War In Iran

[Mr. Tea]

Agreed. There are certainly a diverse set of reasons why any given person might not see eye-to-eye with Uncle Sam.

On the point of the latter kind of anti-Americanism I mentioned, I recall seeing a programme a few years ago about 'spring break' that featured two teams of fratboys having a drinking competition to see who could make themselves puke first, cheered on by some shrieking bimbos. It was one of those "maybe al-Qu'eda has a point..." moments.

 

[craner]

Ha! Aren't you the guy who introduced Michael Ledeen into this debate earlier on?

As it happens, I agree with you about Hersh to an extent - I don't think he has a consistent agenda but I do think he's willing to report whatever line best serves his need for a big story. But if you want people to take you seriously, shouldn't you apply the same kind of critical rigour to people you agree with as well as those you don't?

No, there's a difference, that I will at least try to explain. When Mr. Ledeen writes an article on National Review or Anne Applebaum (who I do actually admire tremedously) writes her Washington Post Op-eds, then their point and their perspective are clear, and they do not try to obscure it. People who read them and know a little therefore know enough to know this; what, who and why the piece was written. They are opinion pieces, editorials, after all. You agree, to the extent that you are educated enought to, or you don't. The thing is pretty open, and upfront.

But there's a reason that 'Fisking' has become a verb. Fisk and Hersh pass off their pieces as in-the-backroom, in-the-know investigative reportage. Hersh more so than Fisk, actually: they are on-the-ground whistle-blowers, with inumerable confidential sources who the reader is bullied into taking at face value, by the confident prose netting it's arrogant, diverting velocity. And their articles get a large degree of respect, abjure critique (it's in their very design). So when Seymour Hersh states, in the New Yorker which is famed for its fact-checking rigour, so the indulgence they show him is surprising to say the least, that anonymous sources assure him that the Bush Administration will invade Iran in June 2005, then suddenly that's serious news, and TRUE too. Absurdly, the Guardian, at the time, you may remember, ran a fron-page headline about the US's imminant invasion of Iran. The lead article was actually about Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article!! Now, do you understand that difference? It's Hersh. Hersh does serious work. It's investigative, therefore by definition, non-partisan, objective, the antithesis of propaganda. Hersh gets his Penguin bestseller.

Ledeen and Applebaum are routinely critised on and for their own positions, which is all fine and good if is actuall informed or intelligent; whereas Hersh gets to waver his almost completely, because a lot of people trust him implicitly, which can only go back to, I think, Ma Lai. Well, that's fair enough. Except a talented blogger, heavily informed on Syrian political infights just took to pieces an article that was to a very large degree accepted at face value. A couple of people here said it was the best article they'd read, recently, on the subject. Well, obviously their judgement is suspect.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

But there's a reason that 'Fisking' has become a verb. Fisk and Hersh pass off their pieces as in-the-backroom, in-the-know investigative reportage. Hersh more so than Fisk, actually: they are on-the-ground whistle-blowers, with inumerable confidential sources who the reader is bullied into taking at face value, by the confident prose netting it's arrogant, diverting velocity.

As the best war correspondent in the world on Middle Eastern conflicts (interestingly Fisk started out as a reporter on the Northern Ireland conflict), the origin of the dismissive term "Fisking" is well known, and bears no relationship whatsoever to your "accept my authoritative Word" spin. Indeed, it is on the contrary most other off-the-ground (and embedded) reporters who bully readers into the tyranny of "face value" propaganda.

Ledeen and Applebaum are routinely critised on and for their own positions, which is all fine and good if is actuall informed or intelligent; whereas Hersh gets to waver his almost completely, because a lot of people trust him implicitly, which can only go back to, I think, Ma Lai. Well, that's fair enough. Except a talented blogger, heavily informed on Syrian political infights just took to pieces an article that was to a very large degree accepted at face value. A couple of people here said it was the best article they'd read, recently, on the subject. Well, obviously their judgement is suspect.

