I own both Mr Bergen's and Mr Bowden's books on the hunt and killing of Bin Laden. Both are excellent although of the two, Mr Bergen's is the more extensive and covers the hunt for Bin Laden from a much earlier time, so if you just want one, that's the one to go for. Regardless, I highly recommend both of them and I trust the information put forward by these two highly esteemed journalists implicitly. This business of feeding conspiracy theories is entirely beneath the NYT and I am highly surprised at the editorial team's decision to run these articles. There is already enough craziness out there with people who are firmly convinced that the attack on the World Trade Center was a CIA-inspired plot to give the USA an excuse to attack the Mid-East and take control of their oil fields. If you think that's nuts I have several friends - highly intelligent people - who firmly believe this to be true. Not to mention the assassination of JFK, the moon landing, and God knows what else. Trust of establishment media is at an all time low and the NYT does itself a great disservice by spreading the seeds of doubt. It will come back to bite it in the nether regions, I guarantee it.
4
Of course there is no evidence, not for the raid, nor for Bin Laden.
If Mr. Mahler had simply labeled his initial article "Unsubstantiated Speculation On Events For Which I Offer No Evidence Or Corroboration" there would be no need for a follow-up article attempting to explain that he had ... no evidence or corroboration.
"Stories evolve as fresh details emerge. People who have not spoken previously may decide to go public with new information. Important documents may be declassified or leaked. Historical circumstances may change, allowing for greater honesty from the participants in an event." Other than Vice President Biden's quote, which, because of availability, was not included Mr. Mahler's the original article, there was nothing newsworthy being reported, only the shocking revelation that things may not always be what they seem.
What's next, still another article speculating on the burial place of Jimmy Hoffer?
"Stories evolve as fresh details emerge. People who have not spoken previously may decide to go public with new information. Important documents may be declassified or leaked. Historical circumstances may change, allowing for greater honesty from the participants in an event." Other than Vice President Biden's quote, which, because of availability, was not included Mr. Mahler's the original article, there was nothing newsworthy being reported, only the shocking revelation that things may not always be what they seem.
What's next, still another article speculating on the burial place of Jimmy Hoffer?
5
Would suggest, after reading this piece, to turn to Gregory Cowles' review of Mary Karr's "The Art of Memoir," which delves into the vicissitudes of remembering. "'Subjectivity is built into the very nature of memory, and follows from its basis and mechanisms in the human brain,' Oliver Sacks wrote in a 2013 essay about the elusive quality of recollection." The vice president's new revelation is revealing, on many levels....
1
With all that has been written about the deaths of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and countless others on the presidential kill list, how many times have you seen the word "assassination"?
Part of the problem with covering the endless "war on terror" is that government taboos on plain language are adhered to, and the doublespeaky substitutes invariably muddy the waters. Look, for instance, how long it took before The Times finally started using the word "torture." Mincing words has become the default setting.
Granted, national security reporting isn't easy, but self-censorship certainly doesn't make it any easier or, for the reader, any more understandable.
Part of the problem with covering the endless "war on terror" is that government taboos on plain language are adhered to, and the doublespeaky substitutes invariably muddy the waters. Look, for instance, how long it took before The Times finally started using the word "torture." Mincing words has become the default setting.
Granted, national security reporting isn't easy, but self-censorship certainly doesn't make it any easier or, for the reader, any more understandable.
5
Just sharing a personal favorite from John Brennan, then chief counterterrorism adviser to President Obama and now C.I.A. director:
"The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation. Indeed he did. It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight."
Completely untrue. So when evaluating various competing narratives, the first that can be rejected out of hand is anything coming out of the White House, the Pentagon or Langley. And that includes the whitewash-in-progress regarding who's to blame for the U.S. atrocity at the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.
Chalk it up as yet another "surgical" airstrike. Only in this case, unlike with drones, not even 10 percent of the people killed or wounded were combatants in any way, shape or form. In fact, every single one of them was an innocent, or, to use the preferred euphemism, "collateral damage."
"The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation. Indeed he did. It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight."
Completely untrue. So when evaluating various competing narratives, the first that can be rejected out of hand is anything coming out of the White House, the Pentagon or Langley. And that includes the whitewash-in-progress regarding who's to blame for the U.S. atrocity at the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz.
Chalk it up as yet another "surgical" airstrike. Only in this case, unlike with drones, not even 10 percent of the people killed or wounded were combatants in any way, shape or form. In fact, every single one of them was an innocent, or, to use the preferred euphemism, "collateral damage."
