******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I assume you are referring to this article: http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/dangerous-method-syria-sy-hersh-art-mass-crime-revisionism It appears to be based primarily on the argument I brought up, namely that Hersh relies almost entirely on a single unnamed source, and that this is problematic. Without pretending to know all the details re: the arsenals of the regime or the resistance, I think it is a valid criticism. However, I do not think it necessarily makes Amy Goodman -- or, for that matter, Hersh -- "regime apologists". I think so especially in Goodman's case. The fact that she reported on the existence of ambiguity does not mean she is a propagandist. In Hersh' case, I think maybe he made some errors in judgment from a journalism perspective (although I again do not pretend to know the ins and outs re: the available arsenals of either side, which might be considered quite obscure knowledge). Due to his prior career in reporting I am unwilling to believe that he simply transformed from one of the world's top investigative reporters into some kind of mouthpiece for the Assad government. To give an example of what I am saying about ambiguity and obscurity, consider this passage in the Idrees Ahmad article: "The pugilists, Theodore Postol and Richard Lloyd, are munitions experts. They have produced valuable analyses on the payloads and ranges of the rockets used on August 21. There is little reason to doubt their expertise in this area. But there is much to question in their political analyses and speculations. To wit: Postol and Lloyd claim that given the heavy payload, the range of the rockets might have been as low as two kilometers, and therefore they could not have originated from the “heart” of regime-controlled areas, as the Obama administration alleged. But the Obama administration also overestimated the distance to regime positions. Using trajectory analysis it has been possible to calculate their likely launch coordinates, which, even with the two kilometer range, places them in zones where regime forces were active on August 21. Furthermore, Postol initially claimed the rocket used in the attack “fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal.” He claimed — a claim that Hersh echoed — that the rocket could be produced in a modestly equipped machine shop.[ii] But video and photographic evidence prove that the rockets *exactly* match the specifications of two known types in the regime’s arsenal — the Volcano and the Soviet 140mm M14. They are not, as Postol and Lloyd insist, “improvised.”" How anyone without a serious military background could weigh into such a debate -- let alone decisively -- eludes me. We are not hearing about "resistance" and "democracy" and "Arab spring," we are hearing about "heavy payload," "range of rockets," and "the specifications of two known types in the regime's arsenal". When you also consider that many of the leftists in question have just seen a neighboring country be destroyed based on all sorts of obscure technical rhetoric about WMD's that turned out to be completely fabricated, one doesn't need to guess why people on the left are highly suspicious about a topic in which they have limited expertise. That does not mean that Ahmad (or Louis or Clay) are wrong. It just means that maybe there is more to why some of these people are mistaken than being "regime apologists". - Amith On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > On 5/4/15 4:31 PM, A.R. G wrote: > >> >> Since that attack took place, individuals who have independently >> established their longtime credibility on issues of reporting war and >> peace, independent of Syria, have questioned that narrative, Seymour >> Hersh being the most prominent. >> > > What do you make of Idrees Ahmad's critique? > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
