Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Chain Of Command

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:33 / 23.09.04

Sy Hersch's book, Chain of Command, is out in the UK. I've just started it, and it's not just a stunning read, but also (I think) a historical text of the future. The discussion of Rumsfeld's role in Abu Grahib and who knew what when is interesting, and Hersch's research is (as ever) exhaustive and compelling. This is the guy who broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam when he was in his early thirties, sank Richard Perle's boat a few months ago, and broke the Abu Grahib story - and he's in fine form.

I've put this thread in this forum because reading Chain of Command is a political act, in that it puts you in possession of information which you should have if you want to comment on politics at this time. If books can rock the administration, this one will do it. Also because Hersch is such a thorn in the Bush White House side that the mention of his name is enough to draw a 'no comment' from them, or a statement like "Sy Hersch is the closest thing the U.S. press has to a terrorist" (that's not exact, I fear).

The book is distributed by Penguin in the UK, which means it's hard to get hold of because Penguin's books are all under a tarpaulin in the car park outside their new warehouse. Don't ask, I have no idea. Anyway, Books Etc. are carrying it, Waterstones in my experience are not, and I'm sure it can be had online.

Inform yourself...

10:31 / 23.09.04

I'm ordering it myself and shall comment when I've read it.

Incidentally, there's a good interview with Hersh in this Salon article, where he talks about his perception that the current US administration really did mean it about being cheered in the streets in Iraq, making the flower of democracy bloom across the Middle East etc. His remarks about them being like Trotskyites are interesting when you consider them in context of the historical roots of the Neo-Con ideology.

11:47 / 23.09.04

Waterstones are carrying it - leastways their new Oxford Street branch has 26 copies on order... who knows how long it will take to get here though...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:08 / 23.09.04

fridge - I thought that was fascinating, too. This guy has trememndous access, and many people notionally on the Bush side of the divide confess their doubts to him in off-the-record moments; the hard core seem to feel 'there are no castles which Neo-Conservatives cannot storm', with the implied suspicion that anyone who brings bad news is some kind of Fifth Columnist.

Sleaze - yeah, that's exactly the problem. Penguin's ability to fill those orders is up the spout - they're having to ship directly from printer to bookshop. Distributors like Bertrams are the best source for shops at the moment - my local bookshop is a one-off rather than a chain, and they had no problems getting it - and Books Etc. order centrally, so they're okay. I think maybe Borders will have it, too - for the same reason.

17:22 / 23.09.04

I read the Salon article. Here's that passage -

Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out, a new Baath Party would emerge that's moderate? Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians. They're like Trotskyites. They believe in permanent revolution. They really believe.

I think what Hersch is saying, at least in the interview, is pretty interesting but in my view highly dubious. I don't know, I just can't really buy this stuff. I don't know if anyone's seen the film Uncovered, but there's testimony from all these former CIA agents and ambassadors and so on saying the White House absolutely knew there were no WMD. And this guy, access or no, is still just a reporter.

Plus, I just can't see idealism and utopian love of democracy being these guys' (Bush Admin) MO. Why then would they be stripping their own citizens of civil rights? Why then would their be so many shady financial deals involved in the war and reconstruction? I don't know, it just doesn't jibe for me. But then, I haven't read the book, and maybe I will - right now I'm reading Imperial Hubris.

21:23 / 23.09.04

I find myself doubtful as well. It's always been a point of faith that there were perfectly understandable (if disgraceful) motives of profit behind the war - if only to keep myself from thinking that the US was run by a bunch of people far more fanatic than Saddam, who was hardly the "madman" that he was continuously called in the lead-in to the invasion.

When Seymour Hersh says it though, a man who has far more experience and access to sources connected to and within the administration than I will ever have, I have to wonder.

I don't think what he says contradicts the idea that the given reasons for war were all bogus - they clearly were, their continual change rather bears that out. I don't think there's an absence of a profit motive either. My current opinion is that the motivations rest on a certain degree of naked greed and power-lust, and a certain degree of ideological certainty that "democracy" (a friendly business environment where American corporations can flourish, as is their rightful due) could be brought about far more easily than appears to be the case at the moment. Because it's historically inevitable, isn't it? We have now reached the End Of History. We've now achieved the perfect form of society, and it's just a question of convincing everyone else of that. Common theme of the last couple of decades; you're considered a crazy radical for questioning it.

