Sy Hersh: Obama fudges Syria intel.

[Winehole23]

But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’


So when Obama said on 10 September that his administration knew Assad’s chemical weapons personnel had prepared the attack in advance, he was basing the statement not on an intercept caught as it happened, but on communications analysed days after 21 August. The former senior intelligence official explained that the hunt for relevant chatter went back to the exercise detected the previous December, in which, as Obama later said to the public, the Syrian army mobilised chemical weapons personnel and distributed gas masks to its troops. The White House’s government assessment and Obama’s speech were not descriptions of the specific events leading up to the 21 August attack, but an account of the sequence the Syrian military would have followed for any chemical attack. ‘They put together a back story,’ the former official said, ‘and there are lots of different pieces and parts. The template they used was the template that goes back to December.’ It is possible, of course, that Obama was unaware that this account was obtained from an analysis of Syrian army protocol for conducting a gas attack, rather than from direct evidence. Either way he had come to a hasty judgment.http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

[symple19]

Great find, Wino. Thanks.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1704

[Winehole23]

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9173

[Winehole23]

more loyal to the beat than power, apparently. if he wasn't, his sources would've dried up . . . if they aren't made up . . .

[symple19]

more loyal to the beat than power, apparently. if he wasn't, his sources would've dried up . . . if they aren't made up . . .

Oh, I know who he is, and I highly doubt his sources are made up. That narrative makes 100000000000 x's more sense than anything else I've read about the Ghouta situation.

[boutons_deux]

"inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’ "

:lol Were they upthrowing their hands in the air when dickhead and neocons were, weekly, making up intelligence in the months before invading Iraq-for-oil?

the big difference is that Obama's supposed lying has led to a diplomatic calling of Assad's bluff (will he really do what the foreigners want? and if not, at what cost?), while Repugs' proven LYING led, as intended since the first Gulf War, to invasion, war, 100Ks maimed, killed.

[Winehole23]

Were they upthrowing their hands in the air when dickhead and neocons were, weekly, making up intelligence in the months before invading Iraq-for-oil?how did Sy Hersh get his stories in 04 and 05?

[symple19]

lol Boutons deflecting

fuzzylumpkins needs to get in here and read this

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's pretty much moot seeing how Putin swooped in. Obama did not do anything but I can certainly understand people in the intelligence community being touchy about how and what information is used.

That was before the Israeli's had that wire intercept and the Swedish inspection team reported.

What are we doing there now? Still funneling arms and whatnot through the Sauds?

[symple19]

It's pretty much moot seeing how Putin swooped in. Obama did not do anything but I can certainly understand people in the intelligence community being touchy about how and what information is used.

That was before the Israeli's had that wire intercept and the Swedish inspection team reported.

What are we doing there now? Still funneling arms and whatnot through the Sauds?

I don't know, tbh, but there has certainly been a marked decrease in rhetoric from the administration regarding Syria (other than a continuation of the efforts to get all the parties to the peace table along with Russia). While some of that probably has to do with the recent thawing of relations with Iran and the nuclear accord, it also seems like there has been something of a shift in policy since Ghouta and its subsequent fallout. It's remarkable, really, to think that just four months ago the US was rattling sabres, pledging arms and possible military action to help the rebels... To now making deals with Iran and basically telling the Israelis and Saudis to fuck off (And boy, are they pissed (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/09/tom_the_odds_for_joint_israeli_saudi_airstrikes_ag ainst_iran_are_about_slim_to_none).)

The other interesting development going on in Syria is the continued weakening of the FSA and what appears to be a new trend of reverse defectors...From the rebels back to the regime. Many in the FSA and other non-extremist groups are beginning to see just how fucked up the alternative to Assad may be (http://www.vice.com/read/syria-radio-journalists-fight-back)... I've seen a few articles in this vein

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war-defectors/ http://world.time.com/2013/12/09/some-syrian-revolutionaries-choose-assad-over-islamist-rebels/

From the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21590583-more-extreme-rebels-seem-be-inexorably-rise-rebels-v-rebels


Rebel fighters less sympathetic to extreme Islamism are struggling. That is partly because of corruption, infighting and bad behaviour in their own ranks. Moreover, since the Americans struck a deal with Mr Assad to rid the country of chemical weapons in the aftermath of a sarin attack on August 21st, thereby averting American missile strikes against his regime, the flow of arms to the more moderate rebels has slowed. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s plan to build a rebel army at breakneck speed in the south looks overambitious. The money still being sent to rebel fighters by rich individuals in the Gulf, rather than by governments, goes to the more zealous Islamists, often channelled through Kuwait.


