Hersh-ey facts

Tony does a great job deconstructing Seymour Hersh's ridiculous piece in the New Yorker, which the world media is eating up like hot candy. Worse than a press that doesn’t ask the right questions is a press that makes up its own facts. "Investigative reporter" Hersh combines both talents in his latest article, "The redirection".

There is a lot of hogwash in the beginning of the article, which talks of a "new policy" that is "benefiting our enemies in the war". The article presumes that the enemy is "radical Sunni groups". Any policy that could lead to a confrontation with, say, Iran, is described as hurting our war against the original enemy, which apparently does not include Iran or Syria. Why would Hersh feel obliged to actually examine current facts, as opposed to ones from 2003, with a mentality from the 1970s? I guess he's having trouble finding good researchers, and is instead making heavy use of secondary sources, including perhaps Syrian regime propaganda tool, Cham Press, which, and thanks to Hersh's article, now feels more authentic than the latest issue of the New Yorker. Hersh, who rose to fame for his coverage of the Vietnam war, is only satisfied if the US army is seen massacring innocent people, and incurring heavy losses without much of a retaliation strategy. He's happier with an army that bleeds, as long as his hatred towards the Bush administration is served. To quote Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books, "in his mad zeal to destroy Camelot . . . Hersh has with precision and method disassembled and obliterated his own career and reputation."

Tony has addressed most of the points I wanted to address, including the preposterous accusations that the Lebanese government is arming al-Qaeda affiliates in Lebanon with the aim to attack "largely" Shia Hizbullah. Hersh's sources consist of washed up former intelligence officials, "government consultants" and think tank dwellers with statements beginning with "it seems".

Or guys like this one:

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”

Oh yeah, it's "so frustrating" to not know much about anything, isn't it… After a series of recycled political analysis that reminds us of the Arab states' fear of the Shias (what a revelation that is), Hersh resorts to the Council on Foreign Relations for some more guess work.

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me.

All that evidence, Hersh says, proves that the alleged US strategy of clandestine activities against Syria and Iran is "bolstering ... Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda".

Oh? So, according to Hersh, by (allegedly) waging clandestine operations against Syria and Iran, known to support and facilitate al-Qaeda operations in Iraq and Lebanon, the US is bolstering al-Qaeda?

Al-Qaeda must be in happy place now. The US government, Iran and Syria are all supporting it.

Hersh must think himself super smart and the administration stupid, for he thinks, and since "most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites" (in a parachuting manner, mind you, Islamists are being dropped by the Sunni god from the sky), the administration is busy correcting an "unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran". So this administration is so dumb, that it's willing to bolster Sunni extremists to get back at Iran, which, to Hersh, has done nothing wrong in Iraq, not to mention Lebanon.

I urge you to read Tony's post on the Lebanon part of the article, where we learn about "Bashir Assad", a man against whom the UN found "no direct evidence" of involvement in the Hariri murder. According to Hersh, the situation is so desperate, the UN will launch "another investigation". This "other investigation" is what people familiar with the rule of law know as the Hariri tribunal. Of course, absent from this "investigative reporting" is Syria's violent opposition to the tribunal, which is also not mentioned as one of the prime reasons Hizbullah has hijacked downtown Beirut. In fact, Hizbullah, in Hersh's eyes, is only acting to counter a US plot to pit Sunnis against Shias, and for purely nationalistic purposes.

In the part about Nasrallah, Syria and Iran's role are minimized to the comfortable level allowing Hersh to prove his conspiracy theory. Enter Robert Baer.

Robert Baer, a former longtime C.I.A. agent in Lebanon, has been a severe critic of Hezbollah and has warned of its links to Iranian-sponsored terrorism. But now, he told me, “we’ve got Sunni Arabs preparing for cataclysmic conflict, and we will need somebody to protect the Christians in Lebanon. It used to be the French and the United States who would do it, and now it’s going to be Nasrallah and the Shiites.

“The most important story in the Middle East is the growth of Nasrallah from a street guy to a leader—from a terrorist to a statesman,” Baer added. “The dog that didn’t bark this summer”—during the war with Israel—“is Shiite terrorism.”

Nasrallah is a growth alright, but a Lebanese statesman protecting Christians? I think Baer has spent too much time in Hollywood. It gets better—the following suggests Hizbullah is independent from Syria and Iran:

Most members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities acknowledge Hezbollah’s ongoing ties to Iran. But there is disagreement about the extent to which Nasrallah would put aside Hezbollah’s interests in favor of Iran’s. A former C.I.A. officer who also served in Lebanon called Nasrallah “a Lebanese phenomenon,” adding, “Yes, he’s aided by Iran and Syria, but Hezbollah’s gone beyond that.”

Can't you all see how Hizbullah's gone beyond Syria and Iran to serve Lebanese national interests?

Baer, Hersh and their friends have one thing in common: they all have abandoned reality for fiction. And we all know that fiction sells better. In the words of Hersh's proclaimed nemesis, George W. Bush, "Seymour Hersh is a liar".

Update. Sandmonkey got hershed.

Comments

[Jeha]

Worse than a liar, an idiot with a following. As long as Bush hatred mobilizes those morons, it's going to be tough for reason to wade through their heads.

