Thursday, May 24th, 2007
Seymour Hersh: U.S. Indirectly Backed Islamist Militants Fighting Lebanese Army



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

Islamist militants entrenched in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon are 
facing an ultimatum to surrender or face further military action. The Lebanese 
government accuses Fatah al-Islam of having ties with al-Qaeda and the Syrian 
government. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh joins us to talk about 
another theory of who is backing the militant group - the Lebanese government 
itself, along with the United States. Last March, Hersh reported the U.S. and 
Saudi governments are covertly backing militant Sunni groups like Fatah 
al-Islam as part of an overarching foreign policy against Iran and growing Shia 
influence. [includes rush transcript] 

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

Lebanon's defense minister has said Islamist militants entrenched in a 
Palestinian refugee camp must surrender or face further military action. The 
ultimatum followed three days of fierce fighting between the army and the Fatah 
al-Islam group. The army has laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared camp since the 
fighting erupted on Sunday, bombarding it with tank fire and artillery shells. 
At least eighty people have died with dozens more wounded. 
On Wednesday, an informal ceasefire enabled thousands of residents to flee the 
camp. Some headed for another Palestinian refugee camp nearby, while others 
traveled to the neighboring city of Tripoli. The International Committee of the 
Red Cross estimates between thirteen and fifteen thousand refugees have left 
Nahr al-Bared. The camp is home to thirty thousand people. The internal 
conflict is the bloodiest in Lebanon since the civil war ended 17 years ago. 

The Lebanese government accuses Fatah al-Islam of having ties with al-Qaeda and 
the Syrian government. But there's another theory of who is backing the 
militant group - the Lebanese government itself, along with the United States. 
Last March, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker 
that the U.S. and Saudi governments are covertly backing militant Sunni groups 
like Fatah al-Islam as part of an overarching foreign policy against Iran and 
growing Shia influence. Seymour Hersh joins us now on the line from Washington 
DC. 


  a.. Seymour Hersh. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New Yorker.

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

RUSH TRANSCRIPT 
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide 
closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank 
you for your generous contribution. 
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

JUAN GONZALEZ: Lebanon's defense minister has said Islamist militants 
entrenched in a Palestinian refugee camp must surrender or face further 
military action. The ultimatum followed three days of fierce fighting between 
the army and the Fatah al-Islam group. The army has laid siege to the Nahr 
al-Bared camp since the fighting erupted on Sunday, bombarding it with tank 
fire and artillery shells. At least eighty people have died, with dozens more 
wounded. 

On Wednesday, an informal ceasefire enabled thousands of residents to flee the 
camp. Some headed for another Palestinian refugee camp nearby, while others 
traveled to the neighboring city of Tripoli. The International Committee of the 
Red Cross estimates between 13,000 and 15,000 refugees have left Nahr al-Bared. 
The camp is home to 30,000 people. The internal conflict is the bloodiest in 
Lebanon since the civil war ended seventeen years ago. 

AMY GOODMAN: The Lebanese government accuses Fatah al-Islam of having ties with 
al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. But there's another theory of who's backing 
the militant group: the Lebanese government itself, along with the United 
States. Last March, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in The New 
Yorker magazine that the US and Saudi governments are covertly backing militant 
Sunni groups like Fatah al-Islam as part of an overarching foreign policy 
against Iran and growing Shia influence. 

Seymour Hersh joins us now on the phone from his home in Washington, D.C. 
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sy. 

SEYMOUR HERSH: Good morning. 

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what you learned? 

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, very simply -- this is over the winter -- the government 
made -- I think the article is called "The Redirection." There was a major 
change of policy by the United States government, essentially, which was that 
we were going to -- the American government would join with the Brits and other 
Western allies and with what we call the moderate Sunni governments -- that is, 
the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- and join with them and 
with Israel to fight the Shia. 

One of the major goals for America, of course, was the obsession the Bush White 
House has with Iran, and the other obsession they have is, of course -- is in 
fear -- is of Hezbollah, the Party of God, that is so dominant in -- the Shia 
Party of God that's so dominant in southern Lebanon that once -- and whose 
leader Hassan Nasrallah wants to play a bigger political role and is doing 
quite a bit to get there and is in direct confrontation with Siniora. 

