Legendary reporter Seymour Hersh, who has written ground-breaking articles on the Syrian War has written about Trumps brash missile attack on Syria. Hersh does a great service in unmasking the truth behind Trump’s missile attack on Syria. But his article suffers from a number of flaws.
Hersh accepts the spin that the attack was due to Trump’s inexperience and personality flaws. A more cynical observer might instead see a determined advance of Saudi/Israeli goals.
This cynicism would certainly be warranted given that in the weeks after Trump’s bombing we have seen a reversal of Trump’s ‘America First’ campaign promises to NOT get involved in costly ME conflicts (Syria? Saudi-Qatar?) and to NOT engage in nation-building (Kurds?).
Hersh fails to inform the reader of:
- Trump’s trip to Saudi Arabia soon after the attack and subsequent tweeting in support of Saudi Arabia’s “dispute” with Qatar.
- Trump’s tweets in 2013 warning Obama not to bomb Syria.
- Trump’s silence wrt to the bombing of refugee buses by Jihadis only days after he attacked Syria because of his pretended concern for “beautiful babies” – children were lured to the vehicle that had the bomb with treats (see: Attack On Syrian Bus Convoy Killed At Least 68 Children, Monitor Says)
- The superb research done by MIT Professor Postol into the sarin hoax. Hersh simply says that: “no on the ground research has been conducted”.
Although one of Hersh’s sources says:
… I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.
Hersh fails to followup on this sentiment. Maybe because it would mean explaining ties between Trump and Hillary. Jackrabbit Blog has been much more critical :
Trump’s attack has established a precedence that could lead to a larger attack after another false-flag. France’s Macron has threatened that such an attack would be forthcoming and news articles about Israel’s similar policy of “holding the Assad regime responsible” (described by b at moonofalabama.org) further legitimize any future attack.
The prospects for such maneuvering led me to speculate about The Plot to Kill Assad.
Some important questions:
1. Portraying Trump as unhinged could be a negotiating ploy along the lines of Nixon’s madman theory. Is Hersh is a (willing?) dup for this depiction?
2. The London Review of Books (LRB) refused to print Hersh’s article. Did Die Welt editors cut some of Hersh’s article?
3. Scott Ritter, a WMD expert, has joined MIT Prof. Postol in criticizing Trump’s attack on Syria. Will reporting and logical arguments from Hersh-Postol-Ritter be sufficient to prevent adventurism that could lead to a wider war?