[ghassan karam]

To deny that Seymour Hersh has won so many prestigious awards in journalism that he has "broken" a number of very important stories and to claim that he is simply a liar and a Bush hater is to commit just as egregious of a mistake as the ones that Mr. Hersh commits whenever he overrelies on his "undisclosed" sources. Yes he does at times get it wrong but his pieces are well researched and as is often the case it is always left to the reader to decide whether to buy into a conclusion or not.

[Blacksmith Jade]

You know I'm getting sick and tired of these arrogant nay-sayers who would keep us wallowing in the waters of tyranny - aka safely tucked under Bashar's boot - in order to appease their own personal preoccupation with appearing 'wordly' and accepting of 'alternative' societies.

Thanks for caring.

[Blacksmith Jade]

Off-topic:
Abu Kais, I have to say your sidebar items are excellent. I've been trying Beta Blogger's new Feed Reader to try and setup a feed from various Lebanese blogs but i can't get the same feed reader to take in feeds from different sites. I have to setup an individual one for each.

For recent comments I followed the link on Jeha's site to a widget developed by a couple of independent programmers. Again the one you've setup seems to ourperform it, reacting much quicker and updating more frequently than the one I've got up.

Good job!

[Caveman]

Ghassan - Hersh has earned this particular trashing, unfortunately. His tragic flaw is that of many Americans - so convinced that Dubya is his mortal enemy that he fails to recognize his real enemy's camp, even long after he has wandered into it. His thorough lack of regional knowledge certainly helped him along as well.

[fubar]

Sorry, folks, following Abi Lama off topic, the enemy within is not my turf.

Abi Lama,

Who are you, dude? You usually just drop an article on us and leave. What is it about this article that makes you speak? This is nothing new, after all.

[Abu Kais]

Abi Lama-- what does this have to do with the discussion? Off to delete your useless comment.

[Jeha]

Ghassan,

I understand that Hirsh has what proven himself a solid journalist. But past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and in this case, he deserves the trashing. It is not like he is writing about an electoral issue in the US; his hatred with George Bush is leading him to mess with something with far bigger consequences.

As Brassens put it; "Quand les cons sont braves, ce n'est pas tres grave"... But Seymore's aura of credibillity gives his mistakes a unique potency. As they blunder into our world with their preconceived notions, those intellectuals get a lot of people killed. In this respect, Edward Said was on to something.

... "Quand il s'emmele, on compte les morts"

[Amir in Tel Aviv]

TimesOnLine: Hezbollah regroups in a new mountain stronghold

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1438090.ece

UNIFIL: (pdf MAP) buildup in S. Lebanon between Litani river and Israeli border:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unifil.pdf
.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
The unquestioned and uncritical reception accorded to Seymour Hersh by certain segments of the Lebanese and Arab media is a reminder of the awe in which they received Noam Chomsky last year. I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I do not think that he had anything meaningful to say about the Lebanese situation. Neither does Seymour for that matter. Maybe I just don't like the tone of Tony and his claims of deconstructing anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. Tony has never met a Neocon that he does not like. Disagree with Seymour Hersh if you want based on his analysis and facts but not because he is a Bush hater and a mendacious story teller. I am sure that he does not wake up each morning to spin lies that will culminate in essays in one of the most responsible magazines in the world just to critique Shrub. If that is the case then David Remnik is equally culpable.
In my opinion Mr. Hersh does not deserve to be called an intellectual simply because he is not. His power is simply derived from his investigative journalism that has been found wanting many a time.

[Jeha]

Ghassan,

I basically agree, except that so far, from what I had been reading so far, Tony konws far more about the middle east than Hirsh. Then again, I sometimes find things at Joshua Landis' site that makes sense...

But people like Hirsh and Chomsky have a unique pungency when they step out of the environment they know best, and "mentally" overreach. I guess the same would happen to me if I got to discussing linguistics, or US politics. But you do not find many linguists who run dictatorships, and look for any shred of support in the West.

I think the main limitations of people like Hirsh is that they are on the clock; they get "tired" from having to be smart "on demand", at fixed times...

[fubar]

Ghassan,

Excuse me for pointing this out, and at the risk of offending sensitive readers who abhor those who have a superior English vocabulary, but...

Do you really mean, "Disagree with Seymour Hersh if you want based on his analysis and facts but not because he is a Bush hater and a mendacious story teller."?

Shit, man, mendacious means given to or characterized by deception or falsehood which often is not intended to genuinely mislead or delude. You cannot be serious. My "fishing" trips are an example of mendacious story telling, misdirection to avoid saying what I am really doing. No harm, no foul. Hersh's "investigative reporting" is no fish that got away story. He is absolutely intending for his story to be taken seriously. And that is reason alone for anyone, neocon or not, to look with a critical eye.

And worse yet, he either does not know or care what the consequences of his little story could be for others. If it was just a fishing story which no one was supposed to believe, why does M14 have to respond to it. Lest we forget, we are dealing with a part of the world where people get killed on a regular basis for expressing ideas and even less. They don't need f*cking Seymour Hersh stoking the fire.

Your defense of him while at the same time admitting he doesn't have anything meaningful to say about the situation is inexcusable, intelligensia bullshit.

[Traffic]

You can bet that Nawwaf Moussawi an the likes will be drooling over the prospects of adding a piece like Hersh's to their repertoire of "you see we told you so, it's one big Zionist plot".