You are referring to this blog post, from "talented blogger" Anton Efendi's Across The Bay blog, claiming it's author "heavily informed on Syrian political infights just took to pieces an article that was to a very large degree accepted at face value." I'm sorry to disagree with you, but this blog piece informed us less about Hersh's report than about the blogger's hysterical neo-con agenda, to take an example:

"The next step in Hersh's mental construct -- guided by overt hatred of the Bush administration -- is how this is setting the stage for war with Iran. This translates into covert (naturally!) action by the US against Iran and its allies and interests in the region. The basic idea is that the United States (namely the NSC, the OVP, and the DoD) are going after Iran and the axis it leads in cooperation with the Saudis, namely Prince Bandar. How are they going about it? By funding and arming Sunni extremist groups to counter pro-Iranian Shiites and Iran's sidekick, Syria. And the fun begins!"

The claims by Hersh here are all correct and widely documented (even confirmed by the Bush Admin, the Pentagon etc); the only dubious one is Efendi's: "guided by overt hatred of the Bush administration." I suppose we can all rely on and be especially Craner-thankful for the hodge-podge rantings of a talented blogger who is tragically and abjectly guided by an overt love of the Bush administration ...

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Did someone say moral equivalence?

No, someone said war crime.

(Have you got a link to that essay, btw, hundredmilllionlifetimes?)

My! Now posters are demanding links and sources when they're not provided, versus ridiculing them when they are so presented (especially those who confuse their inherited opinions with some precious, unfathomable inner self).

Excerpted from 9-11 - Chapter 4: Crimes of State

 

[bruno]

i don't like efendi's tone of voice, the mixture of mocking and outrage kills his message. i don't like vimothy or hundredmillion's tone either. tea, on the other hand, i could have a cup with.

i think outrage is a bad idea when dealing with politics. like my communist schoolmates that were always up in arms about something or other, they might have had a point but the tone put me off completely. and i see galloway or blair, their almost religious conviction is insufferable. think what you like but say it properly.

seymour hersh may be making everything up but at least he doesen't sound like a prick saying what he says. that for me is a good thing.

 

[turtles]

crap, this thread is hard to keep up with. finally at home now, so can do this properly. I'll try and hit as many of the points as I can, but I'm sure I'll miss something.

On Hersh: I've got to say Oliver, I wasn't very impressed with the supposed dismantling of Hersh's article in that blog post. I got about half way through and got tired of his schtick. His primary means of criticism seems to be quoting Hersh and then going "psshaaw! who would say such a crazy thing??" and then moving on to the next point, like the holes in Hersh's arguments were all just so self-evident that you'd have to be stoned on acid and playing bongos not to understand. Hundremillion's quoted 'graph is a pretty good example.

While I would love to see an article where Hersh explains why some of the things he predicted would happen haven't happened (yet), it's a bit disingenuous to act all surprised that not all the things discussed in back rooms in Washington come to pass exactly as planned, or at all. I mean, shit, even the act of publishing a widely read article saying "the US will attack Iran in June" could well end up contributing to the US NOT attacking Iran in June.

And don't even get me started on Fisk. It's hard to think of journalist more dedicated to the cause of giving voice to those without the power to do so themselves and to actually BEING THERE where the news is happening, observing and reporting on it independently.


So, other comments:

Islam vs. the West:
To me, it is quite clear that an anti-islam, anti-muslim belief structure is a key ingredient in making the American gov't's actions in the middle east palatable. Without successfully bundling muslims up and assigning them a set of beliefs opposed to the supposed values of the west, a lot of the further justifications for the violence that the West has inflicted on the middle east, become a lot more suspect--justifications like muslims' irrational and eager use of violence (unlike the US or Europe), or their need for "better" civilization and governments. Vimothy's initial response to my argument, talking about muslim "irrationality" and "fantasy" is a prime example of this. (and yes, we make lots of generalizations about lots of things, that's a whole other can of worms...)


to bomb or not to bomb
It seems like a fairly common argument from the pro-bombing crew that the US will just surgically strike the offending nuclear power plants, barely anyone will get hurt, and Iran's nuclear threat will just disappear. Surely this is blatant fantasy scenario? The US does not tend to show restraint in bombings, nor good aim. Non-military infrastructure will almost certainly be hit, as has been argued, very likely on purposes, civilian areas will be hit, and generally innocent civilians will suffer and die to some horrific degree or another. And every hard line member of the Iranian gov't will feel that much more righteous and correct in their condemnation of America, and will find it that much easier to entrench their position. Just think of how successful Bush was with "remember 9/11," and that was only one isolated attack, with an unspecified spectre of further attacks. Think about what would happen if the threat was completely clear and very likely to occur again?


