants and send them across the border to do battle with the hated Americans.”

Here are the highlights:

WHEN not in Iraq, Abdullah cuts meat for a living. He is a Syrian cook at the Kingdom of God restaurant in Damascus, in a bustling suburb dominated by Iraqi exiles.

For the past year, Abdullah has also been on the payroll of Iraqi resistance forces fighting American troops. . . .

In April, the 23-year-old boarded a convoy of American GMCs in Aleppo, northern Syria, with 10 other fighters from the area.

He had been recruited at a mosque 30 miles south of Aleppo, built last year by a local sheikh with business interests in Iraq and strong sympathies with the resistance. It is brazenly entitled the Mujahideen Mosque.

Abdullah, originally from the Aleppo area, and the other fighters, were provided with Iraqi passports and weapons. Abdullah was given a bazooka to carry.

They were told they would be relieving Syrian mujahideen already in Iraq, part of a regular “troop” rotation, and would be expected to fight until they in turn were either killed or replaced.

In return Abdullah’s family would be paid $3,000 a month by the mosque–more than most American soldiers in Iraq and a fortune in Syria where average salaries are less than 10 pounds a week.

To enter Iraq from Syria there are three border crossings. Abdullah’s convoy took the most northerly, through Rabia, a dusty collection of concrete houses straddling the border, and with pictures of the former Syrian president Hafez Assad festooning the checkpoint.

Al-Jabouri tribesmen man the border. Like the al-Dulaimy tribe that guards the southern entry points into Iraq, they are deeply hostile to the US presence and Abdullah’s convoy was waved through without checks.

The men were driven to a mosque in Mosul where, according to Abdullah, dozens of their fellow countrymen were staying. He would not disclose the name of the mosque, but one such building in Mosul is the Mahmud mosque, infamous for supporting the insurgency.

This squat building on the west bank of the city has seen some of the heaviest fighting between insurgents and US and Iraqi forces recently.

Sheikh Latif al-Jabouri, who runs the mosque, claims the Syrians he shelters are businessmen who come to buy and sell cars and pray. Inside the mosque, Abdullah was greeted by a former Iraqi military officer. He was assigned to a 10-man unit of Iraqi guerrillas, and the other Syrians he traveled with were spread among other units.

For the next 80 days, Abdullah and his unit went almost every day to attack American bases with mortars, or to man mujahideen checkpoints.

He took part in ambushes on US convoys. As a mine hit a patrolling Humvee, Abdullah fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the second vehicle.

He was transferred to Fallujah for three months, conducting raids with his unit in the neighboring Sunni towns of Samara and Ramadi. . . .

US and Iraqi officials believe the Syrian government has turned a blind eye to those supporting terrorists in Iraq, seeing the insurgency as an outlet for religious extremists to let off steam. . . .

Iraqi exiles in Damascus say there may be as many as 80 “mujahideen mosques” either in name or spirit supporting the resistance.

Several prominent mosques in Damascus, including the large Bilal al-Hashemi mosque, have reputations as staging posts for Syrian fighters, suggesting a logistical and financial operation beyond the ability of any one tribal leader. The US military believes there may be as many as 2,000 foreign fighters in Iraq, mostly from Syria.

They do not operate in a vacuum. . . . At the other end of the city, thousands of members of Saddam’s regime have settled in the wealthy Mezzeh district. . . . The refugees include the three sons of the former industry minister Mohammed al-Douri, on whose farm Saddam was captured in a bolthole.

It is likely that many recent arrivals have sufficient funds to finance Syrian mosques. As members of Saddam’s regime some have been able to buy swaths of Damascene property which they rent out. Others live off their plundered Iraqi money. . . .

By Bush Doctrine standards, Syria is a hostile regime. It is permitting and encouraging activities that are killing not just our Iraqi friends but also, and quite directly, American troops. So we have a real Syria problem.

Of course we also have–the world also has–an Iran problem, and a Saudi problem, and lots of other problems. The Iran and Saudi problems may ultimately be more serious than the Syria problem. But the Syria problem is urgent: It is Bashar Assad’s regime that seems to be doing more than any other, right now, to help Baathists and terrorists kill Americans in the central front of the war on terror.

Jan 18, 2005 - 7:45 am 40. alanH:

The care and feeding of a useful idiot?