[ghassan karam]

Fubar,
Know that you point it out I can see that the language construction of the sentence that you have quoted is rather confusing:-) (I posted that right after a three hour lecture, see I have an excuse.
I was not defending Seymour Hersh's article on Lebanon as much as I was objecting to some of the remarks that dismissed him not because of what he said but based on some general second hand personal traits attributed to him by his accusers. The way to respond to Seymour Hersh, if one feels that a response is warranted, is to show that his analysis is flawed and that his sources, named and implied, are ficticious. Attacking his likes and dislikes is immaterial , that is similar to argumentum ad hominem. ( If you don't agree with what , say, Christopher Hitchins has to say about the war on terror, show me where he is wrong and do not just attack him as an arrogant weasel.)
Do you honestly believe that Seymour Hersh has fabricated his sources? I don't for a second, The New Yorker is not The Star, it has journalistic standards to uphold. It is one thing to question method and conclusion but it is a different thing to question the veracity of an essay because one does not like the messenger.

[fubar]

Ghassan,

Has Seymour Hersh fabricated his sources? Well, I don't know. I was not present for any of his interviews to know if they actually occurred or if the people he allegedly met with actually said what he actually says that they said. Or if he is spinning what they said, context often being the critical component. By using anonymous sources, he isn't given us much to go on, is he? Just as you suggest not judging the veracity of the message based upon the messenger, I would argue not to give credence to the message merely because you are not a critical enough thinker to doubt the veracity of the messenger. Everyone can be wrong sometimes. Everyone can be fed bullshit, particularly those who want to buy it.

I do know that some of what he is saying is bullshit.

Hersh is saying that GWB's secret plan is to use the Iranian involvement in Iraq as a pressure point on Iran. Bullshit. The Iranian involvement has not been pushed from top down. It has been and is being pushed from the bottom up. The troops in the field are sick and tired of it. They are pushing it up. And GWB would be no kind of Commander in Chief not to address it as it means protecting the troops. It does add pressure on Iran, but it is a push up, not a push down.

How lucky for Hersh that the CinC's reaction plays so well into his BDS inspired theories.

Conversely, I will say that I did see one thing I do know to be absolutely true in the Hersh fish story -- there is an outstanding blood debt, more than one.

[Maya]

Fubar, thumbs up all the way!!! I may not be as fluent in English, but I certainly appreciate someone who is. I could not have said it better. I will add that Hersh's hatred for Bush is actually relevant here. His case of Bush derangement syndrome has made him forget the first rule of journalism: check the information you are fed by your sources rather than just becoming a mouthpiece for their propaganda. How convenient that the most damning information comes from sources that are "anonymous". And what's with Robert Baer? Did he spend too much time in Hollywood and is now living in the land of make belief? Hezballah is now the defender of the Christians from the Sunnis extremists? Good God, what next? Siniora killed Hariri to become Prime Minister and is blaming Syria may not be far off now. Hersh flushed his journalistic integrity down the drain in his effort to blame the US administration for all the middle east problems. If he is not suffering from a case of Bush derangement syndrome, he would have to be an idiot (I don't believe so) or on Iran's payroll. It is despicable that men like him are allowed to publish this crap and get away with it. The credibility accorded to them because of their position and the publications they represent is dangerous and will further the bloodshed. His article is an insult to any Lebanese or American patriot. Thank you Abu Kais and the other bloggers for calling him on it. It is hard for the mainstream media to get away with these things without the bloggers knocking their lies one at a time.

PS: I cannot believe I missed the Umm Kais/Enough BS feud yesterday. Wawee you do not mess with that lady ;-) Maybe one day, she'll tell us how a Peruvian/Swiss met a Southern Lebanese and gave birth to Beirut Beltway. We'll do it hopefully at a coffee shop in a Hezballah free downtown Beirut or at the Lebanese Taverna in DC, my treat...

[Vulcan]

"A sneer is the weapon of the weak."

[fubar]

"If the idiots hate you, it proves you're not one of them!"

Quit your sulking and run with the big dogs.

[ali bm]

so you guys want people to beleive that washington is blameless in the troubles of the mid east? and concering hersch's article, don't you find it strange that the whole sunni-shi'i arose after the invasion of iraq when the u.s. found itself in a deep hole of its own digging? isn't it strange that all the talk about a shi'i cresecnet came from the mouths of puppets abdallah in jordan and mubarak in egypt and was endorsed by saudis? even more so for those that follow lebanese news on a daily basis, don't you find it odd that for example, when the lebanese army entered the Ta'meer area in saida near Ain al hilwe refugee camp and was shot at and attacked by the Jund Al Sham extremist group, local dignitaries (for which read Bahiyya hariri and her brother Shafik and other fture movement figures) went all out in their mediation efforts and orevented the army from responding? and the issue of Fath Al-Islam in the north, why when the army knows that there are so many dangerous militants about it is not doing anything to aprehend them? i admit that you have to take Hersh's report with a grain of salt but claiming that he is on bashar's and iran's payroll is way overboard.

[Jeha]

Ali,

I will address only 2 questions; you are following the classic Arabic approach of firing a series of questions that appear related, in order to force some argument. Basically, your comment is far too convoluted to be answered as a whole. I will address 3 points;

Point 1:
When you question that “so you guys want people to believe that Washington is blameless in the troubles of the mid east?”, you make 3 assumptions, both false;

1- That there is a “so you guys”. There is not a “We” on this blog, just a bunch of people who do not always see eye to eye, but who can at least agree to do so in an intelligent manner.

