DIDN'T SEYMOUR HERSH WARN US ABOUT LEBANON? (Karmabanqueradio/New Yorker/Xinhua News)

[redacted]

http://karmabanqueradio.com/?p=514

Over two months ago, Seymour Hersh revealed that the US was financing Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon in order to destabilise the region, in particular, the Shiite powers like Hezbollah:

THE REDIRECTION

Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
by Seymour M. Hersh

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

And, now . . .

U.S. SENDS MILITARY AID TO LEBANON

Story main points:

·U.S. has delivered military aid to Lebanon to fight militants in a Palestinian refugee camp.

·U.S. Congress approved a budget request of 770 million dollars in aid for Lebanon.

·The aid is aimed at strengthening Lebanese gov't headed by PM Fuad Siniora.

WASHINGTON, May 25 (Xinhua) -- The United States has delivered military aid to Lebanon to fight against militants in a Palestinian refugee camp, State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Friday.

"I can certainly confirm to you that there has been deliveries of assistance from the U.S." Casey said at a briefing.

"What the Lebanese are doing right now is trying to bring law and order and establish a rule of law in Lebanon and that is something that is in the interests of everyone," Casey said.

Late on Thursday, the U.S. Congress approved a budget request of 770 million dollars in aid for Lebanon, with 280 million dollars of that earmarked for military assistance to Lebanon.

The aid is clearly aimed at strengthening the Lebanese government headed by Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.

At least 80 people, including 32 Lebanese soldiers, have been killed in the fighting between Lebanese security forces and militants inside a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli in northern Lebanon.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/26/content_6154714.htm

[Karenina]

1. Ja.

[Kagemusha]

2. The thing is though, is there really any alternative?

I mean, of the actors in Lebanon, does the US really have anywhere else to turn but the elected government? If radicals are radical enough, the only alternative would be to allow them to become militant warlords running states within a state. Even if the US has played some part in stirring this up, I don't see other horses to back.

[redacted]

3. I think the point is that we're funding BOTH SIDES of this conflict.

And that our Democratic congress is now playing a role in that by approving the spending bill--containing this provision.

Which, of course, was kept nice and quiet by the U.S. corporate media.

[Kagemusha]

4. Well I don't regard that as proven but, it could be.

Would uh not be the first time the US got blowback.

And if not the US by some narrow technicality, the Saudis. (See: Bin Laden, Osama)

[redacted]

5. Well, guess you didn't read the Hersh article.

Most people consider his judgment and research to be quite solid.

[Kagemusha]

7. As politely as I can manage, yes, I did read the Hersh article.

I don't go for authority fallacies, not even for Sy.

The problem with this is that everything is in motion. It is precisely because of the unpredictability of the outcome that the US arranging financing for groups like the one the Lebanese government is currently fighting that Sy Hersh thought it was nutty and wrongheaded to begin with.

Here's one thing that stands out. Why rob a bank? If this group's so well funded, why rob a bank? That's simple criminality, not revolution. This implies to me that the group isn't so well financed, and the group not being quite so obedient to those who thought they'd bought influence with it is either a product, or the cause of, financing being reduced or cut off.

Here's another thing. I wasn't under the impression in the Hersh article that the US wasn't directly financing these groups with its own money, if for no other reason than because that would expose the matter to congressional reporting reqirements. (In spite of this, I recall Congress scolding the CIA for not reporting a covert operation without, obviously, disclosing exactly what that effort entailed.) I was under the impression that the real work was in hooking up these groups with Saudi sponsors because Saudi Arabia is on board with containing Iran. Saudi Arabia also backs the sitting Lebanese government and backed the Hariri government before it.

And nowhere in Hersh's article did I read that the INTENT was to have groups like this fight the Lebanese Army. These militants were being nurtured to fight against Hezbollah and its influence. Therefore, the group fighting the Lebanese Army is not the intent of the United States. Besides that, the US' actual own money probably never directly went to the group, even if the Hersh speculation is correct.

Those caveats aside, the issue here seems to be not that the US *IS* funding both sides, but that it *WAS* funding both sides (albeit theoretically not via direct methods) and that SOMETHING WENT WRONG. And, something having gone wrong, the US is openly and loudly backing the sitting government of Lebanon against a group it was supporting (that is a better word... supporting) until a short time ago.

None of that would make Sy Hersh wrong. It simply reflects how the Middle East is a den of snakes and mucking around in it tends to lead to a lot of unintended consequences. Some people running covert US operations, backed by Dick Cheney, seem to think they're so smart that they're immune to such issues because they make their own reality. But their made-up reality only exists in their own minds.

My point being, nothing is served by treating Hersh's articles as the whole truth and the only truth available. Even if it was, time passes and things change, particularly in the volatile Middle East. And funding radicals who despise you to begin with is generally not something that works out well. (As I said, see Bin Laden, Osama)

[burythehatchet]

6. we lose a little on every missle but we make it up in volume

War, Inc.