And so, you have a situation where the Sunni government, pretty much in control 
now, the American-supported Sunni government headed by Fouad Siniora, who was a 
deputy or an aide to Rafik Hariri, the slain leader of Lebanon, that government 
has -- we know, the International Crisis Group reported a couple years ago that 
the son Saad Hariri, the son of Rafik Hariri, who's now a major player in the 
parliament of Lebanon, he put up $40,000 bail to free four Sunni 
fundamentalists, Jihadist-Salafists -- which you will -- who were tied directly 
to -- you know, this word "al-Qaeda" is sort of ridiculous -- they were tied to 
jihadist groups. And God knows, al-Qaeda, in terms of Osama bin Laden, doesn't 
have much to do with what we're talking about. These are independently, more or 
less, you can call them, fanatical jihadists. 

And so, the goal -- part of the goal in Lebanon, part of the way this policy 
played out, was, with Saudi help, Prince Bandar -- if you remember him -- we 
remember Prince Bandar, the Saudi prince, as a major player in Iran-Contra and 
also in the American effort two decades ago -- if you remember, we supported 
Osama bin Laden and other jihadists in Afghanistan against the Russians, and 
that didn't work out so well. Well, we run right back to the well again, and we 
began supporting some of these jihadist groups, and particularly -- in the 
article, I did name Fatah al-Islam. 

The idea was to provide them with some arms and some money and some basic 
equipment so -- these are small units, a couple hundred people. There were 
three or four around the country given the same help covertly, the goal being 
they would be potential enemies of Hezbollah in case of warfare; in case 
Nasrallah decided to do something physical, get kinetic, in Lebanon, the Sunni 
Siniora government would have some very tough guys on its side, period. That's 
the policy. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Sy Hersh, if that is true, then what has led to the 
current fighting now? If the Lebanese government had been backing the group, 
why is it now attacking it? 

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, first of all, the Lebanese army is very distinct. Let me 
begin by saying nobody really knows anything right now. I mean, there's a lot 
-- one of the things about crises is you learn that you really get to play much 
later. But based on common sense and what I'm reading, the Lebanese army has 
maintained an amazing sort of neutrality, which is surprising. The army has not 
been a pawn of the Siniora government. 

As you know, the American government -- the American position right now -- 
there's a stand-off politically. You cannot discuss what's going on without 
discussing the overall politics. There's a stand-off politically right now, a 
very serious one, in Lebanon. The government is polarized. The government in 
power really has no legal basis to make any changes in cabinet positions, etc., 
because it's not a constitutional government, because Hezbollah, which had five 
members of the parliament -- five members of the cabinet and a dozen or so 
members in the parliament, Hezbollah pulled out months ago. And there were 
street protests, protests against Siniora. And right now, you have Hezbollah in 
league with a Christian leader named Aoun, a former chief of staff for the 
army. Aoun and Nasrallah are in an amazing partnership against the Siniora 
government. And where this breaks down and who's going to win this stand-off -- 
it's been going on since last December -- isn't clear. America clearly supports 
Siniora. But there's a big brutal fight going. And the Lebanese army stayed out 
of it and was pretty much, very much, independent, in the sense that when there 
were street demonstrations, they did not beat up on the Nasrallah people. They 
were very impartial. 

So I think the story that we have is that there was a crime, and they were 
chasing people into one of the Palestinian camps, which are always hotbeds. God 
knows the Palestinians are the end of the stick, not only for the West, but 
also for the Arab world. Nobody pays much attention to them and those places. 
I've been to Tripoli and been into the camps, and they are seething, as they 
should be. You know, rational people don't like being mistreated. And in any 
case, so what you have is, what seems to me, just a series -- the word you 
could use is "unintended consequences." I don't think anybody in the Siniora 
government anticipated that the people they were covertly supporting to some 
degree -- I got an email the other day, and I have not checked this out, from 
somebody who was in the community, in the intelligence community and still 
consults with the community, he says, "Why don't we ask more about the American 
arms that the fighters of Fatah al-Islam have, are brandishing?" I don't know 
if that's true or not, but I did get that email. And so, that could be true. 
Both Saudi money and American money, not directly, but indirectly, was fed into 
these groups. 