Oh so it's MY responsibility to figure out a way out of this mess...
Well, so, what do I think the US should be doing? Pretty simple: getting the hell out of the middle east. Basically their reputation, their image has become so radioactive that anything they touch will become tainted. Any UN resolution they sponsor, any dialog they start, any economic aid or sanctions they perform, and certainly any military action they take, will be interpreted in the worst possible way by many people in not only the middle east, but around the world.

It's hard to imagine there being peace in the middle east with the US at all involved...their presence there is just too emotionally loaded, at this point and time. Other groups, preferably home-grown and with real domestic support, or at least some groups, countries, whatever, who do not already have a vested interest and long history in the region, that can obtain at least some level of impartiality.

BUT, this is, of course, a completely unbelievable situation. Because Washington does not want peace in the mid-east, they want the mid-east.


(...uh oh, rambling post with bolded section headers...clearly spending too much time on message board!)

 

[Mr. Tea]

i don't like efendi's tone of voice, the mixture of mocking and outrage kills his message. i don't like vimothy or hundredmillion's tone either. tea, on the other hand, i could have a cup with.

English Breakfast, milk, no sugar?

 

[vimothy]

Islam vs. the West:
To me, it is quite clear that an anti-islam, anti-muslim belief structure is a key ingredient in making the American gov't's actions in the middle east palatable. Without successfully bundling muslims up and assigning them a set of beliefs opposed to the supposed values of the west, a lot of the further justifications for the violence that the West has inflicted on the middle east, become a lot more suspect--justifications like muslims' irrational and eager use of violence (unlike the US or Europe), or their need for "better" civilization and governments. Vimothy's initial response to my argument, talking about muslim "irrationality" and "fantasy" is a prime example of this. (and yes, we make lots of generalizations about lots of things, that's a whole other can of worms...)

Woa there - now we are getting carried away. Is it really "Islam vs the West"? Surely it should be Islamism vs the West, or Islam vs modernity at the very least. And I wasn't talking about "muslim irrationality" as an inherent trait of the muslim character, but irrationality as a contemporary trait of the anti-western jihad occuring within the muslim world. But anyways, a few thoughts on the idea that people are deliberately creating an anti-muslim feeling in the west...

Constructing "anti-muslim" sentiment

This suggests to me that:
1. There is a hidden anti-muslim agenda within the various governments in question and the various political groups, magazines and movements who are involved.
2. That there is no problem in the Middle East/"Islamic world", and the notion of a problem has been invented to feed the "anti-muslim agenda".

It also means critiques - no matter how well contructed, informed or intended, and regardless of their origin - of Islamist movements and of reactionary trends within the Middle East and wider Islamic world can be easily dismissed as "constructing anti-muslim sentiment" (or something similar) in order to bolster US hegemony or otherwise further the aims of the plotters. (cf. Micheal Ledeen - a war hungry, anti-muslim loon, for e.g.). Hence, there is no Islamist threat in reality (except where the conditions to support one have been created by idiotic or nefarious US foreign policy), there is only neo-con fantasy.

This "anti-muslim discourse" (now a massive literature) is designed to justify and to obscure anti-muslim violence, something which is at the heart of the neo-con programme.

So we can see that US and coalition interventions in the "Islamic world" were designed not to overthrow tryants and replace them with democratic governments, but merely to
1. Extend the life and reach of the US empire
2. Kill some muslims

Iran is an obvious case in point: the Bush administration wants to attack, and that's really all there is to it, the supposed or possible nuclear threat being the nearest convinient excuse to hand.

It's important to note that this anti-muslim violence is inherently western in nature (perhaps because the west is inherently violent and anti-muslim in nature (see Said for further proof)). Violence originating from within the Islamic world and directed against muslims or non-muslim minorities is unfortunate but it is not the responsibilty of westerners to pass judgement or to comment on why this might be the case. Where muslims or others in the Mid East offer such analysis themselves, they are to be written off as "simple" (like Ayaan Hirsi Ali) or as CIA stooges (like "pro-war" Iraqi political parties).

 

[vimothy]

No, someone said war crime.

My! Now posters are demanding links and sources when they're not provided, versus ridiculing them when they are so presented (especially those who confuse their inherited opinions with some precious, unfathomable inner self).

Thanks, although I don't remember saying anything like that.

