Seymour M. Hersh

So bizarre it must (likely) be true. Amongst other things the author suggests that Israel's targeting of Russian cities with nuclear bombs was behind some of the craven approaches shown by the US towards Israel. Probably essential reading for anyone looking at the current stand-off between Israel and Iran and the debate about Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This book might go some way towards explaining why in all of that discussion nobody wants to mention how many nuclear bombs show more Israel (most definitely) already has. The only question about that arsenal is where they are currently pointed, and what would trigger Israel to use them. Well researched, well written, and deeply disturbing. show less

Part of Mr. Hersh's intent in writing this memoir, I would guess, is to enter into the public record the overall correctness of the unwanted truths about the powerful he exposed. He has shown us the very hard work, cussedness, sensitivity of issues and personalities, trust with his sources, competency, exactness, trust in his convictions, it took to get his revealing, penetrating, sometimes damning, words into print. In this he has succeeded. Not stated but I think inherent is an attempt at show more exciting a new generation of journalists to rigorously not accept half truths, lies, and lazy thinking and follow his lead. This book will be too powerful too political for some but for the rest be prepared for a bracing thoughtful read.

Quotes: (page 53) “I remember being angry, of course, but also more than a bit frightened; I had no idea of the extent to which the men running the war would lie to protect their losing hand. I was dealing with a dilemma that reporters who care and work hard constantly face: America needed to know the truth about the Vietnam War, but I had made a commitment to an officer of integrity. Of course, I kept my mouth shut because my professional, and moral, obligation to protect Hill, who retired as a three-star admiral in 1973, passed away in 2011; otherwise I would have had to ask for his approval before revealing his role in my education as a reporter --- an approval that I believe he surely would have given.”

(pages 141-142) “I was overwhelmed with the massacre as I worked my way through the interviews, and I was increasingly troubled by evidence that the investigators themselves had failed to do the right thing upon learning of a second slaughter on March 16, 1968. Medina's Charley Company was one of the three companies attached to Task Force Barker that were in action that day. Task Force Barker's Bravo Company was ordered to attack a village known as My Khe 4 a few miles away from the village of My Lai4. It was the same story, on a lesser level, as in My Lai. The task force burned, raped, and murdered at will after finding no enemy troops there. As many as one hundred innocent civilians were killed at the second site. The implication was obvious, in terms how the ground war actually was being fought in that area, but it was an implication that the final army report on My Lai did all it could to muffle. 'My Lai 4 was extraordinary, but it was not isolated,' I would later write. 'My Khe 4, however, was just another atrocity; and that atrocity was covered up --- after its uncovering in the midst of the My Lai 4 investigation,' I added, referring to General Peers and the civilian leadership of the army, 'Even the best general in the Army and highest civilian officials have a point at which they, like the Vietnamese at My Lai 4, become victims.'”

(page 266) “The journalist Thomas Powers, in closing his review of the book for the Times, got the message:
'Mr. Hersh has no trouble with the collection of intelligence, has clearly been impressed with the seriousness and ability of the people who gather and analyze it, and has made no effort to compromise their work. But he has gone a long way toward exposing the most closely held of all intelligence secrets --- the fact that the ultimate consumers of intelligence, the officials at the top of the pyramid of government, are political in their instincts before they are anything else, and sometimes use it for entirely personal political ends. They are accustomed to getting away with it. Mr. Hersh has caught them at it, and hey don't like it.'' show less

Question of Israel's nuclear arsenal is something that is not discussed and officially does not exist. So imagine my surprise when I came across this book that does not just note that it exists but that it is so big and sophisticated that this program is up there with US, Russian programs, and [today] China's program.

Formation of Israel is closely intertwined with almost constant war. And this goes way before the WW2 (as evidenced by testimonies of Sabras like Yigal Allon). Horrible events show more of WW2 caused movement of huge numbers of refugees toward the now state of Israel and very soon state of Israel was born. Do note that I am trying not to conflate the religion of Judaism (and its view of Israel) and actual state of Israel (which is supposed to be secular state).

From the beginning Israel was at war. As I said not so subtle Zionist actions before and during WW2 did aggravate a lot of Arab population. Also actions of expelling Arabs from their territories after independence did not help. High level of militancy allowed Israel to survive, develop technologically (I was surprised when I read about the very high prestige Israel had even in 1950's when it comes to electronics) but always on the brink of possible catastrophe if their enemies manage somehow to break through.

So they decided to develop the nuclear weapons. And they started this very, very early on.

Now, the pursuit of the nuclear capability is not something to judge - in my opinion world would be a much fairer place if everyone had these weapons (you have them and wanna use them, be my guest, nice knowing you). At least that is much better option than having hypocritical non-proliferation treaties, arguing for it and pushing people around for it while silently and intentionally overlooking your client states obtaining it. Book clearly shows how US politicians - some driven through need for votes and influence of Jewish diaspora in US, others through pure sympathy for state of Israel (and as current events show through some very strong [Christian] religious moments) - decided to overlook the issue of close client/ally state arming itself with nuclear weapons in spite of all the public talk to curb such developments.

