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!)