5
I would tend to believe Biden recent comments are untruthful or at least less than truthful. A rewrite in line with his now aborted run for the White House and his obvious dislike of Hillary Clinton.
2
The elephant in the room disappeared in this article recap: Seymour Hersh. His unprovable allegations, which, given their sources, in certain Pakistani officials, amount to conspiracy theories. Wanting to revisit a story to add credible facts to it is one thing. Repeating beliefs from a journalist who also was not present during any of the things that happened around bin Laden's death, and wants another big story late in his fabled career, is something totally different. For me, it is all part of the "new", rejiggered New York Times magazine strategy of getting maximum click for minimal journalist effort by running "shocking" stories. Get back to us when the basic facts around bin Laden's death are in dispute. At least you didn't say he was still alive.
6
Bowden's defense was hilarious. His list of sources - or highlighted sources - included not only Pakistani. Imagine a reporter writing about, say, a fire in Savannah Georgia, and never quoting any of the neighbors, or indeed, any Savannah Georgians at all. And then to call criticism of the narrative that the administration wants out 'conspiracy theory.' I remember when the 'conspiracy theorists' thought that the Bush administration was lying about Wmds in Iraq, and were similarly laughed at by establishment journo-stooges. To report for instance on the photo sequence showing Osama bin Laden being dumped into the drink and then it turns out that Bowden hasn't seen it - well, the problem with journalistic integrity is certainly on the other foot. The most enlightening thing in Mahler's original piece was the interview with the Pakistani journalist who actually went to Abbotsford Pakistan and interviewed the neighbors eleven days after the raid. Did Bowden or Bergen bother to contact this fellow?
1
When there is different versions of the same story, the key to the truth are always the archives. This is why when there is different stories on the same subject, I will choose the one back by the archives over memoirs or newspapers. And the reason is the following. Memoirs are not history, there are justification. Newspapers could be taint by spin. Archives are not for publication therefore you can read the real thinking of the participants to the decision.
The argument about who was for and who was against going after Bid Laden is part of the minutia of history. In any risky enterprise, there are considerations in favor and against undertaking it. I suspect that the chances of pulling it off are 50%, either way. Whether the action is successful or not, the persons who turn out to be right are not more brilliant than the persons who turn out to be wrong. The coin just fell their way.
So whether Biden was for or against the attack is of small importance since whatever his position was, it was a necessary part of the discussion.
So whether Biden was for or against the attack is of small importance since whatever his position was, it was a necessary part of the discussion.
3
The killing of Bin Laden is the affect caused by events we believe in from the past. Some of what we know is incomplete and clouded by emotions.
In August 1994, the Pakistani regime decided to use the Taliban, originally Afghan refugees from the War in order to establish control over Afghanistan, where it intended to impose order and stability and allow the building of the TAPI pipeline. Some 4000 madrassas (boarding schools) sprang up all over Pakistan, especially near the Afghan border to support, educate and train these refugees to become terrorists in Russia.
The US joined its allies (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) in aiding the Taliban movement, ignoring its cruelty toward Afghan citizens. A group of oil companies including America's Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, and the government of Turkmenistan (formerly a Soviet republic) signed an agreement. The agreement included the laying of a pipeline from the gas fields of Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean.
The pipeline was supposed to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan, enabling the bypass of Iran and Russia. The Taliban government promised Pakistan to keep the area around the pipeline stable, but later refused the TAPI pipeline listening to Bin Laden. This gas pipeline or the lack of it, is what lead to Bin Laden’s death and the current fighting in Afghanistan.
In August 1994, the Pakistani regime decided to use the Taliban, originally Afghan refugees from the War in order to establish control over Afghanistan, where it intended to impose order and stability and allow the building of the TAPI pipeline. Some 4000 madrassas (boarding schools) sprang up all over Pakistan, especially near the Afghan border to support, educate and train these refugees to become terrorists in Russia.
The US joined its allies (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) in aiding the Taliban movement, ignoring its cruelty toward Afghan citizens. A group of oil companies including America's Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, and the government of Turkmenistan (formerly a Soviet republic) signed an agreement. The agreement included the laying of a pipeline from the gas fields of Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean.
The pipeline was supposed to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan, enabling the bypass of Iran and Russia. The Taliban government promised Pakistan to keep the area around the pipeline stable, but later refused the TAPI pipeline listening to Bin Laden. This gas pipeline or the lack of it, is what lead to Bin Laden’s death and the current fighting in Afghanistan.
