Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Hey, look, everybody, Seymour Hersh has another article for the New Yorker. In this one, people told him a bunch of stuff, and him not wanting to make people feel bad, he went ahead and printed all of it. I have no idea what percentage of this article is true and what percentage is just some stuff people made up. I'm still coming to grips with having been a henchman in Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring, so you guys are on your own to make guesses in the comments section. 70/30? 50/50? 20/80?
I had a few quotes of mine mangled in a New Yorker article recently, and that article was written by a really well-respected journalist, so I can only imagine the editing process for Sy Hersh articles. My theory is that Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target. But each year, it seems, another inch is shaved off the barrel, so the shot group gets wider and wider. Over time, fewer and fewer pellets actually hit the target, but such is his reputation that people only remember the articles of his that actually exposed something new and none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned out to be just crazy talk.
"In this one, people told him a bunch of stuff, and him not wanting to make people feel bad, he went ahead and printed all of it."
I'd watch your calling out of others here. Just how would you describe your relationship with General McChrytal? Isn't it kinda the same as what you just criticzed Hersh for? You get money, media exposure etc in exchange for parroting the military's line? Isn't that pretty similar to hearing "a bunch of stuff" and "not wanting to make people feel bad" going "ahead and printing it?"
oh and could you cite some of the specific examples from the Hersh story that should have been fact-checked? Kind of odd to accuse someone of poor journalistic standards without providing anything to back it up
Bravo, AM, for calling him on this. He also wins an award for dramatic understatement:
"The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust."
Yeah. There's a smidgen of antipathy, and an iota of distrust. I have trouble, in fact, thinking of a topic on which Sy Hersh might have trained his sawed-off shotgun that would have been more likely to fuel conspiratorial theories inimical to international security. Publishing this article is the equivalent of running into a crowded theater and yelling, "FIRE!" and then explaining to the inspectors surveying the resultant carnage that you don't actually have any evidence of fire, but that certain current and former officials and other reliably informed sources saw evidence of fire at the time.
Pakistan doesn't need any help generating paranoid conspiracy theories. But when a foreign aid package comes close to spurring the military to stage another coup - and I don't think that's an exaggeration - publishing something as thinly sourced as this tripe, by an author with as poor a record of accuracy as Hersh, is incredibly irresponsible.
The pity of it all is that Hersh throws in some fine reporting, and raises important issues. The stability of Pakistan, the safety of its Nukes, and the heightened grip of militant Islam on its military are important - and ought to have been enough to support a full-length article by themselves. But that's not enough for the Great Sy Hersh. Unlike mortal reporters, who take the time to master complex material and content themselves with relating and explaining it to their readers, the Great Sy Hersh always comes up with Bombshell Revelations and Amazing Scoops from Confidential Sources. Instead of bolstering his article, though, his more hare-brained allegations will distract attention from the core issues he raises, fuel conspiratorial narratives, heighten the very radicalism his article claims to be concerned about, and generally undermine the objectives it claims to advance. What a shame.
Seymour Hersh has always seemed to be a tin foil on the ceilings and pulling out his fillings so the CIA can't transmit radio messages to my head kind of guy.
Is it just me, or does that guy just write, like, whatever comes to his mind is he's washing his hair in the morning?
Also, I'm going to take this opportunity to say I'm not a big fan of "visitors"- who feel free to comment on a blog post without having actually read/comprehended it- but I have to admit I'm a little confused: who is this guy reading your blog that leaves one comment revealing that he has no sense of humor and is as willing to sling garbage as Hersh, and a second comment that shows an inability to follow links and understand those are the specific examples of which you speak? And even without those examples: What about making sure you can prove it, and are willing to show your evidence, before you call people murderers in public? Does that qualify as "specific examples...that should have been fact-checked"?
There are *so* many people talking out of their rear on this topic right now, and passing themselves off as experts, that I would really like to see some bloggers in the counterinsurgency realm disallow anonymous comments. Some people, because of their jobs, or for other reasons, make a pseudonym and function under that name on several blogs and discussion rooms (I'm one of those people.). There's nothing wrong with that, because someone can trace the body of my comments, or look at member profiles and determine for themselves if they think I am qualified enough to be heeded. As the medical/health field has done, and a few other fields, I think we need to put an end to this "anonymous" business. This topic is just too serious to let commentards have the same stranglehold over the discussion as they do on the Washington Post.