Last thing I'll say is that Obama made the right decision in the end to avoid military action, so some credit is deserved, although it would seem that he blundered into it instead of arriving there as part of a cohesive strategy. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the near future, and if there has indeed been a major policy shift regarding Syria and the middle east in general

[Winehole23]

That was before the Israeli's had that wire intercept and the Swedish inspection team reported.Beg pardon, what please?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Beg pardon, what please?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-intercepted-syrian-regime-chatter-on-chemical-attack/

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/201391633631957796.html

[Winehole23]

thanks

[Winehole23]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/09/sy_hershs_chemical_misfire#sthash.Tr2j2WTW.vwEH0Os v.dpbs

[symple19]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/09/sy_hershs_chemical_misfire#sthash.Tr2j2WTW.vwEH0Os v.dpbs

Compelling rebuttal. Certainly doesn't blow what Hersh said out of the water, though

Did anybody follow the link to Anna-news from the article? Some amazing battlefield pictures from embedded Russian journalists. Stuff you never see coming from western media, tbh

Here's a taste


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBSWhaAQvWo

This ones better, some intense stuff:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kT1WFwrAw#t=312

Okay, thread derailment over

[Winehole23]

that was intense

[Winehole23]

Compelling rebuttal. Certainly doesn't blow what Hersh said out of the water, though.It's frankly beyond my competence to comment on that. Your amplification would be very welcome.

[symple19]

It's frankly beyond my competence to comment on that. Your amplification would be very welcome.

First and foremost, they had nothing against anything Hersh had to say about how the Obama administration handled the info stream.

Now, let me try to at least poke a few holes in the FP report. (I should say, however, that even after the Hersh piece, I still tend to believe that the attacks originated from the SAA... But no way have I seen enough to be sure)

1. They address the origin of the munitions by citing a few rebel produced videos (lol) and talking about specific types of ammo. You'll notice that they refer to the "Volcano" rockets as "improvised," probably meaning that the SAA took a Soviet design and copied it for their own uses. Obviously, the SAA uses them, as evidenced in the videos posted by pro-regime forces. However, FP never refutes the fact that they could be made in a machine shop, nor do they mention that it's entirely possible that the FSA or whichever rebel group was operating in the area may have come across/captured stockpiles at some other location. They also neglect to mention that the rebels have plenty of Army deserters in their ranks, many of whom probably have the know how to transport and detonate (even without launchers) a chemical munition. Furthermore, FP had no response to SH's claim that none of the early warning chemical sensors went off prior to the attack.

2. Next, they try to explain the range and point of origin for the attack. By talking to Postol's colleague, they've increased the range of the rockets by a whopping half-kilometer. Okay. Fine. But that doesn't change the initial idiotic claims that the launches happened from 9 klicks away. Now, I don't doubt that there were SAA units in the area, but, as you can see from the videos of the launchers, there is something of a set up time to fire, plus the fact that those are very, very soft targets. IOW, highly susceptible to even small arms fire. An RPG or a grenade would blow those trucks to shit. Wherever you're going to fire from has got to be very, very secure, which, IMO, may put them too far away from the target area which was well behind enemy lines... How far? I don't know, but citing a storyful map is beyond amateur. FP says the impact sites were marked by "local coordination committees," whatever the fuck that means. I'll take a guess, though. Rebels or locals who may or may not have military knowledge... Here's what I mean by that. Rockets can certainly be set for air burst, which means that where they detonated isn't necessarily where the spent tube landed... Hell, it could be several hundred meters difference, which is big considering the short range of the rockets in the first place. (The U.N. may have better info on this, tbh)

3. The Sarin angle is FP's best argument. I have zero knowledge of chemical weapons production, but what they say makes sense (need a factory, workers, waste stream, money) However, I will take some issue with FP's "chemical weapons specialist." Whoever this guy is, he's obviously not connected to the government or FP would have said so. This means he's not privy to intel reports, rebel capabilities, finances etc. Plus, his logic is flawed imo. The Rebels had everything to gain from this attack, and nothing to lose. ISIS and Al-Nusra give zero fucks about killing innocents if it will help their cause. Otoh, the SAA had everything to lose... At best, an American attack would have severely slowed their recent gains, while further degrading their military. That part has always gnawed at me. How could the SAA, one of its most elite units, be that stupid? The last thing I'll say on this is that the rebels have the Saudis/Qataris firmly behind them, which is a potentially endless flow of funding. Not beyond the realm to think that they could set up an operation to produce small amounts in order to pull off a limited attack (in order to draw the US in to do their dirty work.)