2
Russia is still working on it ,Mr. Putin it seems is following US like we followed him. Only we also lost ,we are just not winning yet. Would have been nice to hear what Bin Laden may have testified to ,also Chris Stevens included ,but alas not to be .
Just to be clear – in order for Seymour Hersh's theory to be true, thousands of individuals in the government, each from different branches of the government and of different political stripes, would need to agree on the official narrative and then adhere to the theory despite the compelling financial/celebrity incentives revealing that knowledge would offer. Oppositely, in order for the government's theory to be true, two Pakistani intelligence officers would have needed to lie to Mr. Hersh. Common sense, not to mention basic game theory, should give us a clue which version is probably correct. And, under the author (and his Editor's) theory, should we be expecting a new cover piece on the "ambiguities' of Barack Obama's citizenship? Certainly Donald Trump would argue history is actively being re-written here.
6
The underlying assumption in this article that there is some kind of irrefutable truth needs to be thrown into the basket along with all of these other speculations. It reminds me (like so much does in this time of endless scrutiny and questioning) of the fable of the ten blind men touching the elephant- "...one blind man touched the ear of the elephant and declared '...I know, for a fact, that the elephant is shaped much like a fan...' Another touched the tail and said 'You've got it wrong, the elephant is shaped like a snake.'
Etc., etc., etc.
Etc., etc., etc.
2
Both Bowden and Bergen should remember that history is rarely written by authors trying to write best sellers. I suspect their criticism had more to do with getting their books back into the discussion than any real qualms with what was written in the NYT.
4
Mahler will continue to be attacked by those who want the bin Laden assassination narrative to be accepted "as is" without further embellishment or revision (or with very little of it). There are others, like myself, who welcome someone like Hersh looking into the narrative, and who welcome Mahler's efforts to report on those efforts. Indeed, I find it most curious that so many feel so strongly compelled to protest the efforts. I think their resistance is more emotional than rational. In the end, I think our narrative history is best served by those who look beneath the surface of our "accepted history". After all, George Washington almost certainly did not confess after chopping down a cherry tree, as comforting as the story may seem.
3
The killing of Bin Laden is the affect caused by events we believe happened from the past. Some of what we know is incomplete and clouded by emotions.
In August 1994, the Pakistani regime decided to use the Taliban, originally Afghan refugees from the Afghan War in order to establish control over Afghanistan, where it intended to impose order and stability and allow the building of the TAPI pipeline. Some 4000 madrassas (boarding schools) sprang up all over Pakistan, especially near the Afghan border to support, educate and train terrorists.
The US joined its allies (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) in aiding the Taliban movement, ignoring its cruelty toward Afghan citizens. A group of oil companies including America's Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, and the government of Turkmenistan (formerly a Soviet republic) signed an agreement. The agreement included the laying of a pipeline from the gas fields of Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. The pipeline was supposed to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan, enabling the Americans to bypass Iran and Russia. The Taliban government promised Pakistan to keep the area around the pipeline stable, but later refused the TAPI pipeline listening to Bin Laden. This gas pipeline or the lack of it, is what lead to Bin Laden’s death and the current fighting in Afghanistan.
In August 1994, the Pakistani regime decided to use the Taliban, originally Afghan refugees from the Afghan War in order to establish control over Afghanistan, where it intended to impose order and stability and allow the building of the TAPI pipeline. Some 4000 madrassas (boarding schools) sprang up all over Pakistan, especially near the Afghan border to support, educate and train terrorists.
The US joined its allies (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) in aiding the Taliban movement, ignoring its cruelty toward Afghan citizens. A group of oil companies including America's Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, and the government of Turkmenistan (formerly a Soviet republic) signed an agreement. The agreement included the laying of a pipeline from the gas fields of Turkmenistan on the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. The pipeline was supposed to pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan, enabling the Americans to bypass Iran and Russia. The Taliban government promised Pakistan to keep the area around the pipeline stable, but later refused the TAPI pipeline listening to Bin Laden. This gas pipeline or the lack of it, is what lead to Bin Laden’s death and the current fighting in Afghanistan.
1
"Mahler and his editors at the New York Times Magazine seem to have embraced the postmodern view that instead of practicing journalism or history in which you do the best to ferret out the truth, you only have competing 'narratives' like Hersh's, each of which is worthy of serious attention. This is the kind of thing you might be taught in an undergrad course in literary theory, but is hardly what you expect from the 'newspaper of record.'"
-- Peter Bergen, CNN national security correspondent, "The New York Times triples down on bizarre bin Laden story."
-- Peter Bergen, CNN national security correspondent, "The New York Times triples down on bizarre bin Laden story."
3
Mahler was totally correct to question the official bin Laden story as necessarily being the last word. Bergen and Bowden are insiders compared to Hersh, but, as I.F. Stone long ago noted, that makes them more gullible to manipulation, especially of the off-the-record variety. I lost a lot of respect for Bowden when I saw Black Hawk Down, the movie, after having read his book. Although he did have a few critical pages on the reasons why local Somalis first welcomed and then grew to hate the Black Hawk helicopters and those who flew them, the movie completely ignored the context. The film implicitly supported the racist notions of irrational, violent "others" and selfless, well-behaved American soldiers. Bowden never commented on the false narrative the film fostered, one that has added to jingoism and subsequent carnage against civilians....collateral damage.
Bergen, in his attack on Mahler, suggested the Columbia Journalism review would never accept the latter's Times Magazine article, but the CJR had an article after Hersh's story appeared saying the critics were doing more name-calling than actually factually disproving his claims and ridiculing the criticism that Hersh used publically unnamed sources when they are standard operating procedure for many long validated investigative pieces---e.g., Watergate.
Bergen, in his attack on Mahler, suggested the Columbia Journalism review would never accept the latter's Times Magazine article, but the CJR had an article after Hersh's story appeared saying the critics were doing more name-calling than actually factually disproving his claims and ridiculing the criticism that Hersh used publically unnamed sources when they are standard operating procedure for many long validated investigative pieces---e.g., Watergate.
3
This reminded me of an occasion when I got an inside view of the background to an event of national importance, Sara Jane Moore's attempt in San Francisco to shoot then-President Ford. Ms. Moore had been known for decades in the Bay Area as a loose cannon hanging out on the fringes of the left. Then she wrote an article for Rolling Stone, exposing herself as an FBI informer, but asserting that she had seen the error of her ways and wouldn't continue. Soon after the article appeared, she and I were both students on the first day of a class in Marxism. On the break, several students complained to the teacher that they couldn't take a class on Marxism with a known FBI informer. So the teacher called Ms. Moore aside and told her she wouldn't be able to continue in the class. "But I've changed!" she protested. "Why won't people believe me?"
"You will just have to find a way to demonstrate to everyone that you really have changed," the teacher said. A couple of weeks later, President Ford came to San Francisco. Luckily, Sara's first shot missed, and a gay Marine stopped her from making a second shot. He was publicly outed in the press as his reward.
"You will just have to find a way to demonstrate to everyone that you really have changed," the teacher said. A couple of weeks later, President Ford came to San Francisco. Luckily, Sara's first shot missed, and a gay Marine stopped her from making a second shot. He was publicly outed in the press as his reward.
Vice President Biden’s way with the truth is well documented. Revisionist assertion and plagiarism are a part of his history. If he claimed he advised the President not to attempt the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound and then quite some time later insisted that he had indeed decisively urged the President to carry out the raid, that finding would not be inconsistent with what we know about the man. We know that Senator Biden voted to invade Iraq in 2002, but in 2012 during the vice presidential debate with Paul Ryan, the Vice President denied the fact. Such behavior is inexplicable and disturbing. History will have its hands full in dealing with his transgressions and inconsistencies.
2
"News is the first draft of History." This quote is at least 70 years old. And the fog of war still has not cleared from the American Civil War! We need to test and retest and retest all the stories if we want to come close to understand what really happened. Let's not forget the personal biases that enter in to any account. As a Civil War historian, it is amazing to read newspaper accounts of the same battle as printed, for example in Memphis or St. Louis. Can we, should we expect more today?
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” ~ Winston Churchill
9
There is an inherent conflict between the public's right to know what their government is doing and the need to the government to keep certain matters outside of the public view for the time being. This becomes obvious in war time. However, it is less obvious when there may be other motivations for the government to take clandestine action. We have a number of examples of the latter, the most prominent of recent note being the NSA surveillance program revealed by Snowden.
Had the Bin Laden raid not been successful, one has to wonder how much we would have heard about the events reported in this article. The story would no doubt have been much different. And that is the problem. What is the truth and when does the public get it, if ever?
Had the Bin Laden raid not been successful, one has to wonder how much we would have heard about the events reported in this article. The story would no doubt have been much different. And that is the problem. What is the truth and when does the public get it, if ever?
4
Sources may provide accurate or inaccurate information often for self-aggrandizing reasons. What is pathetic is that these people just want to feel important. They want public or private (to news organizations) recognition of being the ultimate insiders. "Look at me, look at me."
2
I am overwhelmed by the persistent and insistent revisionist history peddled by the political left who seem intolerant of any implied criticism of this administration....and I'm a Democrat.
Something is amiss when CNN and Vanity Fair become so intolerant that the NY Times has to waffle on a potentially interesting story.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are God last time I checked.
Something is amiss when CNN and Vanity Fair become so intolerant that the NY Times has to waffle on a potentially interesting story.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are God last time I checked.
2
Yes, HRC "under sniper fire landing in Bosnia". CBS called it a "misstatement" by Democrat Presidential candidate. Brian Williams claimed the helicopter he was in in Iraq was "gunned down". That's just two of the many lies the Progressives tell for glory. DISGUSTING, LIARS !!
I wish the magazine cited the author of each article + her/his prior credits on the first page of the article per se.
I am always hunting for the Table of Contents -- quite discombobulated in its own right -- to find the desired information.
If other readers agree with my lament, I hope they'll sound off!
I am always hunting for the Table of Contents -- quite discombobulated in its own right -- to find the desired information.
If other readers agree with my lament, I hope they'll sound off!
2
This is a lame attempt my Mahler to justify his silly piece. Biden's differing account is a minor detail. Hersh's story changes most everything that several other reporters have carefully documented. Mahler didn't "explore how history gets made." He trashed careful reporting relying on numerous sources by suggesting questionable reporting based on a couple of unnamed sources deserves similar consideration. It doesn't. Mahler should be given credit for one thing, however: helping create a new industry, the dozen's of Bin Laden conspiracy books that are sure to follow. Like Oliver Stone and the Kennedy assassination, Mahler should share the blame when, a decade from now, half of the American public has no idea what to believe about that night in Pakistan because the fog of conspiracies has grown so thick no one can discern the truth from the nonsense.
10
A decade from now, Mahler will probably be the one citing the fog of conspiracies as proof he was right all along.
Kudos for the Kennedy mention. Très à propos.
Kudos for the Kennedy mention. Très à propos.
1
Jim, Please don't minimize your own contribution.
The fact that more than a week after his article was posted online, Mr. Mahler is still struggling to explain what it was about shows again that he didn't make it clear in the first place.
Being provocative is all well and good, but without clarity that the readership can discern (After all, isn't that the point?), the result is invariably further confusion, which defeats the purpose. "Storytelling" has been one of the buzzwords for The Times as a whole and The Magazine in particular, but for that to succeed, there needs to be clearer writing and crisper editing than was on display here.
In short, deliver the goods (in a way they can be easily understood). And don't oversell. When the football gets pulled away before we can kick it, we're left with nothing to say other than "Aaugh!"
Being provocative is all well and good, but without clarity that the readership can discern (After all, isn't that the point?), the result is invariably further confusion, which defeats the purpose. "Storytelling" has been one of the buzzwords for The Times as a whole and The Magazine in particular, but for that to succeed, there needs to be clearer writing and crisper editing than was on display here.
In short, deliver the goods (in a way they can be easily understood). And don't oversell. When the football gets pulled away before we can kick it, we're left with nothing to say other than "Aaugh!"
18
My concern with the Magazine article and the Hersh piece was that they fail Occam's Razor or even Occam's Gallagher Hammer. I don't think last week's piece trafficked in conspiracy theories but I do think the Hersh piece was less than responsible in that it planted seeds from which conspiracy theories will germinate and in no way furthered additional credible understanding of the events in question. While questioning the conventional narrative of recent history may be the role of the investigative journalist, those questions should be grounded in verifiable or at least credible evidence of inconsistencies. I read the Hersh piece twice and with all due respect, I have read "investigations" of Area 51 that seemed more substantial. It really was just smoke and mirrors that in the final analysis asked us to take on faith what the author was purporting. The only blank that Hersh possibly filled in that is missing from other accounts is an explanation for the mysterious black out in Abbottabad.
8
The journalistic equivalent of the Benghazi hearings.
6
The main implausibility in the Administration's story has always been that Osama bin Laden would be living for years a mile from the Pakistani military academy in Abbottabad, the prime residential enclave of the Pakistani deep state, without any awareness of higher-ups in the host country's power structure.
4
Just examples of "when it comes to fact and myth, televise, print, broadcast the myth."