I think this article was discussed in Terror and Liberalism, which is why I'm interested in reading it.

 

[DWD]

Ha! Aren't you the guy who introduced Michael Ledeen into this debate earlier on?

As it happens, I agree with you about Hersh to an extent - I don't think he has a consistent agenda but I do think he's willing to report whatever line best serves his need for a big story. But if you want people to take you seriously, shouldn't you apply the same kind of critical rigour to people you agree with as well as those you don't?

No, there's a difference, that I will at least try to explain. When Mr. Ledeen writes an article on National Review or Anne Applebaum (who I do actually admire tremedously) writes her Washington Post Op-eds, then their point and their perspective are clear, and they do not try to obscure it.

The points may be clear, but - unlike Hersh - Ledeen doesn't even have to pretend to be adhering to some kind of journalistic standard. If he baldly asserts (as he did in one of the 20 articles he wrote about Iran last year) that "Iran now exercises effective control over groups ranging from Hezbollah, Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Jaish-e-Mahdi, and Jaish-e-Huti (Yemen) to the Joint Shi’ite Army of Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and part of Saudi Arabia, as well as Islamic movements in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia" the reader has no assurance that the claim can be supported or has been subjected to any kind of editorial scrutiny.

Is this "opinion"? On what grounds is Ledeen making this claim? Is this better or worse than Hersh's use of anonymous sources?

Look through any of Ledeen's articles and you'll run into all kinds of wild claims. In one piece last Feb, he describes a high-level Iranian review of strategy that took place at Khamenei's behest. It happened "sometime in late November or early December" he says. The mood was "upbeat, because the Iranians believe they see many positive developments, above all, the declaration that "it has been promised that by 8 April, we will be in a position to show the entire world that 'we are members of the club.'" This presumably refers to nuclear weapons." Later in the same article, he writes that "there is no longer any pretense of cooperation with the Big Three negotiators on the nuclear program. This suggests that the mullahs do indeed believe they have acquired nuclear weapons ..."

It's hard to believe that Ledeen got this info from someone who was at the meeting - but if he knows what the mood was like, then his source can't have been many times removed from those who were present, obviously. But, where did the info come from? How far removed was Ledeen's source from those who had first-hand knowledge of it? Did Ledeen, perhaps, simply infer that the mood was upbeat in order to suggest that he has a better source than he actually does? On what grounds is he suggesting that the mullahs believed, a year ago, that they already had a functional nuclear weapon? No-one knows - and, unlike Hersh, we're not given even an anonymous source, nor do we have the (admittedly somewhat weak) assurance that his editor does know the identity of the source. More importantly, Ledeen's reputation nowadays is sustained on the back of his regime change advocacy and he has a vested interest in making claims that prop up his position, whether he is able to back them up or not.

Frankly, I don't think Ledeen much cares whether Iran has effective control of terrorist groups in Indonesia, nor whether Iran already has nuclear weapons - although I'm sure he'll continue to present those notions as though they were well-substantiated facts. He's been advocating regime change in Iran for a long time now - it started well before the US was in Iraq, and he'd still be advocating regime change whether the Iranians had a nuclear programme or not.

Hersh - like I said earlier - lacks that kind of consistent agenda. He's just a reporter with a history of high-profile stories who is out looking for his next - and after the failure that is Iraq, there's a big market for stories that make the US military and foreign policy establishment look devious, disingenuous or delusional.

So, I agree that people need to read Hersh critically. But no more critically than they need to read Ledeen - and if either of them is a "ridiculous propagandist", it's the latter.

 

[Guybrush]

I agree with Mr Tea, all this talk about reading ‘critically’ is a bit tiring: that’s a given. Now, let’s discuss what they have to say rather than bickering over their being ‘biased’, ‘islamist-huggers’, ‘neo-cons’, etc.

 

[nomadologist]

Agreed. There are certainly a diverse set of reasons why any given person might not see eye-to-eye with Uncle Sam.

On the point of the latter kind of anti-Americanism I mentioned, I recall seeing a programme a few years ago about 'spring break' that featured two teams of fratboys having a drinking competition to see who could make themselves puke first, cheered on by some shrieking bimbos. It was one of those "maybe al-Qu'eda has a point..." moments.

There's no lad culture in the U.K.? Funny, "lad mags" like FHM that thrive in the U.K. have folded here. Metrosexuals are actually the new thing here. Get with the program!