4. Youtube videos. The FP article constantly cites these videos as evidence, but, other than a few that show how the launchers work, they aren't worth a whole lot, imo. What's important to remember is that there are almost no impartial sources putting video out there. On the one side you have the rebels, on the other, you have the Russians, Hezbollah, and Syrian loyalist elements, all trying to propagandize their cause. Often, what is NOT shown in videos is what's important. ANNA news, which filmed the videos they reference in the Qaboun operation, is heavily pro-syrian, and most likely has to have their videos screened by Syrian authorities before they are put out, otherwise there's no way in hell they would be allowed to embed with the Army. This means that just because FP says, "videos from the operation rarely show gov't forces under anything other than sporadic sniper fire," doesn't mean that there wasn't heavy fighting going on close by. Another video shows "What's claimed to be the impact of two surface to surface rockets." So fucking what? :lol The Russians, who Syria gets almost all its equipment from, have a multitude of different weapon platforms which launch rockets. Stationary, mobile, shoulder launched, and all kinds of different sized munitions.

Urban combat is extremely tricky, line of sight is diminished by buildings, dust, and smoke, while noises can be misleading due to the sound bouncing off of structures. I know this from experience. My point is that the videos can be misleading, cherry picked, and most of them were probably shot with an agenda.

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

All that said, the evidence still points to the SAA as being the likely culprit, but there is certainly enough doubt to keep me from being sure. The evidence that the SAA pulled this continues to come from the Israelis and Americans, both of whom have a vested interest in making sure that this is pinned on Assad. On the other side, as I said before, the Syrians had literally nothing to gain by doing this... Nothing. That's what bothers me the most. Of course, in war, anything is possible. I could definitely envision a Syrian commander, frustrated and tired of watching his guys getting picked off one by one, ordering a chemical attack. Otoh, I can also see ISIS, Al-Nusra, or some other faction detonating some improvised chemical munitions to force America's hand, even if a few hundred civilians had to die in the process. Maybe someday we'll get the whole story

[Winehole23]

now that is a goddam take.

nice1, symple.

[SnakeBoy]

Did anybody follow the link to Anna-news from the article? Some amazing battlefield pictures from embedded Russian journalists. Stuff you never see coming from western media, tbh


Meh...western media is better. All that footage should have been condensed to about 15 seconds and then labeled as a good thing or a bad thing.

[symple19]

Meh...western media is better. All that footage should have been condensed to about 15 seconds and then labeled as a good thing or a bad thing.

Of course western media is better. I had just never seen that much combat footage from the Syrian side of things. I read quite a few of the fragmented translations on their website, and they are hardcore biased toward Assad. But they have some incredibly brave combat journalists to bring back all those pictures, which I can respect.

Imo, it's important to see both sides, as long as one knows what the slant is

[symple19]

US and UK suspend non-lethal aid for Syria rebels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25331241

[Spurs da champs]

Of course western media is better. I had just never seen that much combat footage from the Syrian side of things. I read quite a few of the fragmented translations on their website, and they are hardcore biased toward Assad. But they have some incredibly brave combat journalists to bring back all those pictures, which I can respect.

Imo, it's important to see both sides, as long as one knows what the slant is

Western Media is hardcore biased to the rebels...I agree with your premise, however.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Compelling rebuttal. Certainly doesn't blow what Hersh said out of the water, though

Did anybody follow the link to Anna-news from the article? Some amazing battlefield pictures from embedded Russian journalists. Stuff you never see coming from western media, tbh

Here's a taste


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBSWhaAQvWo

This ones better, some intense stuff:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kT1WFwrAw#t=312

Okay, thread derailment over

It blows the contentions that the rebels could or would have made the weapons considering the capital and logistics involved. It firmly rebuts the contention on the range of the munitions.

It firmly links the munitions known to have been used in the attack to the regime. It puts the regime forces firmly in position from where the attacks came. It demonstrates an overall military campaign in the area under question.


by the Aum Shinrikyo cult.

"The 1994 to 1996 Japanese experience tells us that even a very large and sophisticated effort comprising many millions of dollars, a dedicated large facility, and a lot of skilled labor results only in liters of sarin, not tons," Kaszeta said. "Even if the Aug. 21 attack is limited to the eight Volcano rockets that we seem to be talking about, we're looking at an industrial effort two orders of magnitude larger than the Aum Shinrikyo effort. This is a nontrivial and very costly undertaking, and I highly doubt whether any of the possible nonstate actors involved here have the factory to have produced it. Where is this factory? Where is the waste stream? Where are the dozens of skilled people -- not just one al Qaeda member -- needed to produce this amount of material?"

He went on to add: "We have to apply a simple logic test here. Who is more likely to have done the deed? The regime, which has confessed to CW [chemical weapon] production facilities and has declared a stockpile of precursors that match the Aug. 21 chemistry very well?… Or persons unknown, with their alleged mystery factory, with no actual location, no trace of either supply chain or waste stream, no known employees, and far better things to do with the required amount of money?"

Could one of the major rebel factions obtained the munition and the artillery and fired it on their own people? Anything is possible I guess but there is very little proof of it and much of it is not corroborated.