They had an interesting profile of Hersh in the Washington Post a few years ago, and while he comes off as tenacious, it’s indeed in that way in which someone will fight like the devil to get to the bottom of a story, provided it leads to the conclusions he’s already reached.

I’ve posted a link to this page on landv.net.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:03 am 41. Kyda Sylvester:

Seems to me Seymour Hersh is just the kind of “useful idiot” Lenin had in mind.

It’s impossible to know what information is planted, what misinformation is planted and what information is “honestly” leaked by the any number of disgruntled current and ex CIA employees. But I would be very disappointed indeed to learn that the Bush administration was not conducting covert ops in all the world’s trouble spots (including North Korea–the report brought to us above by Nikita is most interesting).

I should think that the next big show will be Iran. What remains to be seen is how that show will be staged. Syria is a sideshow. Soon it will have not just the Israelis and the Americans with which to contend, but also the Iraqi government, not to mention its own increasingly disaffected natives. I can well picture a Kadafi-type capitulation there (a girl can dream).

I did find Hersh’s discussion of the Euros vis-a-vis the mad mullahs interesting. There’s the de rigor whining about our refusal to join in their “negotiations”. The Europeans are missing a bet here; if they’re in need of a stick, which apparently they are, I can’t think of one better than the threat of the uncontrollable, crazy cowboy and his utter disregard for the niceties of international “standards”. The message of “Play ball with us or face the consequences of dealing with George Bush” might resonate (emphasis on might).

I look forward to the inaugural and State of the Union addresses. Both should be illuminating.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:03 am 42. Cecil Turner:

” I’m not so sure our trying to take out their sites (which we’re probably going to attempt somehow) will effect any change in Syria.”

Nor would I. Up to this point, Assad’s been taking advantage of the first law of thermodynamics (when the heat’s on somebody else, it’s not on you), and a strike on Iranian nuke sites wouldn’t change that. And if that’s the sum total of our strategy, I’d agree with your assessment. But I doubt it is, partly because it’s only marginally feasible, and partly because it doesn’t fit into a larger [grand] strategy.

Assuming the Administration had a plan from the beginning, a statement of the problem/solution would look something like:

The CIA had been working the bin Laden problem for years. We have a 60-country problem, he told the group. [. . .] “Let’s pick them off one at a time,” Bush replied.

The nations of interest are the State Department’s near/mideast terror sponsors: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Libya (and Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with support structures in Saudi Arabia). And the goal in each case is public renouncement of terrorism or regime change.

If that’s in fact our strategy, democratization is the ultimate long-term goal, but more of a side benefit than an immediate aim. The essential part of the Iraq campaign–regime change–is already complete. The same is true for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Sudan. The next step is regime change in Iran. After which, lighting a fire under Assad ought to be effective.

“Also, getting Syria in line will be important to achieving any Israeli- Palestinian settlement . . . “

All good stuff, and arguably the root cause of the whole Mideast mess. But it’s not the center of gravity, and ultimately manageable by Israel–while Iran is not. The Mullahs are also far more dangerous, the most militant and active terror sponsor, and IMO the logical next step in the WoT.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:27 am 43. Sandy P:

Via Stryker/the Daily Briefing:

This DEBKAfile.com article agrees with information Iíve gotten from other sources:

This mission took Armitage to Damascus with nine American demands. DEBKA-Net-Weeklyís Washington sources published those demands for the first time in its last weekís issue:

1. Start repealing Syriaís 40-years old emergency laws.

2. Free all political prisoners from jail.

3. Abolish media censorship. (Syria’s actually doing this, via Rantburg)

4. Initiate democratic reform.

5. Speed up economic development

6. Cut down relations with Iran.

7. Announce publicly that the disputed Shebaa Farms at the base of Mt. Hermon are former Syrian territory. This would cut the ground from under the Lebanese terrorist Hizballahís claim that the land is Lebanese and must be ìliberatedî from Israeli ìoccupation.î

DEBKAfileís counter-terror sources report that the Iran-sponsored Hizballahís attack on an Israeli convoy patrolling the disputed Shebaa Farms sector, killing an Israeli officer, on Palestinian election-day, Sunday, January 9, was addressed as much to President George W. Bush as to the new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as a foretaste of what it has in store.

8. Hand over to US or Iraqi authorities 55 top officials and military officers of the former Saddam regime, who are confirmed by intelligence to be established in Syria and running the guerrilla war in Iraq out of their homes and offices.

(An address, telephone number and cell phone number were listed beside each name).