These two are not separate any more than the economic benefits of slavery and the belief in the superiority of the white race were, but they're Hersh disturbs me by suggesting that that latter aspect might be a lot more dominant than I thought. I'm not just taking his word for it but it's a piece of evidence I shall take into account.

unheimlich manoeuvre

10:14 / 25.09.04

(Christopher Hitchens) ... believes neoconservatism is a distinctively new strain of thought, preached by ex-leftists, who believed in using US power to spread democracy. "It's explicitly anti-Kissingerian. Kissinger hates this stuff. He opposed intervening in the Balkans. Kissinger Associates were dead against [the war in] Iraq. He can't understand the idea of backing democracy - it's totally alien to him."

"So that interest in the neocons re-emerged after September 11th. They were saying - we can't carry on with the approach to the Middle East we have had for the past fifty years. We cannot go on with this proxy rule racket, where we back tyranny in the region for the sake of stability. So we have to take the risk of uncorking it and hoping the more progressive side wins." He has replaced a belief in Marxist revolution with a belief in spreading the American revolution. Thomas Jefferson has displaced Karl Marx.

22:42 / 25.09.04

Wikipedia has a good article on Neo-Cons which I recommend, pointing out their leftie heritage.

I consider Hitchens to have one of the more cogent arguments for the war - I saw him in debate beforehand and he was kicking arse - I just happen not to agree with him. He reminds me of a guy I knew on a board (now sadly deceased) who said something along the lines of "hold on, I'm a leftie, I signed up to defeat evil dictators, what's the problem here?" That's not the easiest thing to answer. There *is* an answer, though, and it concerns me that Hitchens seems to ignore it, that he concentrates more on the principle of Getting Rid Of Saddam rather than What Is To Happen Afterwards, and makes excuses for every bit of evidence that indicates that actually things are going to be worse. His excuses have been actively embarrassing. I winced when I read him parrotting the justifications of the Bush administration.

flufeemunk effluvia

00:22 / 26.09.04

The big hole in Hitchens' argument is that folks like the Bush Administration usually employ Kissenger-ish policy as well as neocon policy. Despite all the wooly "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, we're still propping up dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and hopping in the sack with Libya. The bad totally outweighs the good for those guys. Ick.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:27 / 26.09.04

ibis - I think you misunderstand what 'access' means in the context of Hersch and others like him (although sadly, there are almost no others like him). We're not talking about an 'off-the-record' briefing or two here, we're talking about someone to whom key people give the stuff they daren't breathe aloud, on condition that their name will not be mentioned. He's a stunningly intelligent guy with a view on the situtation in U.S. government and intelligence which may be the best informed - or at least the most broadly and frankly informed - of anyone in the world right now. Read the book and see.

15:32 / 27.09.04

Well, I don't think I'm misunderstanding "access" so much as doubting the veracity of the claim to that access. Which I know I don't really have a right to do having not read the man's book. But, honestly, I think I've hit the point with the whole Bush Administration where I can't process any more information. We've got people in both corners, in every corner, swearing to know the absolute truth, and yet their "truths" oppose each other's. Perhaps I've read too many articles and magazines and books - I'm on system overload, and even credible facts are becoming indistinguishable from overt bullshit. Maybe I'll read Sy Hersch's book someday, and David Brock's someday, and Clarke's someday, and...

I just want this election to get over with... sigh.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:13 / 27.09.04

[shrug]

Think carefully. Hersch regularly makes statements about various people which are actionable if untrue. The New Yorker prints them: "I know every source that's not named," Remnick says. "The [fact] checkers talk with those sources. Would he and I want people to be on the record? Of course. It's a trade-off we sometimes have to make."

You have to understand also that Hersch is frequently in possession of documentary evidence such as confidential reports and memos which back him up. It is often not a case of 'my truth, your truth', but rather of documented evidence.

A lot of people have talked about suing Hersch. Richard Perle certainly did. Instead, Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Trust me: you may have read a lot of stuff about Bush. This is the wellspring from which much of it comes, and it's far more angry, better supported, and more appalling.

16:53 / 27.09.04

For info: this now seems readily available at Waterstone's (Gower St at least).

20:34 / 27.09.04

Have bought myself a copy and am working my way through - The opening chapter was serialized in the guardian a few weeks ago...

On a purely facile level I'd like to have seen a better designed, more attractive cover, but most books on contemporary politics are lucky if they have a flag based cover design let alone anything more adventurous...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:14 / 28.09.04

Given the standard of cockup at Penguin recently, I'd say we're lucky the cover is on the right way up.