Mr. Hersh
with a piece at the
London Review of Books and as usual a bit different than the usual media take on this subject. Also, the Joints Chief supposedly "knew" it was a "bullshit" claim that only the Assad forces had sarin.
The former intelligence official said that many in the US national
security establishment had long been troubled by the president’s red
line: ‘The joint chiefs asked the White House, “What does red line mean?
How does that translate into military orders? Troops on the ground?
Massive strike? Limited strike?” They tasked military intelligence to
study how we could carry out the threat. They learned nothing more about
the president’s reasoning.’
In the aftermath of the 21 August
attack Obama ordered the Pentagon to draw up targets for bombing. Early
in the process, the former intelligence official said, ‘the White House
rejected 35 target sets provided by the joint chiefs of staff as being
insufficiently “painful” to the Assad regime.’ The original targets
included only military sites and nothing by way of civilian
infrastructure. Under White House pressure, the US attack plan evolved
into ‘a monster strike’: two wings of B-52 bombers were shifted to
airbases close to Syria, and navy submarines and ships equipped with
Tomahawk missiles were deployed. ‘Every day the target list was getting
longer,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The Pentagon
planners said we can’t use only Tomahawks to strike at Syria’s missile
sites because their warheads are buried too far below ground, so the two
B-52 air wings with two-thousand pound bombs were assigned to the
mission. Then we’ll need standby search-and-rescue teams to recover
downed pilots and drones for target selection. It became huge.’ The new
target list was meant to ‘completely eradicate any military capabilities
Assad had’, the former intelligence official said. The core targets
included electric power grids, oil and gas depots, all known logistic
and weapons depots, all known command and control facilities, and all
known military and intelligence buildings.
1 comment:
Here's a countering point of view.
The claim is that Hersh ignored much evidence that contradicts his thesis, and he also only used a single source for his claims.
http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-hersh-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-insurgents/
Post a Comment