But the punchline was in the last demand.

9. Syria had better make sure that none of the Kornet AT-14 anti-tank missiles which it recently purchased in large quantities from East Europe turn up in Iraq. US intelligence has recorded their serial numbers to identify their source. DEBKAfileís military sources add: Because he cannot afford to buy advanced fighter planes and tanks, Assad purchased massive quantities of the ìthird generationî Kornet AT-14 anti-tank weapons.

Just in case any are found in Iraq, General Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq has already received orders from the commander-in-chief in the White House to pursue military action inside Syria according to his best military judgment.

[Ö]

Assad and General Habib are both aware, according to our sources, of the near carte blanche handed down to General Casey to pursue military action against Syria as and when indicated by US military requirements in Iraq.

In this regard, DEBKAfileís military sources note four important points:

1. It will not take place before President Bush is sworn in for his second term on January 20 or Iraqís general election ten days later.

2. The Americans will not start out with a large-scale, orderly military offensive, but rather short in-and-out forays; small US and Iraqi special forces units will cross the border and raid bases housing Iraqi guerrillas or buses carrying them to the border. If these brief raids are ineffective, the Americans will upscale the action.

3. The Allawi government will formally request the United States to consign joint Iraqi-US forces for action against Syrian targets, so placing the US operation under the Baghdad governmentís aegis. In other words, Iraq will be at war with Syria without issuing a formal declaration.

4. It is fully appreciated in Washington, Baghdad and Jerusalem that intense American military warfare against Syria could provoke a Hizballah backlash against Israel. Damascus may well activate the Lebanese Shiite group to open a second front on Israelís northern border. The Syrian ruler is expected will tolerate a certain level of American low-intensity, low-profile action. But, because of his reluctance to strike back directly at American or Iraqi targets, he will field the Hizballah ñ and not just for cross-border attacks but to galvanize the terrorist cells it controls and funds in the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a stepped-up offensive against Israeli targets. These Palestinian cells have proliferated over the years, particularly in the Fatah and its branches, encouraged by Yasser Arafatís cooperative pact with the Hizballah which remains in force after his death.

Therefore, the key Middle East happening in the coming weeks will be US military strikes against Syria. The election of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Authority chairman, his invitation to the White House, the formation of the Sharon-Peres government coalition – albeit on very shaky legs, and the talk of imminent Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations, will prove to be no more than sideshows of the main event.

It is suspected that the Kornet, one of the only light and portable weapons effective against the M1A1/A2ís depleted uranium armor, has already been used in Iraq.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:27 am 44. Sandy P:

We’re about to poke the hornet’s nest again, wonder how long our stick is this time.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:28 am 45. Robby:

Even if the story isn’t true, leaking some disinformation could have its uses.

Laughs for one. C’mom can’t you see Dr. Rice and the NSC just laughing at the mullahs as they flail about trying to prevent an incursion which isn’t happening.

But seriously, leaking such a story could garner useful intelligence by seeing which facilities/places the Iranians pay more attention to, or increase security. Maybe to provide a place to start some intel gathering efforts.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:39 am 46. charlotte:

Yes, I would agree, Cecil, that the “Mullahs are also far more dangerous, the most militant and active terror sponsor”, but I am not so sure they are the “logical next step.” We need to take out Iran’s nuke program and undercut the mullahs by also encouraging the popular democratic movement there. To do this, we need our ducks all in a row, and Iraq’s current instability is a major impediment to dealing most effectively with the dangers and democratic potential of Iran. Syria is host and sponsor to terrorists trying to undercut our efforts in Iraq and the new government there and also in Israel.

In other words, “regime change in Iran” for which you argue and which many of us might heartily endorse will be doomed to failure, if Iraq does not become more settled in fact and if it is not perceived as a successful venture, especially in Middle Eastern opinion. I imagine we have legitimate reasons aplenty for launching some incursions into Syria and that this will be done nominally at the Iraqis’ behest.

Jan 18, 2005 - 8:53 am 47. Cecil Turner:

“‘regime change in Iran’ for which you argue and which many of us might heartily endorse will be doomed to failure, if Iraq does not become more settled in fact and if it is not perceived as a successful venture, especially in Middle Eastern opinion.”