2- That those guys “want people to believe” something, Not really, except a belief in the existence of facts. Such as; Hezb = terrorist, Hirsh = biased Bush hater. Which does not exclude the fact that Geagea = war criminal for example (see AK’s previous posts), and which brings me to the next point in the line.

3- That “we” actually think “that Washington is blameless in the troubles of the mid east?”. Come on Dude, we all know that they are far from blameless in this respect, and to ask this is at best disingenuous; you are blatantly ignoring previous posts and previous comments, and the context of those comments. More so, and less forgivingly, you are ignoring that the mess in the Middle East has many nasties, most of them Arabs who gleefully killed their own kind. I remind you of the 40,000 dead at Hama, the few victims of Damour, Chekka, the Mountain, Sabra and Shatila (few of us can forget the smell, BTW), the War of the Suburbs, the War of Liberation, the War of ilghra’ (Oh, the fond memories, the sounds …)…

Point 2:
“concerning hersch's article, don't you find it strange that the whole sunni-shi'i arose after the invasion of Iraq when the US. found itself in a deep hole of its own digging?”

You are right that the US is struggling to get itself out of Iraq, but I would not look at Lebanon for that. Look closer at Balushistan, “Arabstan”, as well as the Azeris and Kurds in Northwestern Iran. This is where the real cowpies may hit the fan, apparently with much US backing.

You are wrong in thinking that coincidence can be “proof” of anything. I can see you jumping form this to disregard all Syria’s past fanning of Lebanese sectarian flame. There is another coincidence for you; the Dennyeh battle in Y2K; anyone who was there can tell you of a few weird things going on. So do not disregard Syria’s ongoing role in Lebanon in those regards; even if the US are fanning the flames now, it would be too soon to wean those nasties from Syria’s grip.

Point 3;
In engineering, we call this "extrapolating"; essentially, you are drawing conclusion based on an assumed tredn from whatever little data you can find. In street fight parlance, you are "buying a machkal" from people who are not selling.

A final note; I have been recommending Aristotle's book on rethoric lately to many people in Lebanon. Read it. And please excuse the long and pontifying post.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
Let me just add to what you have already said about Point3. That kind of thinking , "extrapolating", is also a violation of an essential law in logic. This violation is called "Ad Hoc" fallacy and is unfortunately responsible for so many of the wrong conclusions in all facets of life. My favorite example is the pracice of beating on empty tins whenevr an eclipse occurs and thus the consequent conclusion that the eclipse was scared away by the noise:-) I am also sure that you are also aware of the silly conclusions that are often arrived at and "substantiated" by multiple regression analysis where a close association is mistaken for causality. Researchers a few years ago concluded that drinking red wine decreased certain incidents of heart attack based on a correlation analysis. It was determined later on that the reason for that apparent reduction in heart attacks was not the red wine itself but the tendency for those that drink a lot of red wine to take asprin!!!

[Jeha]

Ghassan,

Indeed. It is a samilar logic that would say that, since Iraq fell apart on US watch, it is solely their fault. Forgetting that the nation had been undermined for a while by the Saddam regime. A similar logic prevails in Lebanon; just because Syria is nominally out of the country, our troubles stem solely from the incompetence of the government...

This leades to confusion about real v/s proximate causes; the proximate cause of the destruction of Lebanon is Israel's summer war, but the real cause extends beyond Hezb's fanaticism to a deeper cause of systematic decision avoidance by successive Lebanese administrations. Not that "peace" is a decision to make, but the immobilism that was understantable under Sarkis was less acceptable of the late Rafic Harir, and still far less acceptable today; we're only buying our own assassins more time by letting our hearts prevail over our minds.

[Charlie]

Ali bm,

So it sounds from the many rhetorical questions you have asked there is some grand American conspiracy plan. Would you kindly articulate what is that plan as it applies to Lebanon (not the entire region)? I really want to understand the components of that conspiracy but can’t put it together with a serious of questions that span over many topics.

[Umm Kais]

Thanks Maya :) I was just really frustrated...poor Abu Kais, I probably embarrassed the crap out of him--sorry! I have opinions of Seymour Hersh as well but am staying silent this time.

Would love to meet sometime!

[Maya]

Umm Kais,

The way I see it, your blog, your rules. I also have a suspicion that Abu Kais knows that when you get really ticked off about something, he’d better move out of the way and run for cover ;-). Just kidding, you are a spunky lady, don’t ever change. This topic is obviously dear to your heart and it was nice to see the humanity behind the pen name. I presume that you are not a fan of Tom Cruise’s cure for post-partum depression (exercise and vitamins). After all, he studied psychology, oh wait, scientology, my bad. I haven’t read Mr Sfeir’s speech (could not find it in its entirety online), but as long as he does not preach violence towards anybody, I don’t have a problem with what he says. This does not mean he should not be called on it though. My beef is with people like Qaradawi who goes on Al Jazeera to explain the proper way for a man to beat his disobedient wife and the penalty for homosexuality (throwing homosexuals off a building or crushing them under a stone wall). Anyway, I have not seen Sfeir's speech, so I can't really have an opinion one way or the other and I may be speaking nonsense. Would be nice to meet sometimes, I agree. The BeirutBeltway sorority. No, wait BB fraternity, so the boys won't feel left out. Keep up the good work. I looove reading your comments.

[Maya]

Jeha,

You have given me a renewed admiration for engineers. Do you think the science shapes your logic this way, or do you have to formulate your thoughts in such a logical manner to succeed in this field? I don't know if my question makes any sense, is it the chicken or the egg, I guess. Nevertheless, I love watching you deconstruct another's argument. It is fascinating.

