[Marxism] Hersch's latest lunacy

Michael Karadjis mkaradjis at gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 00:23:37 MST 2015


On 12/21/15 1:42 PM, Tristan Sloughter via Marxism wrote:
> Much of this is in support of what those arguing against the
> "anti-imperalist" left have been saying, is it not? Sure there is 
> plenty
> lacking, but he says the US military, Assad regime, Russia and Israel
> have been coordinating within Syria.
>

Yes, but the point is it doesn't need all the conspiracy. When I first 
heard there was yet another Hersch conspiracy piece, all backed up by 
the assertions of *one* unnamed "high-placed source", I was determined 
to not waste time reading it. But the critique by Max Fisher at 
http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634002/seymour-hersh-syria-joint-chiefs 
made it look interesting. Basically, Hersch imagines that much of the 
Pentagon went behind Obama's back over the last few years - Obama wanted 
to help the Syrian rebels, while the Pentagon and various other powerful 
figures in the US foreign policy establishment sabotaged this by 
secretly working with Assad, Russia and Israel to ensure Assad remained 
in power.

Of course, most supporters of the Syrian revolution will have some 
trouble imagining Obama being the valiant knight wanting to aid the FSA, 
anything other in fact, but will have no trouble with all that the 
Pentagon is alleged to have been doing, except to most of us that just 
looks like the official US policy all along. It is almost as if Hersch 
has had to admit he was partially wrong, but admits it  in a roundabout 
kind of way by turning official US policy into this behind-the-scenes 
conspiracy. And Hersch's main point  throughout the article is that this 
"Pentagon" policy was correct - an anti-imperialist conspiracist way of 
saying US imperialist policy has been correct all along.

He does have some of the names right here - in fact one point where I 
think Fisher's piece is incorrect - Hersch names chair of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey as had of this Pentagon pro-Assad mob. 
Fisher claims Dempsey was more in favour of arming some very carefully 
"vetted" rebels" as early as 2012, but Obama was opposed. Perhaps, but 
by mid-2013, Dempsey was very anti-rebel, famously noting that *none* of 
the forces fighting the Assad regime serve American interests 
(http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2013/08/22/a-moment-of-truth-in-damascus-and-washington/; 
possibly he thought it had become too late due to Obama's hesitance a 
year earlier).

But in order to explain why the alleged conspiracy took place, he 
invents another conspiracy. According to this one, these fine Pentagon 
citizens discovered that the Evil Turk had been going behind Obama's 
back on the other side, transferring aid that the US was sending to 
moderate rebels over to Nusra and ISIS. As I haven't read the Hersch 
piece yet, I assume they first tried to warn Obama about this, but he 
was too thick or weak to do anything about it, that's why they had to 
defend American interests in their own way.

However, this allegedly began in 2013, when all the US was sending any 
rebels at all, no matter how "moderate," were radios, night goggles, 
tents, ready-meals and so on, not military equipment. Unless he means 
Saudi or Qatari arms which he assumes were approved by the US for 
certain groups etc. I'll need to read what he says here, unfortunately. 
But it appears to me almost certainly nonsense (Turkey and Qatar were 
already well-known to be arming moderate Islamist/MB types, who had 
nothing to do with Nusra, let alone ISIS, and the US already objected 
even to that, and attempted to block it, as various articles about the 
CIA's movements in southern Turley late 2012-early 2013 reveal quite 
clearly). 




More information about the Marxism mailing list