I don’t believe the Mullahs will respond to anything short of a military campaign (nor do I believe the pro-democracy Iranians have any realistic chance of winning meaningful reform). But that campaign does not require approval of ME opinion, nor a perfectly settled Iraq. And though cross-border skirmishes with Syria are likely (and probably necessary), and complementary diplomatic pressure certainly indicated, I don’t see any good reason to launch a full-scale attack. (And they clearly lack the military capacity to launch one against us.) IMO the logical course is to hold Syria, while applying whatever pressure it takes to the Mullahs until they fold.

Looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. (And it’s very nice to find someone with whom one can do that agreeably.) Cheers.

Jan 18, 2005 - 9:29 am 48. charlotte:

Thanks, Cecil. BTW, I don’t see a full-scale attack on Syria, either. But cross-border incursions are still a big deal. Wouldn’t call what we might do “skirmishes”- I’d hope they’d be more mission oriented and effective than that!

Am not sure what you mean by a “military campaign” wrt Iran and the “pressure” to get the mullahs to fold. But guess we both will be relieved if the nuke sites get taken out and delerious if the monster mullahs are, as well. May whatever we decide to do bring more security and hope to all of us.

Jan 18, 2005 - 9:48 am 49. PeterUK:

I should think that the Mullahs are less worried about the special forces reconnoitering their nuclear facilties than they are of those arming and training Iranian dissidents.

Of the nine demands to Syria,seven are of the kind that any sovereign nation could reasonably refuse as being outside the legitimate concern of the US.

Eight and nine are very pertinent to security in Iraq,but the others appear to be an intimation that the requirement is regime change.If Assad accedes then he will survive until the reforms topple him, if not he will be deposed.There will be a general somewhere who thinks that,Assad,the Baathists and an end to meddling in Iraq is a cheap price to pay for Syria.

Jan 18, 2005 - 10:29 am 50. charlotte:

Charles Pooter is a wonderful character, PeterUK! Thanks for the link.

What timeline do you foresee for the Syrian decision, then? Do you think some accord with us or some internal move against Assad will happen in the next several weeks?

Jan 18, 2005 - 12:04 pm 51. Cecil Turner:

“Am not sure what you mean by a “military campaign” wrt Iran and the “pressure” to get the mullahs to fold.”

Sorry, not terribly clear. What I meant was escalating through the full gamut, from a credible threat of invasion, aid to democritization forces, blockade, strikes, and, if necessary, invasion. (And unfortunately, I believe the last would be necessary.) If it were possible to do it through aid to dissidents, knocking off Syria first and containing the Mullahs would make sense–but I don’t think it is.

“But guess we both will be relieved if the nuke sites get taken out . . .”

I would, but am not hopeful. I don’t have access to the planning data, but I used to do that strike stuff for a living, and this looks to me like a very difficult problem with lots of opportunities for failure . . . (not at all like the hit-the-empty-reactor-vessel Osirak strike.)

Jan 18, 2005 - 12:24 pm 52. PeterUK:

Charlotte,Prescott isn’t as endearing as Pooter.

The demands look like a humiliation rather than a casus belli,that will be established by increasing numbers raids over the border and the discovery of Syrian involvement in attacks in Iraq.

I’m not sure that there are plans to invade Syria,I think the objective is a quiescent Syria which does not interfere in Iraq.If that can be realised there is a chance that Assad will be left in power,the demands look like they are directed at some internal opposition

The whole exercise is to isolate Iran by the strategy of neutralising the weakest opponent,after all does Syria want to be a party to a possible nuclear war from which it would never recover?

Jan 18, 2005 - 1:13 pm 53. charlotte:

I think the objective is a quiescent Syria which does not interfere in Iraq

Quite so, Peter, but Assad has not acquiesced to our insistent demands to leave off of Iraq for these past two years. What specifically, now, will force him to finally heed? Perhaps the threat of cross-border incursions? When might we expect Assad to shut down the terrorist training camps and throw out Hussein’s Baathist thugs? How can we take action against Iran and potentially open another front until Syria comes along nicely? Are there credible rumblings in Assad’s ranks that we’re counting upon to erupt very soon? What would Pooter do?

this looks to me like a very difficult problem with lots of opportunities for failure . . . (not at all like the hit-the-empty-reactor-vessel Osirak strike.)