[ali bm]

jeha and ghassan have a very nice way with big words, sadly i am not much impressed. i might be "extrapolating" which is bad in engineering but that is a good appraoch in trying to read the political scene as i, and everyone else, do not possess all the facts. i prefer to look at it as synthizing. i am not ignoring syria's role in lebanon or iran's for that matter, but you guys are turning a blind eye to america's role here. as for charlie, if you look up ambassador feltman's latest speeches then you'll get an idea of what is being cooked for lebanon. basically, i believe it boils down to this: 1)setting lebanon aside from the events in the region by disarming hezbollah and ensuring 14th of march enjoy a long and happy reign. 2) using international tribunal and junblatt's games with syrian opposition as means for pressuring syrian regime into towing the line
you might think that this doesn't sound bad but you have to keep in mind that the americans and their tools here might go all the way to civil war, hence the preparation of extremists groups, to achieve their goals. you also have to remember that we have 400,000 palestinian refugees here with no place and no jobs for them. so if they stay here without solving their issue, then where might this lead us?

[R]

ali bm,

"setting lebanon aside from the events in the region by disarming hezbollah and ensuring 14th of march enjoy a long and happy reign"

so let me understand this correctly, hizbulla's arms are the only thing that stand between a democratically elected majority and governing? However, disarming them is bad because it may lead to civil war. On the other hand, not disarming them is good, since it allows them to continue blackmailing their opponents, holding the country hostage subject to Syrian or Iranian demands, while hampering progress by keeping the country in an unstable non-peace non-war state and simultaneously preventing the tackling of the real issues that plague lebanon and specifically their own constituents. But then again relinquishing their arms and their de facto state withing a state army and institutions is simply a recipe for their disappearance...

Look, the fact of the matter is that they are the biggest eyesore in a country full of them and their very existance as an armed group funded from abroad employing the methods and ideology they employ is probably the most detrimental thing to their supposed community.

Whatever dude, I guess in your book the main thing is al somood wal tasaddi lil mashroo3 il gharbi as well being part of jabhit il rafd or whatever its called these days... If not and if you are interested in constructive debate, then I suggest presenting a viable alternative.

[ali bm]

r, the sentence you quoted is not my point of view but the oen that i belive the americans are following, i agree that hezbollah is not the only salient feature in this country full of B.S. but i belive that disarming it forcebly, which i think the americans and their adherents are proposing, will lead us ti war while if we place a full plan that allows them to join the army as part of a defensive startegy according to some timetable then we all gain. but i think that they need some gauarntees hence their demands for a slice of the cake of power. anyway, u\you haven't answered me about palestinian refugees and other elements that keep this country unstable such as sharing of power, represnetation...

[R]

Ali,

YOu might not like what you are gonna read, but I propose a full fledged proportional representation system with the country as one district, or alternatively a first past the post system with one representative per district or a mixture thereof - no sectarian quota, with the establishment of a bicameral system (with an upper house that can be sectarian) - see Taef. As for the palestinians, I wouldn't mind seeing them naturalized, slowly but surely with the costs paid for by the UN or the west or whoever can pay - do you see them going anywhere ? honestly now ?

As for sharing of power. Sorry, but i don't believe that people who lose elections get to be part of the government, especially when they are an armed militia supporting an unconstiutional president... you know the tune...

So you see - I don't share much with march 14. But I share much less with HA and its allies...

[ali bm]

i whole heartedly agree with you on electoral systems. and i also agree with you that the palestinians do not appear headed anywhere out of here, but to naturalize them? some lebanese, not including myself would strongly object to this. i belive that if we keep hezbollah's arms as a bargaining chip we might solve the situation by being able to dictate some of our demands instead of blindly obeying israel's and america's terms. but concering the issue of the losers in the elections, then i would like to point you here to the fact that the winners in the elections won based on a coalition which fell apart. the government manifesto was based on this coalition so if it fell apart then neither the governemnt manifesto nor the government itself can be considered legitimate.

[Jeha]

Maya,

I think that Logic is paramount for success in all fields. However, it is also important to realize the limits of your factual knowledge. Other fields have less hard data than others. Which brings me to my next point;

Ali,

Please note that using words like "tools" makes assumptions about other's probity. Many would prefer to be American "tool" than a Syrian "king". A "King" who signed away southern Lebanon, back in 1919, BTW; maybe I should post the documents. I agree that the tribunal could turn into a civil war issue; but you forget that some locals are willing to make it one... And it is the only leverage the Lebanese have; from personal experience with Syrians, leverage is the only thing they understand. And cash, too. They love cash.

That said, I agree with your basic premise; we do not have all the facts. But we can use history of the world as a guide. In this context, we learn that the way events unfold is far more messy than a linear progression from cause to event. As an example, the 400,000 Palestinians, whatever we want to do, we're stuck with them. We have a broken system and we need a new one.

which brings me to;

R,

I agree with the idea. but you need a measure of checks and balances (indepedent courts and senate), as well as strong local control over finances (baladyet).

We have a French 3e republique running an Ottoman mutasarrifya.

[Eliyahu]

Abu Kais, you rightly doubt that Hizbullah serves Lebanon's interests. I would put it differently, in responding to crooks like Hersh & Robert Baer, and the like. I ask whether --even if Nasrallah wanted to be independent --to act independently-- of Iran & Syria, he could do so. If somehow Nasrallah's personal preferences somehow became favorable to Lebanese independence from Syria, could he then maintain his organziation, its funding, its weapons supplies, its diplomatic support? Can the answer be other than NO?

