Re-write

I want to revise my opinion of Hersh's piece, after a closer reading. It's not that it's a bad piece -- I have a tough time disliking anything Hersh writes because he's such a good investigative journalist. Even when the conclusions suck, the research behind them is always impressive.

Anyway, Hersh's thesis is that the Bush Administration has adopted a realpolitik position of supporting Sunni forces in the Middle East, to combat Shi'a forces. Now, most of the piece is made up of quotes and research, rather than polemics. Hersh's great strength is the fact that he's not an open ideologue; he lets the facts speak for themselves. But what do these facts say?

Tin-foil hat types seize upon pieces like this and say: "Bush is planning to invade Iran! He's funding Al Qaeda and its allies!" Then follows the type of scream that made Howard Dean famous. But that is certainly one conclusion to draw from the material Hersh presents us with. It remains a mystery in my mind if that is the conclusion he draws, because Hersh rarely descends into punditry.

Personally, my reaction to Hersh's article is disappointment on the current state of affairs in the Middle East. It's ridiculous that societies are divided over who should have been Imam in the 7th Century, and it's sad that the people in Iraq haven't been able to form a non-sectarian, liberal government. But those are regional realities. If the United States wants to have any influence over the course of events, we need allies -- and that means unsavory characters. Those who read Hersh's piece, and then yell and scream about the illiberal forces we support, are very good at criticizing the current situation but not so good at coming up with alternatives. I'm sure their comments make for excellent ripostes at cocktail parties, but they're not so useful when governing.

P.S. As evidence of a Sunni-Shi'a split, Hersh uses the example of U.S. dislike of Syria, writing "Syria's Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect." It's a stretch, as Hersh surely knows, to contend that the Alawis are Shi'as. I bet most Iranian clergy would agree with me (those that don't have a stake in the Sunni-Iran alliance, at least). Anyway, I'm skeptical whether any part of US enmity towards Syria, or even the foundation of the Syria-Iran alliance, is based on the fact that the Alawis are Shi'as. That's a bridge too far.

P.P.S One of the things that I hate most about this world we live in is The New Yorker's use of umlaut marks. I think we all know how to pronounce the word "cooperated," without the blindingly pretentious accent mark.