Hersh: U.S. supports militants under attack in Lebanon
Lebanon
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
In an interview on CNN International’s Your World Today, veteran
journalist Seymour Hersh explains that the current violence in
Lebanon is the result of an attempt by the Lebanese government to
crack down on a militant Sunni group, Fatah al-Islam, that it
formerly supported.
Last March, Hersh reported that American policy in the Middle East
had shifted to opposing Iran, Syria, and their Shia allies at any
cost, even if it meant backing hardline Sunni jihadists.
A key element of this policy shift was an agreement among Vice
President Dick Cheney, Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot
Abrams, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security
adviser, whereby the Saudis would covertly fund the Sunni Fatah al-
Islam in Lebanon as a counterweight to the Shia Hezbollah.
Hersh points out that the current situation is much like that during
the conflict in Afghanistan in the 1980’s which gave rise to al Qaeda
with the same people involved in both the US and Saudi Arabia and the
“same pattern” of the US using jihadists that the Saudis assure us
they can control.
When asked why the administration would be acting in a way that
appears to run counter to US interests, Hersh says that, since the
Israelis lost to them last summer, “the fear of Hezbollah in
Washington, particularly in the White House, is acute.”
As a result, Hersh implies, the Bush administration is no longer
acting rationally in its policy. “We’re in the business of supporting
the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia. … “We’re in the
business of creating … sectarian violence.” And he describes the
scheme of funding Fatah al-Islam as “a covert program we joined in
with the Saudis as part of a bigger, broader program of doing
everything we could to stop the spread of the Shia world, and it just
simply — it bit us in the rear.”
A RUSH TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS THE VIDEO RUSH TRANSCRIPT
HALA GORANI: Well, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported
back in March that in order to defeat Hezbollah, the Lebanese
government supported a Sunni militant group, the same ones they’re
fighting today. Seymour joins us live from Washington. Thanks for
being with us. What is the source of the financing according to your
reporting on these groups, such as Fatah al-Islam in these camps of
Nahr el Bared, for instance? Where are they getting the money and
where are they getting the arms?
SEYMOUR HERSH: The key player is the Saudis. What I was writing about
was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White
House, we’re talking about Richard — Dick — Cheney and Elliott
Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar. And the
idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support
various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon,
who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah
– the Shia group in the southern Lebanon — would be seen as an
asset, as simple as that.
GORANI: The Senora government, in order to counter the influence of
Hezbollah in Lebanon would be covertly according to your reporting
funding groups like Fatah al-Islam that they’re having issues with
right now?
HERSH: Unintended consequences once again, yes.
GORANI: And so if Saudi Arabia and the Senora government are doing
this, whether it’s unintended or not, therefore it has the United
States must have something to say about it or not?
HERSH: Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert
operation that Bandar ran with us. Don’t forget, if you remember, you
know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin
Laden, the mujahadin back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with
people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis
promised us they could control — they could control the jihadists so
we spent a lot of money and time, the United States in the late 1980s
using and supporting the jihadists to help us beat the Russians in
Afghanistan and they turned on us. And we have the same pattern, not
as if there’s any lessons learned. It’s the same pattern, using the
Saudis again to support jihadists, Saudis assuring us they can
control these various group, the groups like the one that is in
contact right now in Tripoli with the government.
GORANI: Sure, but the mujahadin in the ’80s was one era. Why would it
be in the best interest of the United States of America right now to
indirectly even if it is indirect empower these jihadi movements that
are extremists that fight to the death in these Palestinian camps?
Doesn’t it go against the interests not only of the Senora government
but also of America and Lebanon now?
HERSH: The enemy of our enemy is our friend, much as the jihadist
groups in Lebanon were also there to go after Nasrullah. Hezbollah,
if you remember, last year defeated Israel, whether the Israelis want
to acknowledge it, so you have in Hezbollah, a major threat to the
American — look, the American role is very simple. Condoleezza Rice,
the secretary of state, has been very articulate about it. We’re in
the business now of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the
Shia, against the Shia in Iran, against the Shia in Lebanon, that is
Nasrullah. Civil war. We’re in a business of creating in some places,
Lebanon in particular, a sectarian violence.
GORANI: The Bush administration, of course, officials would disagree
with that, so would the Senora government, openly pointing the finger
at Syria, saying this is an offshoot of a Syrian group, Fatah al-
Islam is, where else would it get its arms from if not Syria.
HERSH: You have to answer this question. If that’s true, Syria which
is close — and criticized greatly by the Bush administration for
being very close — to Hezbollah would also be supporting groups,
Salafist groups — the logic breaks down. What it is simply is a
covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a bigger
broader program of doing everything we could to stop the spread of
the Shia, the Shia world, and it bit us in the rear, as it’s happened
before.
GORANI: Sure, but if it doesn’t make any sense for the Syrians to
support them, why would it make any sense for the U.S. to indirectly,
of course, to support, according to your reporting, by giving a
billion dollars in aid, part of it military, to the Senora government
– and if that is dispensed in a way that that government and the
U.S. is not controlling extremist groups, then indirectly the United
States, according to the article you wrote, would be supporting them.
So why would it be in their best interest and what should it do
according to the people you’ve spoken to?
HERSH: You’re assuming logic by the United States government. That’s
okay. We’ll forget that one right now. Basically it’s very simple.
These groups are seeing — when I was in Beirut doing interviews, I
talked to officials who acknowledged the reason they were tolerating
the radical jihadist groups was because they were seen as a
protection against Hezbollah. The fear of Hezbollah in Washington,
particularly in the White House, is acute. They just simply believe
that Hassan Nasrallah is intent on waging war in America. Whether
it’s true or not is another question. There is a supreme overwhelming
fear of Hezbollah and we do not want Hezbollah to play an active role
in the government in Lebanon and that’s been our policy, basically,
which is support the Senora government, despite its weakness against
the coalition. Not only Senora but Mr. Ahun, former military leader
of Lebanon. There in a coalition that we absolutely abhor.
GORANI: All right, Seymour Hersh of “The New Yorker” magazine, thanks
for joining us there and hopefully we’ll be able to speak a little
bit in a few months’ time when those developments take shape in
Lebanon and we know more. Thanks very much.
HERSH: glad to talk to you.