[Abu Kais]

Eliyahu--- Hizbullah is an illegal militia, period.

[R]

Ali,

You are assuming that the problem in Lebanon is one of representation. In other words you are assuming that the opposition is upset because it is not properly represented. In fact, that is not the case. They own the positions of the president and speaker of parliament as well as having had nearly a third of the government. Moreover, change of alliances does not necessitate a fall of the government. That would be the case if there was a shift in the balance of power in parliament. But that is not so.

You are basically assuming that the opposition has earned the right to be treated as trustworthy when they have repeatedly missed chances to heal wounds and worked hard to cut deeper into march 14. Let us start with "mozaharat alwafa2 lisoorya" and the gift from nasralla to ghazali. How do you think that stood with march 14? What about the prime minister being called a slave to a slave by the president of a foreign country and the opposition firmly refusing to stand up to him. And the tribunal ? twice! What about hte july war? after nasralla's explicit promise in the hiwar ? I could go on and on.
My point is that regardless of the US and its policies, Hizbulla has missed several chances to prove its Lebaneseness - it has taken every chance to inflame the situation with the rest of the Lebanese, and has acted irresponsibly under direct orders from Syria and Iran. If March 14 is now aligned with the US, Hizbulla has only itself to blame.

Jeha,
Agreed.

[Charlie]

Ali,

“as for charlie, if you look up ambassador feltman's latest speeches then you'll get an idea of what is being cooked for lebanon. basically, i believe it boils down to this: 1)setting lebanon aside from the events in the region by disarming hezbollah and ensuring 14th of march enjoy a long and happy reign”

Now let me understand this: keeping Lebanon Neutral and away from conflicts that are much bigger than the Lebanese can handle is an American wish and it is bad for Lebanon..hmmm..interesting!!! The fact that it is the wish of most Lebanese is of no importance to you I guess. With Lebanon being the small country it is with finite resources and facing huge economical challenges , it should be the national duty of each Lebanese to keep Lebanon neutral in that insane region. If the US, Europe and any other country is in support of this and can help us get there then they are a great friend and ally, of course that would also include Syria and Iran if they were ever true to Lebanon’s best interests.

Now everyone in Lebanon, including March-14 agree that there is a need for electoral reform, this is a very important topic that must be discussed and addressed, but camping in Downtown Beirut IS NOT the way to discuss anything, but it is a good method to cripple the country and drag the economy down further into the abyss. There is a parliament and the opposition has MPs they can always put forward bills and legislative proposals to address this issue, why haven’t they done so??

As for disarming HA, this is a Lebanese national duty. Lebanon can not exist as a country of laws and institutions as long as HA is armed, period!

“2) using international tribunal and junblatt's games with syrian opposition as means for pressuring syrian regime into towing the line
you might think that this doesn't sound bad but you have to keep in mind that the americans and their tools here might go all the way to civil war, hence the preparation of extremists groups, to achieve their goals. you also have to remember that we have 400,000 palestinian refugees here with no place and no jobs for them. so if they stay here without solving their issue, then where might this lead us?”

My friend the only group I see working hard to take Lebanon to a civil war are HA, Amal, and their allies. This group has used every provocation possible and turned every debate into a holly war of some sort, this is hardly the way to avoid a conflict; in simple terms they have gone out of their way to pick a fight. It is no secret that Assad has declared he would break Lebanon and sees it burn rather than change his mind with Lahoud’s extension, so the way it appears March-8 is helping with that course of action. Now, A major Lebanese political figure was assassinated, and since then several additional ones have suffered the same fate, the Lebanese judiciary is incapable of handling such cases not to mention the orders behind these crimes could have been initiated from outside Lebanon, don’t you think this is a case for a small country like Lebanon to seek the help and protection of the UN? If Syria has issues with that, let them step up and do their own articulation of their fears/concerns, this is not HA’s job.

As far as the Palestinian refugees, it seems to me HA had no problems with illegally nationalizing thousands of illegal Syrian workers and agents, you also seem keen on defending and protecting the Syrian sisterly regime but somehow the 400K refugees, which most of them were born and raised in Lebanon are an issue that deserves setting up a camp in the heart of the city and risk going into a civil war over…whatever!!

[Lee]

Hi,

Re. Hersh, I think everyone here has done a much better job than I could in explaining how Hersh misunderstands and mis-represents the region, often in ways that would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. I just wanted to add from here in Washington that Hersh also misrepresents what is happening in Washington. Basically, no one he speaks to has any role in any decision-making process. They are all outsiders looking in with axes to grind with the Bush administration, for better or worse. I am not sure if Hersh is a Bush-hater; his career has been marked by a willingness to believe people who he thinks are getting screwed by a bad system. His perspective in that way is a product of Hollywood movies - the lone ranger fighting the good fight - not the real world, and certainly not Washington. And so he is willing to serve as a put-through device for people who are losing bureaucratic fights, whether they deserve to or not. It's never been clear to me whether Hersh knows he is being used, or just doesn't care. After all, his particular brand of sensationalism at this point is helping sell magazines. By the way, Ghassan, Remnick is cuplable, maybe more so than Hersh. As editor it is his job to make sure the story checks out, and one of the devices that the US press has typically used to ensure the quality of its information is to name sources. There is no quality-control for information that comes unsourced. It could come from anyone for any reason, and they have nothing to lose if they are wrong and may indeed have something to gain just to have that info, right or wrong, out there. Clearly, there are times when people have to speak off the record or they would not be able to pass on really imprtant information. However, Hersh's pieces are characterized by unammed sources, which should make anyone skeptical, including editors, about the quality of the information - after all, contrary to Patriot Act paranoia, the Bush White House is not jailing people who say bad things about it, or else many many peple would be in jail for saying bad things about Bush. So why won't Hersh name his sources? Is it because they are in mortal danger? Are they afraid of losing their jobs? Or are they just out of the loop and it is more convenient for SH to suggest that they have the inside scoop? That Remnick continues to publish this nonsense is not only bad for the region, but also the magazine's readership, a majority of which are US readers who really need to have good information on the Middle East.