Cecil, you have to be right there. The maddening mullahs aren’t stupid and apparently have built and located facilities with defense in mind. But am not convinced this administration would undertake major ops and put “official” boots on the ground in Iran to take out the nuclear program there, especially with Iraq so unstable. I would think we’d need Iraq to help stage any special ops offensive in support of an air strike that we might make against the nuke sites, that we’d want back-up troops readily available “just in case” and not so bogged down in security keeping in Iraq, and also that domestic political will for such a bold strike would be in danger of evaporating without at least Iraq appearing to look stable. Even Repub pols have just so much patience for too many objectives and missions up in the air and incompleted—

Is there no possible combo of airstrikes in coordination with sabotage and covert ops that might set the Iranian nuclear program waaay back, at least until democratizing forces and external pressures can back down or topple the mullahs?

Jan 18, 2005 - 1:34 pm 54. PeterUK:

Charlotte,

Pooter would first tour the Middle East apologising for the terrible mistakes you have made,publicly denounce atrocities by your troops and put the UN in charge,Oh sorry,you mean the other Pooter.

Assad won’t acquiesce to demands until he knows the price,which has just been spelled out to him,destabilise Iraq and Syria will be destabilised in return.

I don’t think acquiesence will be overt,the odd Baathist will have fatal shaving accidents and the like,Assad will do the bare minimum to comply and save face,but if Russian missiles start taking out Coalition assets all bets are off.

Jan 18, 2005 - 1:58 pm 55. charlotte:

Pooter would first tour the Middle East apologising for the terrible mistakes you have made,publicly denounce atrocities by your troops and put the UN in charge.

Well, you can hold on to your Pooter. Kerry just tried this already.

Jan 18, 2005 - 2:07 pm 56. dick:

When I was in the US Army back in the Kennedy days, we had what were called Orders of Battle which essentially were war plans for what to do based on actions of the enemy. If the enemy moved battalion A to location X then we would assume they were planning to do Y and we would then take action based on that move. These were set up for all kinds of contingencies and were based on enemy troops down to almost all levels. What Hersh is talking about sounds very much like this sort of thing and I am sure, unless things have changed totally in the last 40 years, that we still have the same type of plans out there. The thing that bothers me if this is what he has is that he was able to get hold of this type of thing. It used to be very closely held and that was even before we had escalated the Vietnam War. I hope someone is checking out what he is talking about and taking some sort of action to stop the little schmuck before he causes real damage. He has already damaged our credibility in the Arab world with his shouting about Abu Ghraib as if it were the worst thing since Treblinka and Dachau while at the same time not bothering to mention that the military was setting up courts martial for what was done there. He is so stupid that he is dangerous.

Jan 18, 2005 - 3:05 pm 57. Terrye:

You know I think the Bushies realized long ago that they will never win with the press. The incident with the Tang screw up with CBS also convinced them the press is not that damn smart.

I think they might be feeding them stuff, either to find their leak or to spook the Iranians, or both..

But I gotta wonder if it is late May 1944 and Hersch knows when DDay is gonna be..would he keep his mouth shut?

Naaaaaa…

Jan 18, 2005 - 6:01 pm 58. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The question of Syria depends on whether we dissuade them from meddling or allowing meddling in Iraq without also destabilizing Syria. Regime change could be as bad or worse than no regime change.

I doubt that Assad will cave to threats. I think we will have to take direction action – perhaps attack a few things he values (like a “missed” decapitation attack, port facilities, or whatever), and the tell him that it will get much worse unless he either deals with the Iraqi Baathists in Iraq or lets us do it.

A few bombs that go astray and hit that neighborhood where the Baathists live would also be useful. They are trying to win back their empire, but they are not taking personal risk – yet.

Perhaps some other actions in Syria, to serve as demonstration to other countries, might be useful too (heah that, Saudi?).

Syria holds Israel under somewhat of the threat that North Korea holds the south – it apparently has the ability to target much of Israel with WMDs, with Hizbollah in the middle of that with its own WMD and conventional rocket capabilities, some with significant range. This complicates things if Assad feels he is going to fail. But when dealing with these dictators, providing a way out (life in Saudi Arabia with a bunch of the money they stole) might be enough to induce a regime capitulation without the use of doomsday attacks.

The biggest mistake in Vietnam was failure to attack the North with enough force to caues them to capitulate.

Here, we need to do the same thing – those who help terrorists should be treated as terrorists. Are you listening, Assad?

Iran is much more of a problem, whose nuke program obiously needs to be stopped.

The administration certainly has plenty on its plate.

Jan 18, 2005 - 6:02 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: