Revisiting Sy Hersh: Clues to Our Latest "Redirection" of U.S. Policy of "Endless War" in the ME

[KoKo]

With another "Redirection" under a different President what will change in Afghanistan and Iraq? Somehow, re-reading this it doesn't seem much has changed in policy except that the results of the last "Redirection" set the stage for endless war in the Middle East now that we have ISIS and another "Surge" is in progress. The whole article is a better read than my snips.

------------------------------

The Redirection
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
By Seymour M. Hersh--3/5/2007

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

The Saudis are driven by their fear that Iran could tilt the balance of power not only in the region but within their own country. Saudi Arabia has a significant Shiite minority in its Eastern Province, a region of major oil fields; sectarian tensions are high in the province. The royal family believes that Iranian operatives, working with local Shiites, have been behind many terrorist attacks inside the kingdom, according to Vali Nasr. “Today, the only army capable of containing Iran”—the Iraqi Army—“has been destroyed by the United States. You’re now dealing with an Iran that could be nuclear-capable and has a standing army of four hundred and fifty thousand soldiers.” (Saudi Arabia has seventy-five thousand troops in its standing army.)

Nasr went on, “The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis”—Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates. “The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of the box, you can’t put them back.”

The Saudi royal family has been, by turns, both a sponsor and a target of Sunni extremists, who object to the corruption and decadence among the family’s myriad princes. The princes are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

The Saudi said that, in his country’s view, it was taking a political risk by joining the U.S. in challenging Iran: Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. “We have two nightmares,” the former diplomat told me. “For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.”

Continued.....

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

[bemildred]

1. "Never get in a land war in Asia".

Not even for oil.

[bemildred]

2. And incidentally, have we thanked Bremer yet? This is very much his doing. nt

[KoKo]

4. Charlie Rose did a "soft ball" interview with him

Last edited Wed Nov 26, 2014, 08:57 PM - Edit history (2)

last month, I think. It was horrific to watch his lies about his role in Iraq and his "so smooth" delivery of the lies...as Charlie nodded and smiled and did little to challenge.

If you were a viewer who hadn't lived through what went on...you would have thought Bremmer was a charming, intelligent man who had done everything he could to bring Iraq "into the Future...with a chance for them to seize the moment for Freedom and Democracy"....but those darned Iraqi's just didn't GET what it was all about..so it was "Their Fault and Not His or Our Policy." Cough that down.....he implied...because he's on with Charlie Rose and Rose get's the "intelligent eyeballs" and who would question him?

Forgive my personal quotes and hyperbole...but, the interview is around with a search on You Tube for "Charlie Rose." If anyone wants to look it up and watch and challenge my view.

[bemildred]

9. He probably is charming and intelligent. He is also ignorant, arrogant, feckless, and unserious. nt

[bobthedrummer]

3. K&R Happy Thanksgiving KoKo n/t

[KoKo]

6. Same to you, Bob....

and, thanks for all you do, "Connecting the Dots."

[Blue_Tires]

5. Did Hersh ever amend, correct or update that Syria story last year?

[KoKo]

7. The "Rat Line" article re Libya Weapons going to Terrorist Groups like ISIS?

I think he was proved correct on that one.

Or, is there another article that you are talking about?

[Blue_Tires]

8. No, the one where he accused Washington of

fabricating Assad's chemical weapons use to cover for Turkey's chemical weapons use in Syria...