[ghassan karam]

Lee,
What makes you think that Reminick does not know the undisclosed sources. David Remnick claims that he knows and has verified each of these sources. I have no intension of spending anymore time debating this peripheral issue. Those who do not find a story, any story, credible then just dismiss it. It is that simple. If on the other hand one believes that a journalistic story has misstated the facts then one can always refute that story by demonstrating where it went wrong. The best test , the only test to evaluate an artile is to read it without even knowing who wrote it. By names are important only for one thing. To keep the author honest and responsible. If for any reason you do not agree with an opinion then present a valid cogent well constructed counter argument but please do not attack an essay by attacking perceived personal attributes of the author. That is infantile and above all immaterial.
BTW, I fail to see what is it that is considered to be so wrong with an essay about Lebanon that quotes an ex CIA agent , speaks about an interview with Nasrallah, describes the ineptitude of the Saniora cabinet and warns of the Salafi danger. Many of us ,on this very blog, have been saying the same things for months. If you don't like the conclusions of Mr. Hersh then that is your rightbut don't disagree only because the essay did not emphasize what you would have wanted it to stress. And please, please do not attack the messanger for the message.

[Maya]

Ghassan,

I'm a bit confused here. Let's take Hersh out of the equation for a second. Are you saying that you believe what the New Yorker article states about Lebanon? Do you think Baer's comments about HA providing protection to the Christians has any basis? Does it give you any confidence in anything else he has to say after that? Do you agree with his portrayal of the Middle Eastern problem as purely a result of American (and its allies) heavy handedness, leaving Syria and Iran blameless? I'm dumbfounded by your position on this issue. Any writer is judged by his work and his credibility is tied to his work portfolio. When Bernard Lewis or Fouad Ajami have something to say about the Middle East, you bet I'm going to listen, but Hersh has lost credibility with many readers when he publishes crap that anyone with the slightest familiarity with US politics and Middle Eastern mess knows it to be pure propaganda. Nevertheless, regardless of what we think of Hersh, this article contains a lot of information that we both know first hand to be untrue. Isn't that enough to make you question everything else someone like that has to say? It boils down to consistency, integrity and credibility.

[ghassan karam]

Maya,
I have indicated that I will not comment anymore on this totally peripheral issue that is of no consequence whatsoever. I will make one more exception to just very briefly point out that you are confusing two separate issues. Foud Ajami and Bernard Lewis are intellectuals who write purely opinionated books in which they examine an issue, analyze it and share with the reader their interpretation of that particular development. That is not the role of a reporter. The few statements that you seem to take a great issue with are not his. Seymour Hersh was only reporting the results of his investigation. What did you expect him to do? Should he have dismissed the analysis of a relatively respected figure in the Middle East or did he have to report them? I do not see you objecting to the relatively negative picture that he drew of Nasrallah? I hope that you will never find a book or an article with which you are in total agreement. So you read an article that you don't like, big deal. I read four such articles a day.But that is not the issue. You seem to want to demonise a reporter who has only set out to do a job. If I don't like what an essay saya then I use it to wrap a fish or something. I do not attack the charachter or an investigative reporter only because I am not in agreement with what his sources are saying.Do you think that the kin of the MiLai perpetrators thought highly of Hersh? What about the gaurdians of Abu Ghraib do you think that they approved of what he had to say? So he wrote a story that is essentially correct but that has some highly explosive statements by some ex CIA analyst? Is this the first time that the CIA has it wrong? They had no clue that the Soviet Union was crumbling. They are the guys that were surprised by both the Indian bomb and then the Pakistani bomb. And please keep in mind that had Mr Hersh written a different article using different sources then the other side would have demonised him. My final point is to reiterate that you are within your rights to critique an essay based on its contents but if your cririque is to be taken seriously then it has to rise to a level that is above empty cliches, generalisations and attacks on personal charachteristics that are irrelevant and immaterial. A reporter is not an academic and he makes no such claims.

BTW, many will question whether the term "intellectual" applies to Bernard Lewis.:-) I am serious, I will not respond to anyone no matter what they have to say on this issue. It is insignificant and we ought to be channelling our energies and efforts into more important things such as : "What is the Good Life?" LOL.

[fubar]

"I am serious, I will not respond to anyone no matter what they have to say on this issue." -- word of honor, Ghassan.