Hersh has a long history of spotting interesting issues and then disdaining to practice honest journalism in addressing them. Too much trouble to do the legwork and do the story that's there, rather than the one you'd like to "find"; and might risk not getting the right headline. A shame. Must be tough to keep trying to replicate My Lai.
This article actually caused quite a stir amongst Pakistan's own independent military observers. Most of them concede there's cause to believe it, and not without noticeable shame.
It isn't like this kind of thing is radical or new. Consider KSA's use of French commandos at Mecca and Nasser's personal use of Soviet security guards, just to name a couple.
Hersh's pieces can be accused of being "thinly sourced", but that has really become the norm in the MSM. Consider the vast majority of reporting on Iran that comes out of the US and Israel these days. If I'd have to give a percentage of unnamed sources for Iran reporting in the NYT, AP, WSJ and JP, that percentage would be unacceptably high by any standard.
Heck, even some of Cordesman's articles have sourcing issues of their own, particularly on the subject of Iran.
So why single out Hersh?
I love it when Zardawi tells Hersh that “Money is the best incentive,” he said. “They [The Taliban] can be rented”. One can't help but think he is projecting...
I trust Britains finest didn't mis- quote our esteemed military expert on Hezbollah:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/08/hezbollah-rearms-against-isr...
Fom Hezbollah to Hezbollinger (I should write Sun headlines):
'Beirut is back… and it's beautiful: How the Lebanese capital went from warzone to 2010's most glamorous tourist destination': http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/nov/08/carole-cadwalladr-beirut-le...
@ AM
“He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked.” Are you the "he"? Isn't there a bit of projection going on here? Accusing others of exactly what you do yourself? This past month alone, you’ve written three posts accusing others of poor journalism and fact checking:
The Financial World Meets Robert Fisk (10-08-09):
“it is increasingly hard to tell when [Robert] Fisk is even sober let alone actually reporting a story. ... he stopped real reporting years ago ... such was his reputation that his editor at the Independent never feels the need to check his sources. And that's exactly the problem, I replied.”
He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked 11-09-09):
“My theory is that Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target.”
On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book (11-02-09):
“A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post ... the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. ... Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command ... Stan McChrystal stands out as one of the guys who made mistakes but ultimately did the right thing. ... Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him. Jon Krakauer is going after him now because he has written a crappy book and now has to sell it. “
. . .
To a very limited degree, I actually agree with you that Krakauer's book was "crappy" (Although "crappy" is too strong a word; ‘disappointing” would be more apt). Krakauer's effort didn't quite hit the mark (I agree with you that Gary Smith at Sports Illustrated did a much better job in his piece "Remember his Name" si.com 9-11-09). But, Krakauer's effort was crippled by losing the trust of Mary Tillman who refused to have anything to do with his book after reading his first draft. And Krakauer didn't dig far enough into the story to uncover the Democratic Congress's role in covering McChrystal's ass.
Before reading your post “On Martial Virtue…”, I assumed you and CNAS were part of the bipartisan “conspiracy” protecting General McChrystal. That you had written your book review to whitewash General McChrystal’s central role in orchestrating the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s fratricide.
Despite your background as an Ranger officer in Afghanistan, you were a poor choice to review Krakauer’s book. You neglected to mention General McChrystal’s role in the Tillman case or disclose your close personal and professional ties with him. Your CNAS thinktank has close ties with McChrystal (meets with him weekly by videoconference) and his mentor General Petraeus, and is an advocate for General McChrystal’s Afghan War “surge.”
This past summer, you spent a month working closely with McChrystal after being asked by McChrystal to join his Afghan war assessment team: ‘This [Afghan War Assessment] was written with ... the world's most intense lead author [General McChrystal]) who put up with my smart-assery -- often in enclosed spaces -- for a whole month’.” (As one blogger commented, “Phew, talk about a man crush. … the normally witty and sarcastic Abu Muqawama has turned into a walking billboard for Gen. McChrystal …”)
I responded to your “Martial Virtue” posting with a rather lengthy comment explaining why I believed that you were either awfully good at feigning self-righteous outrage or were woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman case. Despite your assertion that McChrystal was “probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command” the evidence is overwhelming that McChrystal played a key role in the cover-up of Tillman’s fratricide.
You have the audacity to accuse others of poor fact checking, yet you haven’t done any significant research into the Tillman case. You need more than unsupported opinion and bluster to support your claims and criticisms of Krakauer's book.