Development of Dimona center, and later development of miniaturized warheads for artillery and nuclear mines show very high technical level of expertise. But even this is not developed in house - lots of information was simply stolen, again due to the fact of dual loyalty issues. Very deep weapon proliferation and sale ties allowed Israel to find an almost perfect accomplice - South Africa. Big country with lots of space for testing and further development and rich in nuclear ore. I can only say, who knows what types of weapons were developed and produced and, during 1980's/90's (time when US industry suddenly started working very closely with Israeli arms industry), shared with US. This does not happen in vacuum.

But during all of this Israel managed to basically compromise anyone and everyone with any Jewish links (be it family heritage, religious or just sympathy and willing to do something for them) that it borders on crime if you ask me. Same as the IT industry confirmed every bit of cliche linked to it and people that make it, starting from 2020 'til now (awkward, almost cult-like, loving and venerating some very doubtful persons and business moves to the level of after-me-flood approaches) so did Israel paint a very large target on back of anyone who ever had ties with the state, people or religion. Shame.

And what happened as time went by? Contempt for Israel's neighbors only grew as Israel's might kept growing, including nuclear weapons - one more proof that only raw power is what earns respect - and it started to see itself as dominating power in the area from Central and North Africa up to the Black Sea. It takes very little to have ones appetites grow. And while Cold War curbed a lot of this, end of Cold War allowed creation of the world where US and its allies (including Israel) started fully and un-apologetically to dominate their areas.

Again, does Israel need nuclear weapons? They feel they do, they should have it. But once Rubicon is crossed, let us not pretend everything is back to square one. It is not. I am not sure if dog is wagging the tail or tail is wagging the dog, but recent events have shown pretty bad links between US and Israel. What started as necessity to survive evolved into weapon of intimidation and control of very large area. Sheer audacity and level of demands (I mean Israel wanted dedicated, Israel based, fully secured (out of USA ability to read) and controlled NSA receiver station for KH11 satellite? what?) while giving very harsh and ugly comments on US government (ad-hominem and institutions, from Eisenhower onward) when US dare to put their national interests first, and the level of smugness and superiority, while constantly playing double games ......... I mean, if it works it works, all the power to them, and US, allowing it, seems to be OK with it, so keep it on, BDSM is a very strange kink.
But once this goes down.......

Samson Option is called that because if Israel cannot survive nobody will. This is in core of nuclear policies of lots of nuclear powers, mind you, if not all, but it does not make it right for the rest of the world. All it takes is a single event of uncontrolled action and all is gone. One can throw ash on oneself and moan and weep and cry the life out of oneself, but when that happens it is done, over. I always admired Israel for their discipline and stoicism, but militarism without wisdom is idiocy. It is nothing more than seeking fight in a bar full of drunk weight lifters, keep pushing and yes antidote will pop up. Diplomacy, and at least respectful treatment of ones allies and neighbors, needs to come back after more than 30 years of disregard. With the level of militancy and aggressiveness shown in this book (and it only became worse since then, almost 24 years ago) nothing good can come out, not only for the countries in question (everyone makes their decisions) but world in general.

Very disturbing and very informative book. Highly, highly recommended. show less

Having already read most of Hersh's articles in the New Yorker, I come late to Chain of Command which bundles the banality of evil and incompetence that was the Bush administration. It makes me sad to note that most of the perpetrators fell upwards. All honorable men, indeed. Only the powerless received punishment.

The book is a kaleidoscope of the early Bush years, a fractured impression of many scandals in eight parts. The book opens with the Abu Ghraib scandal and its iconic ugly America. show more Nearly five years later, no general officer has spent time in jail. Donald Rumsfeld simply sat out the scandal and remained in office long after. The second part moves back in time to the intelligence failures of 9/11. The third part discusses the Afghanistan invasion. The fourth, fifth and sixth part deal with the snake oil salesmen of the Iraq War as well as the invasion itself. The seventh part sheds light on Pakistan and its peculiar friend of George W. Bush, Musharraf. The eighth and final is a tour de horizon of the US policy in the Middle East.

The book offers three major lessons. The first lesson is that even egregious failure does not lead to punishment or disgrace for members of the elite. Being a good German pays off with tenure, places on the bench, stars and other sinecures. The power of media disclosure (as far as the US corporate media allows) has lost much of its strength. If perpetrators manage to survive a media cycle, interest will wane.

The second lesson is that the failures of the Bush administration can look back on a long tradition of US foreign policy failure. The US has a penchant for allying with dictators and other nasty folks for short-term gain, selling their principles of liberty and democracy for small concessions - with a huge price tag in the future as the mistaken trade-offs hit home. A better US foreign policy would stick to promoting its core values and not try to accommodate bad guys just to do some business.

The third lesson is the on-going incompetence of the CIA, the state and defense departments in dealing with foreigners. How long does it take them to learn that speaking a foreigner's language is a sine qua non in playing the intelligence game? Having a huge inward-looking bureaucracy in Langley is of little value.

Overall, the articles have aged well. Rereading them leaves me sad and angry. The US used to be a beacon of hope. show less