And what is the laugh riot and the reason I'm actually talking to you guys 
about this -- I usually don't like to do interviews unless I have a story in 
The New Yorker -- the reason I'm talking about it is because the American 
government keeps on putting out this story that Syria is behind the Fatah 
group, which is just beyond belief. There's no way -- it may be possible, but 
the chances of it are very slight, simply because Syria is a very big 
supporter, obviously, of Nasrallah, and Bashar al-Assad has told me that he's 
in awe of Nasrallah, that he worships at his feet and has great respect for 
him. The idea that the Syrians would be sponsoring Sunni jihadist groups whose 
sole mission are to kill the apostates -- that is, anybody who doesn't support 
their view, the Wahhabi or Salafist view of Sunni religion -- that includes the 
Shia -- anybody who doesn't believe -- support these guys' religions are 
apostates and are killable, that's basically one of the crazy aspects of all 
this, and it's just inconceivable. Nothing can be ruled out, but that doesn't 
make much case, and I noticed that in the papers today there's fewer and fewer 
references to this. The newspapers in America are beginning to wise up, that 
this can't be -- this isn't very logical. The White House is putting it out hot 
and heavy as part of the anti-Syria campaign, but it's not flying, because it 
doesn't make sense. So there we are. It's another mess. 

You might think that one of the reasons -- I think I wrote about this in The 
New Yorker -- one of the things that the Saudi Bandar had promised us was that 
we can control the jihadists. We can control them, he assured us. Don't worry 
about getting in bed with these bad guys, because, as we remember, the same 
kind of assurances were given to us in the late 1980s, when we supported, as I 
said, bin Laden and others in the war against Russia, the Mujahideen war, and 
that, of course, bit us on the ass. And this is, too. So there we are. 

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, what about the role of Vice President Dick Cheney, 
the Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams? 

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you always -- any time you have violent anti-Iran policy 
and anti-Shia policy, you have to start looking there. Look, clearly this 
president is deeply involved in this, too, but what I hear from my people, of 
course, the players -- it's always Cheney, Cheney. Cheney meets with Bush at 
least once a week. They have a lunch. They usually have a scheduled lunch. And 
out of that comes a lot of big decisions. We don't know what's ever said at 
that meeting. And this is -- talk about being opaque, this is a government that 
is so hidden from us. 

So I can't -- I can tell you that -- you know, the thing that's amazing about 
this government, the thing that's really spectacular, is even now how they can 
get their way mostly with a lot of the American press. For example, I do know 
-- and, you know, you have to take it on face value. If you've been reading me 
for a long time, you know a lot of the things I write are true or come out to 
be more or less true. I do know that within the last month, maybe four, 
four-and-a-half weeks ago, they made a decision that because of the totally 
dwindling support for the war in Iraq, we go back to the al-Qaeda card, and we 
start talking about al-Qaeda. And the next thing you know, right after that, 
Bush went to the Southern Command -- this was a month ago -- and talked, 
mentioned al-Qaeda twenty-seven times in his speech. He did so just the other 
day this week -- al-Qaeda this, al-Qaeda that. All of a sudden, the poor Iraqi 
Sunnis, I mean, they can't do anything without al-Qaeda. It's only al-Qaeda 
that's dropping the bombs and causing mayhem. It's not the Sunni and Shia 
insurgents or militias. And this policy just gets picked up, although there's 
absolutely no empirical basis. Most of the pros will tell you the foreign 
fighters are a couple percent, and then they're sort of leaderless in the sense 
that there's no overall direction of the various foreign fighters. You could 
call them al-Qaeda. You can also call them jihadists and Salafists that want to 
die fighting the Americans or the occupiers in Iraq and they come across the 
border. Whether this is -- there's no attempt to suggest there's any 
significant coordination of these groups by bin Laden or anybody else, and the 
press just goes gaga. And so, they went gaga a little bit over the Syrian 
connection to the activities in Tripoli. It's just amazing to me, you guys. 

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, I want to thank you very much for being with us, 
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, writes for The New Yorker magazine, speaking 
to us from Washington, D.C. 

Kirim email ke