Unlike yourself, I’ve closely followed the Tillman case and have dug into the Tillman reports from the various Army, IG and Congressional “investigations. Last Friday, I finally posted some of the documents backing up my claims at: feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. I’d welcome your fact checking of my work.
1.) My response to your blog post is included in “Where Men Win Glory – Andrew Exum, CNAS, and their Whitewash of General McChrystal’s Role in the Cover-Up of Pat Tillman’s Fratricide”:
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/men-win-glory-andrew-exum-c...
2.) Just before McChrystal’s June hearing, I wrote an 100-page document, “Did They Teach You to Lie Yet – Senator James Webb, General Stanley McChrystal, and the Betrayal of Pat Tillman.” I argued that the top leadership of the Army, Waxman’s House Oversight Committee, and Senator Webb, Levin, and McCain’s Senate Armed Services Committee acted to shield McChrystal from scrutiny and protect him from punishment for his actions:
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-they-teach-you-how-to-l...
3.) On September 11th, I finished my 200-page binder, “Lies … Borne Out by Facts, If Not the Truth” – Senator James Webb, Thom Shanker & The New York Times, and the Whitewash of General Stanley McChrystal.” This binder explores the role of New York Times’s Washington Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker [currently "writer in residence" at CNAS!] in “clearing” McChrystal of any wrongdoing in the Tillman case despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. In addition, I describe my interactions with Senator Webb’s office and speculate at President Obama’s role in the Tillman case:
http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/lies-borne-out-by-facts-if-...
Note: The “Appendices” material has not yet been posted to my website. Revised posting of the above documents should be available later this week (too busy this weekend with the kids, work at the fire station, etc.)
. . .
Sometimes silence is the best compliment.
However, after throwing down my gauntlet last week, I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed, although not terribly surprised, that you have not deigned to respond to my comments on your post "On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book."
Perhaps you’ve got the good sense to remain silent after what DRONF termed "total slaughter."
But I expected a bit more fight from a scrappy East Tennessee redneck (not that I have anything against rednecks; my Dad was born in the Mississippi hill country just south of Memphis and grew up in the Delta. Your father and my Dad both attended Ole Miss).
I’d welcome your fact-checking prowess aimed in my direction. But please, stop with the off-the-cuff ad hominum attacks on others such as Fisk, Hersh, and Krakauer . Take the timber out of your own eye before casting stones at others.
Put up or shut up.
SGT, Co. “F” (Ranger) 425th, INF MI ARNG 1983 -- 1991
Well the Pakistani brass are dismissing Hersh's article: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakis...
I've always liked how the Commonwealth states for whom English is a second language have kept alive the word 'mishief.'
.......I'm inclined to agree with you about Hersch's journalism but the same could be said of a lot of journalism these days. He has his sources and they feed him lots of stuff some of it good and some less so. It's seems to me that most of the media comment these days is slanted either with the aim of peddling some sources line or just creating controversy. Hence caveat emptor. All journalism needs to be read with a fair degree of scepticism although as it happens I consider Mayer a more than usually reliable source. As others have pointed out if caveat emptor is required with many journalists it is doubly required with yourself I fear. Do you really consider yourself in all good conscience an independant and objective commentator on events in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cross your heart and hope to die.
"Must be tough to keep trying to replicate My Lai."
It's called Abu Ghraib.
I probably agree, but can you cite something that he has stated in the article that you think is incorrect?
Who the F are you to Call out Sy Hersch? And the way you call him out too, implying that he's merely a stenographer for powerful interests and allows himself to be spun, is pretty callous, considering that it's an apt description for about 99% of what appears on the NYT and WPost. Whereas Sy Hersch has spent an entire career, more than my lifetime, speaking truth to power, makes you sound real petty.
Unless you're the Dean of Columbia's School of Journalism, or Nir Rosen, you can't really talk.
The guy shits on 99.9% of today's working journalists. Unless you have something more specific, you just sound like a whiny b--ch. And even his mistakes are better from a journalistic perspective, because he's usually the only guy making that mistake, so it's easier to see. Whereas, when 99% of journalists make the same mistake (MSM: Iraq has WMD v. only Knight-Ridder: midlevel analysts don't see WMD), it's much more destructive..
Like, the guy practically uncovered both My Lai and Abu Gharib. And for some reason the military keeps trying to discredit him. And what exactly did he get wrong about the Cheney Assassination teams? He got a name wrong?