I think the anti-Americanism you were talking about before where Europeans make fun of kitschy middle Americans is hilarious because 1) most of the people who do that are basing their entire perception of America on TV and other media, and have never been here (or if they have, definitely not to visit Oklahoma) and 2) I've been to Europe, and I saw plenty of people there who fit into same sort of tacky category as Middle Americans.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There's no lad culture in the U.K.? Funny, "lad mags" like FHM that thrive in the U.K. have folded here. Metrosexuals are actually the new thing here. Get with the program!

I think the anti-Americanism you were talking about before where Europeans make fun of kitschy middle Americans is hilarious because 1) most of the people who do that are basing their entire perception of America on TV and other media, and have never been here (or if they have, definitely not to visit Oklahoma) and 2) I've been to Europe, and I saw plenty of people there who fit into same sort of tacky category as Middle Americans.

Oh for pity's sake, did I ever say the UK was a paragon of intellectualism, restraint and good taste? We're regarded as the "chavs" of Europe, as it happens (and, looking at our rates of obesity, illiteracy, violent crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, teen pregnancy and the like, it's hard not to agree). On the other hand, I don't think the (admittedly exaggerated) characatures I painted of middle America are all that far off the mark, when (for example) you have 46% of Americans believing in 'strict Creationism'.
I've met lots of intelligent, interesting Americans, but let's not pretend every cultural stereotype that exists of Americans in the wider world is a myth, eh?

As for 'meterosexuals', they can fuck off, and all.

 

[nomadologist]

I'm not saying there aren't awful Americans. But there are awful people everywhere.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm not saying there aren't awful Americans. But there are awful people everywhere.

Indeed. But no other nation on earth (well, maybe somewhere like China, I don't know) calls itself the "greatest country in the world" with quite so much conviction as America. If you said that in Britain people would look at you like you were mental.

 

[nomadologist]

What about Britain during the days of British imperialism? (I live in the U.S. and I've never heard anyone say that it's the "greatest country on earth" except on TV by politicians or in some propaganda commercials about immigrants becoming citizens they showed us in elementary school...)

 

[Mr. Tea]

What about Britain back then? Of course people were patriotic when the Empire existed - un-patriotic countries don't tend to have empires. Britain's spent the last 60 years feeling apologetic and embarrassed by the whole thing.

Edit: and in reply to your edit, it's obvious from your posts that you've grown up and currently live among cosmopolitan, generally liberal city-dwellers (is this not the case? Please correct me if I'm wrong). But take something as simple as flying your country's flag in your front garden - millions of Americans do that, don't they? If you did that in Britain people would assume you were a racist, and you might even be asked to take it down. Sure, people are patriotic in major sporing events like the World Cup and so on, but not in their everyday lives.

 

[nomadologist]

I'm sure the U.S. will have its day of apology and embarrassment, then, when its imperialistic reign is over.

 

[nomadologist]

What about Britain back then? Of course people were patriotic when the Empire existed - un-patriotic countries don't tend to have empires. Britain's spent the last 60 years feeling apologetic and embarrassed by the whole thing.

Edit: and in reply to your edit, it's obvious from your posts that you've grown up and currently live among cosmopolitan, generally liberal city-dwellers (is this not the case? Please correct me if I'm wrong). But take something as simple as flying your country's flag in your front garden - millions of Americans do that, don't they? If you did that in Britain people would assume you were a racist, and you might even be asked to take it down. Sure, people are patriotic in major sporing events like the World Cup and so on, but not in their everyday lives.

No, I grew up in St. Lawrence county, one of the poorest counties in NY State, actually.

Lots of people in lots of countries fly flags, maybe it happens in some states, but usually not in the Northeastern US.

Britain once colonized India in a such a way that hardly escapes criticism. There's always an "empire" that economically dominates the world. The days of the U.S.'s reign are obviously almost over.

 

[old goriot]

No, I grew up in St. Lawrence county, one of the poorest counties in NY State, actually.

Lots of people in lots of countries fly flags, maybe it happens in some states, but usually not in the Northeastern US.

I've spent a fair bit of time in upstate New York (including St. Lawrence and Jefferson county (I grew up not far on the other side of the river)) If that is the non-flag-flying area, then the southern states must really be something.