It is possible to be too open minded, as in so open minded that your brains fall out. Your defense of Hersh is a clear sign of leakage. = )

[Maya]

1. Journalists should be skeptical without being cynical ("If your mother says she loves you, check it out"). Don't just report the facts, check them out first.
2. Anonymous sourcing undermines credibility.
3. Robert Baer's CIA career ended over 10 years ago. His statements reflect his personal views and have nothing to do with the CIA. He has no clearance and no access to any classified information. His belief that 9/11 was likely an inside job gives me very little faith in his sound judgement.
4. There are too many items in the article that I disagree with and know for a fact to be untrue, I just cited the ones that I found to be the most ridiculous. AK and Tony have covered most of them, so I will spare everyone a repetition.
5. Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He is one of the most widely read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers. The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing has written that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." He has written around 30 books (most were bestsellers and I have read 12 of them) and hundreds of articles and lectures. If that does not make him an "intellectual", I don't know what could. I have the highest regard for this man's work and I cannot stand it when his intellect is questioned because of his Jewish background (I'm not implying that you are doing that) or other superficial reasons by those who can only dream of achieving half of his accomplishments. If someone disagrees with his views, there is no need to insult the man's intellect. Just like you said before, you have a problem with the message, don't shoot the messenger.

[manar]

maya,

which works of bernard lewis do you have the "highest regard" for?

his being a professor at princeton shouldn't be enough to respect his work.

[Maya]

His bio may be impressive, but his work is what I was referring to Manar. Pick up any of his books and read it if you are interested. I have not read his latest book yet, even though I have bought it, but try "The Middle East (History of civilization)" or "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" (this is the last one I had read). Mr Lewis has been accused by some to be a "dhimmi" and by others to be anti-islam. When you get criticized by extremists from both sides, you must be doing something right. His love for Middle Eastern culture is evident in his writing and his criticism is always contructive and objective. Nevertheless, someone who chose a user ID modeled after Hezbollah TV is unlikely to draw the same conclusions I did from reading his books. Am I right?

[manar]

maya,

someone who chose a user ID modeled after Hezbollah TV is unlikely to draw the same conclusions I did from reading his books.

actually, you're the one who is drawing conclusions based on my name. extremely incorrect ones btw. that actually says more about you then it does about me.

but hey ... whatever makes you happy.

and btw, nothing is "objective" - especially the study of history, since it is just a human interpretation of past events - and that, by construction, is subjective.

best of luck in breaking through your mental faultlines,

manar

[Jeha]

Manar,

just a note; the concept that things are, "by construction, is subjective" is far from demonstrated. In some respects, it has been thoroughly destroyed by Alan Sokal.

This PC stuff has been discredited except in some liberal faculties in the US, and will not live past their retirement.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
I am no proponent of cultural relativism as an excuse to maintain some egregious practices in the field of human rights in particular but this is a far cry from denying that social constructs by definition are subjective. After all that is why we have so many of them.
Alan Sokal is primarily interested in demonstrating that basic scientific principles are as absolute and as objective as one can get. I remember at one point when he invited those who would question the objectivity of basic principles to jump out of his window on the 30 floor !!!
Our accepted explanation of a phenomenon, even in science, does change with time and although paradigm shifts do not occur over a short span of time yet they do occur in all fields of inquiry including physics. Some have suggested that we have made all the discoveries that we are likely to make but evidence suggests that we have not seen anything yet. May I suggest that we are living in a world where scientific knowledge and its applications are growing at an exponential rate and that we are currently at the elbow of the J curve. Our explanations of all things are influenced by our environment and our level of knowledge at that particular moment in time. This does not mean that cultural relativism is to be accepted but it only argues that our tool box and set of beliefs at any one point in history are shaped by the sum total of our knowledge at that particular time and that in the final analysis this idea of whether one can avoid making subjective declarations is just as likely to be resolved as the nature vs nurture arument.

I use the term objective to mean absolute truth and in that regard humans can approach it asymptotically but will never get there. If you accept the above then we are constantly changing our expressions of what constitutes reality and so we approach ultimate objectivity subjectively:-)

[Jeha]

Ghassan; Not quite.

I do not agree that "we are constantly changing our expressions of what constitutes reality", because there is an underlying reality that we can see. I do believe that there are simple good/bad things in life, much like simple right/wrong things in science; we call that "common sense". While ill-defined, it is much like that "other thing", that you know when you see.

To go back to our context, to state, like Manar, that "nothing is 'objective'" is still a stretch, even by your standard; or else, Hama and the 40,000 dead were actually a state of mind.

And while what the Lebanese government is doing, or not doing, is clearly not good enough, what Hezb and Aoun are doing is clearly bad, and may even prove to be stupid.

[ghassan karam]

Jeha,
It would be nice if sometime you and I and others could kill a few bottles of wine in a side walk cafe while discussing some of these ideas. La Dolce Vita!!!
I think that we will find out that we don't have any major disagreements.This vehicle is not the place for such a discussion but let me quickly make one point. I think that we are in this case talking about slightly different things. To simplify I think that you are asking whether a particular field, say, science, is objective while I am raising the issue of whether objectivity is something that can be reached.

[manar]

dear jeha,

a few comments back you attacked someone by saying not to "extrapolate."

with that in mind, it would lead to much more constructive arguments if you did not illogically extrapolate from my comment that bernard's history is not completely objective to absurd interpretations such as "hama is a state of mind." quite an unfortunate misstep for an engineer to make.

and mistake me if i'm wrong, but don't you say on your own blog that if common sense was so common, then everyone would have it (or some variation of that)?

best,
manar