I'm sorry, but Sy Hersch is a national frickin treasure, even if he errs every now and then, and if more journalists had just 1% of his drive, doggedness, and jounalistic scrupples, the profession would be in much better shape, and the American people might actually know what the F goes on with their military and money.
I don't know how long Abu Maquwwa's been in Washington, but the notion that Sy Hersch peddle's "crazy talk" is just total bullshit. Whereas a glorious road to democracy in the Middle East from Iraq to Jerusalem, via war, is the province of Rational, Serious, pundits, and nothing crazy at all.
He wrote the book on America's system of torture while most of the so called Professional Press parroted the few-bad-apples bull$#!+. Don't know all the details on Hersh, but from where I stand he has enough stones to cover all the glass houses.
john earthmann
I agree that Sy Hersh's stuff has been disappointing recently (although I still think he does due diligence as well as possible, regarding the sensitive subject matter), but it seems that this post is pretty dramarama. Especially the part where you loudly complain of quotations of yours being "mangled," which implies either a.) they were taken way out of context, such as to completely obscure their meaning, or b.) the quotattions were fabricated, altered, ellipsys'd to death, etc. In your own post about Mayer's article, you admit that your first quotations was misheard, and represented in a way that fuzzied, but by no means obliterated, what you meant. For the second quotation, you say that "I said, “As a classics major, I have a classical sense of what it means to be a warrior.” As I recall, I asked that more as a question and included a "maybe" somewhere in there," but then admit that you do, perhaps, have some cultural issues surrounding the use of drones (as an example of non-classical warfare). Not exactly a "mangling." Apologies for the semi-hijack, but casually tossing out that the New Yorker "mangled" your quotations when they really didn't does not help the journalistic discourse.
This is a fine example of "fisking" which has come to mean smearing an author/actor /advisor for the sake of the herd. It's simply assumed that the others who are interested in discrediting Hersh are nodding in agreement with no facts required. It's also a form of targeted asskissing.
Exum,
with all due respect, you shouldn't even post something like this without rather a lot more care to display some evidence. It comes off as whiny, personal-conflict-driven baloney. Seymour Hersh - breaking accurate news (about the program in general) that was rather important for the American people to know and is by the way classified out the wazoo, making it impossible for *any* reporter to be sure if his details are correct - happens to be misinformed that you may have been involved, and you think this kind of thing represents any sort of systematic evaluation of the man's work?
You're embarrassing yourself, and demeaning your blog. Once upon a time, I sort of respected CNAS.. and you. It's possible that Seymour Hersh's accuracy is falling below par. I'm not really sure. You certainly haven't convinced me.
Exum,
With all due respect, you really shouldn't even try to post something like this without making a rather more serious attempt to compile some more significant evidence. Right now it comes off as whiny, personal-issue-driven baloney.
Seymour Hersh broke the news about a genuinely important story that, by the way, I don't see you even attempting to refute, in general. By the way, it was classified out the wazoo, so it's sort of impossible to confirm those kinds of things for sure either way. The 'official' records are by definition not available. So you apparently got mistakenly (I suppose we'll assume) lumped in with something like that; that's too bad. But does that demonstrate some sort of systematic decline in the quality of Seymour Hersh's reporting? Hardly. Relative to the average? Not even close. This might as well be your Facebook page.
As it is, this post is an embarrassing to you and to CNAS. Correcting the record is fine, but sob-story griping about journalists you don't like is petty, and this post is devoid of sufficient evidentiary display to form a serious complaint. I hope you people stand for something more than griping about your own media coverage. If you want more accurate stories on classified projects, you won't get it until journalists have some possible method of verifying the accuracy of such reporting. "Just don't publish it" doesn't work; we'd still have Iraqis being sodomized with glow sticks in Abu Ghirab.
This post really was an embarasment. I mean who do you think you are? You have produced no signifigant scholarship to note, have served one term in the Army, and are good at self-promition. You come across as a total punk in these kinds of posts. You're getting the press that you're getting because you've jumped on the war bandwagon and are in the right place at the right time to narrate what the Military wants narrated to the general public. Don't assume its anything more than that. If I were you I would quit the blog because its not doing anything for your reputation.
I've got to go with "embarrassingly punk-like" on this one. And the clubbyness is rather nauseating. You on the inside doing "real" work and dotty old Hersh either getting it wrong or being manipulated by people with agendas.
Honestly unless you have some actual evidence of journalistic malpractice a walk-back on this is the only way you are going to regain any of my respect. That or do/write something that actually benefits humanity.
Add your comment