In the previous thread, I disagreed with your assessment of Grange's statement, i.e. that because he was wrong he was either stupid or lying.

In the interest of fairness, I'd like to offer here an instance where a senior leader (CJCS) is, to my eyes, *clearly* lying:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/world/middleeast/25cnd-military.html

It doesn't take a lot of parsing to see the lies, and I don't see any other explanation. It's also a more egregious example, because while Grange was a retired 'analyst' just popping off at the mouth as he has been known to do, and he was just channeling the same flawed logic that was overwhelmingly representative of all the think-tank spew of the time, this is the active duty head of the Joint Chiefs making claims to serve his political masters.

It's relevant to this thread as well as the previous, because I'm suspicious that the timing of this little theater production over last September's bombing is related to the administration's plans for military action in Iran.

Naturally, you might disagree.

Okay, that was impressive.

and Palestine for Hezbollah

No. Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shi'a movement, whose conflict with Israel began over Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon post-1982. Its continued conflict with Israel post-2000 has to do with Lebanon, e.g. over Shebaa Farms, and captured Lebanese fighters; the primary focus of its political operation is also within Lebanon.

if Israel pulled out of the Shebaa Farms (even though they're actually Syrian, not Lebanese, but that's another issue), would Hezbollah then say "ok, we're done, we have no beef with Israel any more?"

There are (more than) a couple things to unpack here and my crystal ball is about as useful as anyone else's, but here's my answer.

Hezbollah's platform re the 'destruction of Israel' is for consumption by the home audience, not Americans, and so it means different things that we're used to digesting. In particular, it is an opposition to Western Colonialism, of which the burning ember is not the Sykes-Picot agreement or other drawing of arbitrary lines, but incursions by Israel onto Lebanese territory. This also ties to their Islamic-radical legitimacy (broadening the base beyond their Shia 'base'), since that is the beef from Sayyid Qutb on. That is the reason Shebaa Farms is an issue; even though it's Syrian territory, it's where a lot of Lebanese families have lived, and is more trenchant than the Golan. It ain't out of love for the Syrians, who are sometimes allies, always competitors.

Part of Hezbollah's claim to popular legitimacy is their standing up to Israel. Between 2000-2006, they did much to broaden that appeal within Lebanon, among the Shia but also among the Christian families. They were pretty successful, and had 2006 not happened, the Israel-resistance chip might ... might ... have withered in value; had Israel reached a peace agreement with Lebanon that was satisfactory to those groups, I think Hezbollah would have functionally adopted that posture, even if the agreement screwed all the Palestinians currently living in Lebanon. What they would have said publicly would have probably been different.

But of course, 2006 did happen. Hezbollah's 'stock' soared as a result of not being annihilated, and you don't walk away from what's feeding you (much is made if Iran's support, and it's important, but in 2006 Hezbollah was not taking orders from Iran, and balanced their other sources of support against the support they were getting from Iran, which was also looking a little unreliable). This changes things, but in unexpected ways. Nasrallah, one of the smartest guys in the middle east, admitted that he miscalculated Israel's response; for other reasons (though that didn't help), he was demoted and now other people are running the shop. This makes it a lot harder to say what would happen next.

So, ceteris paribus, if the same deal came through and Nasrallah were still in charge, I would also say yeah, Hezbollah would turn their attention elsewhere ... put up declarations of victory in the long struggle against the Zionist interloper all lover al-Manar ... and then fight it out with the other factions in-country, which would also involve the Syrians. Israel would continue to interfere on both sides, covertly, depending.

I know it's hard to swallow after years of (in this country) being bombarded by messages about all the enemies of Israel, the ruthless evil that is Hezbollah, and the single-mindedness of the terrorist foe. But that's my view. After a long evolution, Hezbollah is a political entity with political ambitions and political constraints, and they'll respond to both political incentives and political realities ... and political settlements, if those are ever on offer.

I agree with your points, but would add re Hersh that he has something that's even more demonstrative than the Pulitzer and the venue .... he has *sources*.

What he writes is always investigative and always exposes some BS that is peddled by the powers that be. Not everyone on his beat (in SOF, in intelligence, in the Puzzle Palace) is open, or even reads that kind of thing. But his reputation has gotten around; he's precise, he handles his sources professionally, and he does good work. As a result, they'll work with him.

This is what I think about every time I hear the excuse about what stories can't be reported lest a reporter or outlet 'lose access'.

When I was at Bragg, I had a girlfriend in Berea, and drove with her one long weekend to a place called Big Fork Lake, then went south and took a wrong turn ... could have sworn we went through Inez, which I remember only because it was said GF's middle name. That about right?

Aw, shucks