USS Liberty: A Reckoning Is Long Overdue

The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship

James Scott writes a painfully vivid account of what is now known about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I emphasize the word “attack” because “friendly fire” incidents don’t occur over an hour with rockets, napalm, and cannon on a lightly defended ship with an American ensign waving in the afternoon sky.

The heroism of the crew is rightly legendary, if not highlighted in American naval history in the manner the bravery and ingenuity of other recent crews on the USS Cole & USS Stark has been considered. Scott handles these particulars as well as he unfolds the aftermath, weaving together opinions from the Israeli Ambassador to the US about the need for accountability and apology to the sailors and their families and the stifled indignation of many an American government official of the time at soft-pedaling Israel’s responsibility and never letting the truth put the issue to rest.

Scott steps into a minefield of lies, distortions and murky agendas without falling prey to undue recriminations or relatively baseless accusations. He lays calm, clear fire at several people in the government who (given the evidence available now after several vital pieces of evidence were declassified) appear to be the most culpable in hiding the truth both from the public and the sailors whose lives were irrecoverably changed on that dark day.

In an era where an Israeli attack on Iran’s hostile nuclear sites could provoke a lethal response from the Islamic Republic and its proxies that take the lives of hundreds of Americans in the days and weeks afterward, clearing up the USS Liberty attack via an investigation by an independent commission empowered by the government to view all relevant evidence and clear up this the lies and deceptions inherent in the official account of the murder of dozens of US sailors by our ally.

A few links help answer the following questions or points raised in response to discussion of the attack:
(A) this is all in the past, why bring it up? (B) its only fodder for anti-Semites and other opponents (C) this will further imperil US-Israeli relations

James Scott responds to letter-writers in the Washington Post:

Recent revelations find USS Liberty survivors speaking out:

In 2008, the VFW has passed a resolution demanding an official inquiry into the attack.

Our sailors richly deserve for the government to stop lying to them. The dead are entitled to be honored for valor in combat, not in a “friendly fire” accident. The nation deserves to have justice for the needless shedding of its defenders’ blood, in the form of at least an official accounting and apology from the Israeli government as well as our own. To do otherwise in the face of mounting evidence is to disgrace the sailors who endured an unwarranted assault and saved their ship with as many of  their shipmates as possible.

“The Ayatollah Begs To Differ” Review

“The Ayatollah Begs To Differ”:

Have the recent events in Iran rendered much of the insight and analysis in Hooman Maid’s journey through Iranian society and political arena? After a second cursory follow through from a first read in May, I don’t think that is the case.

Maid has a pedigree and appearance that seems to have helped open more doors for him than the typical writer about Iran has available, while retaining an affinity with the lower classes and wealthy alike. He’s the grandson of an ayatollah and has the beard of a religious man, though he has close ties to former President and reformer Mohammad Khatami. He is remarkably evenhanded in his approach towards Ahmadinejad, which is beneficial because it fosters a pragmatic appraisal of one of the more important faces of the new Iranian junta post 6/12.

Scattered throughout his peeks into Iranian society are a few fascinating points and arguments worth sharing:

- Ahmadinejad engages in Holocaust denials as a means to humiliate the Europeans by forcing them to admit to their barbarism (“How could such a great civilization do such a thing? Surely you’re not monsters?)and acknowledge their fathers were mass murderers, reminding Iranians and Arabs alike of who the real monsters in history have been. (43)
- After the Shah’s fall, the typical urban gangs were co-opted by clerical backed paramilitary committees (Komiteh). (25)
- The providing of free education to the children of Basiji establishes a powerful relationship between the regime and its violent legions. (29) Also, programs to populate the universities with the poor, the deeply religious and the underprivileged are changing the character of the educated classes (114).
- The more literal interpretation of Shia mythology observed in deeply religious families is a new concept in Iranian history and culture. (85)
- The hardliners introduced into government by Ahmadinejad since 2005 will likely be a fixture long after he has left the scene. (103)
- The question of rights, fundamental to Shia Islam, is explosive in the sense that attempts to deprive Iranians of them (besides alleged token few like clothing choices) can backfire on the regime in power. (118)
- “… the most moderate, and even the most liberal reformist clerics are united in their firm belief that the revolution was pure, that Khomeini’s views on a political system were sound, and that any democracy in Iran will always be an Islamic one.” (158)
- (Before 6/12), The Abu Ghraib scandal, CIA rendition cases, and the Guantanamo detention facility gave Iran, but also its prisoners, an unexpected boost in the years after 9/11 in that Iran, in order to show its moral superiority, continually trumpets the treatment of its prisoners as comparing most favorably to those in American hands. (184)
- Khatami’s failure was to not promote a single successor. (195)
- Shias have long been taught to not provoke their enemies, who in olden days were the Sunni majority surrounding them…. Shia concerns with avoiding conflict that could mean the annihilation of the minority sect(233).
- Iranians are often adroitly reminded by their leaders that when their soon to be deposed prime minister Mossadeq nationalized the Iranian oil industry, in effect demanding their right to the profits from their own oil, the British responded publicly, and at the UN no less, that Iran’s exercise of its right was a “threat to the security of the world,” words that have been repeated by the US in response to Iran exercising its right, haq, as far as Iranians are concerned, to produce nuclear fuel. (235)
- US attempt to pinpoint Iranian machinations behind insurgency foiled by (a) little proof being offered to back up claims and (b) unexploded bombs and shells were displayed with markings, in a perfect English lacking even on unfortunate Iranian road signs (c) dates of manufacture stenciled onto the bombs were not only in English but in the American form (that is month, day, year) rather than in the Iranian (and rest of the world’s) standard format. (236)

All points being debatable, Maid nevertheless leaves the reader with food for thought given potential US approaches towards Iran post 6/12 and how internal events might proceed. The loss of legitimacy by the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Guard junta that seems to have co-opted other elements into a seizure of power may yet have dramatic negative consequences if the narrative of the reformers begins to appeal to a wider section of society that feels for religious, nationalist and business reasons the regime can no longer enjoy their support. A multi-pronged message will need to be crafted (as it appears is the case) with a patient investment in resources to begin to sour the population on the regime much as Ayatollah Khomeni sapped the strength of the Shah over more than a year.

The book has one notable weakness that should not deflect the reader from at least considering a library check-out:
- it lacks much insight (or giving a voice to) regarding Iranian women, who by most available measures in the post 6/12 world seem to be playing a much greater role in events than previously considered

Post 6/12, this is still a good read on Iranian society and politics.
B+

National Review Tries To Stop A Fire That May Be Out Of Control

Fires are weird creatures. Once they start, if not properly fought with the correct strategy, they can get out of hand fairly quickly. Fought halfheartedly or with inadequate resources, they often become raging infernos comparable to the scale of the location they are in.

For months, a slow-burning fire has spread amid conservative partisans around the country. Licks of flame have been spotted at town hall meetings, state party conventions and even national media outlets, but only in recent weeks has the fire truly begun to be visible to most without even looking for it. That fire has been the suspicion that Barack Obama was not really born in the US, that he may be a secret emissary of Islam and that he is some odd hybrid of fascist/Marxist/terrorist intent on destroying America. While all three variants are out there in the public eye at various gatherings, popular blogs and even being uttered or suggested to an extent by allegedly respectable politicians, the first has been the one which has garnered the most momentum.

It is now a near-act of courage for conservative institutions like National Review and well-regarded commentators and analysts such as Rick Moran to speak out against the fantasy-based dreams/nightmares of Obama’s non-citizenship. Check out the YouTube video of Delaware Republican Congressman Mike Castle being overwhelmed by a proponent of the fantasy and her many supporters in the crowd. Think that was a planned conspiracy to ambush him? In reality, it is likely the increasing feeling of a significant element in the “base” of conservatism. People want Obama to just go away. The fastest, easiest way to get there would be some great scandal or revelation about him. The best thing to latch onto then is the birth scandal. Facts seemingly are not required.

With a few Senators and popular talk radio hosts encouraging them, they are ignoring their more responsible brethern and giving into a fit of populist rage and fantasy.

A more insighful gentleman told me in another venue something to the effect
“that Jacksonians are prone to conspiracies” . He is right, but I wonder at what cost to conservative credibility will this conspiracy entail?

I am not familiar with how widespread among liberals the belief that Bush was behind 9/11 was. I do know that wherever they went spreading that lie, they were often forcefully pushed back by their bretheren. Now that sane conservatives are finally doing the same, will this myth go back to being a fringe belief of the few or will it continue to spread, like the seemingly raging fire it has become in recent weeks?