1
Adapted from John Ford's last great Western, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
1
The photograph accompanying this follow up to the article that doubted there even had been such a meeting where the President and advisers were observing the raid on the compound in real time deserves explanation. If there were no such real time observation, when was this particular photograph taken? The photo on the laptop in front of Clinton, despite its censorship blurring, may evidence an aerial photo of the compound? One thing I would conclude is that no person in the room is as intent in focus and concentration as the President. Is Clinton reacting to the crash of the helicopter in the compound? Obviously, her shock is in reaction to some visual all are observing. How does the author reconcile the comment that no such 'observe' meeting ever took place? Was the government's release of this photo an attempt to misstate what actually occurred in the surrounding context of the mission?
As an old Chinese proverb goes, "There is no 'truth', only persuasion."
As an old Chinese proverb goes, "There is no 'truth', only persuasion."
3
While the process by which news evolves into history is of much greater importance, my first reaction to this story was, "Why all this probing and parsing of Biden and the bin Laden operation, when we seem to have let slide the history of just how and why the bin Laden family and others got to make a quick exit after 9/11?"
12
Biden gives the appearance of a man for whom life has turned into an impenetrable maze. Small wonder. Perhaps his various differing assertions of fact ought not to be so closely analyzed for inherent contradictions.
4
If history has any lessons it is that not only has our government not been candid about what it is doing but that it has been able to raise its duplicitousness to high art. In the Viet Nam era President Johnson, et.al., devised an entire scenario to make it appear that the North Vietnamese were attacking our gunboats thus justifying our intervention in the Gulf of Tonkin. As journalists later uncovered and disseminated that it was all a sham, the US provoked the North in order to justify intervention and then, worst of all, lied to the entire world about it. Have we really come very far?
3
Saying the first draft of history isn't always accurate isn't actually what the original article thrusted towards. It suggested the Hersh story had the same fatal grounding as Bowden's account, which is simply wrong. Now you're backtracking on that suggestion. "It’s possible that the government decided to be completely scrupulous and forthcoming about all the details." The Bowden account doesn't rely on this assumption; no one is suggesting that's the case, you're using a straw man. The Hersh account isn't a fleshed out version of the gov. account with some previously unknown details - it's a complete rewrite.
14
"the crackpot world of Internet theorizing"
Seymour Hersh cannot be written off as a crackpot, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.
Seymour Hersh cannot be written off as a crackpot, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.
4
All right!! Finally. Hersh never was a crackpot, isn't now. He dug up the Pakistani guy off the street with the info and the related facts aboiut the Pakistani military. No one else did. Right there. And what, exactly, is wrong with "conspiracy theories?" If history and "the writing of history" has shown us anything at all, it is that there were conspiracies among the powerful in many lands that were covered up and that came to light by, what, the further research and writing of more history. Why wait?
Hersh has a pretty good record of reporting, so I don't think Mahler's story is out of the realm of possibility at all. For heaven's sake, we have had Pres. G. W. Bush's administration give the nation a narrative about Iraq that has proven to be preposterous to most, and was considered to be so by many at the time the administration was shaping the policy that led to the criminal war, but was pushed line and sinker by the main stream media, and even today the false narrative they wove exists as if it were fact. The Obama administration has been far from different in many respects, so Mahler's article is a service to history, a history that needs revision. We Americans would be pretty naïve if we all think we get the whole story of what goes on in the halls of power, from the beginning of our history as a nation to a present. I welcome revision if it leads to a better understanding, in spite of those who wrote books and bought the "company line" without question.
4
Excellent and important reminder that historical events generally take decades of research, scholarly debate, and revision before a fuller picture emerges from an unimaginable number of sources, new evidence, and new angles and questions we have not even thought of yet. All we have are the official accounts, since when has any historian or journalist uncritically accepted those as valid? One thing certain is that any narrative fresh on the heels of events will give a very narrow and preliminary window into the events in question; contemporary narratives being carefully crafted with political considerations and high stakes in mind. Historians and journalists must retain both a healthy skepticism and a critical posture in this age of polarized politics. We must always remember to keep questioning things and not let political biases blind us from seeking complex truths.
10
On 1 May 2011, the White House gave a very implausible version of the assassination of Osama bin Laden, a version rife with inconsistencies and discrepancies. But since the US is a democracy, we know our government must always tell the truth at all times. We know that North Vietnam attacked US Naval ships in international waters, forcing the US into a war it was trying its best to avoid. We know that Saddam planned 9/11 and had prepared a massive nuclear arsenal that was pointed at the US with the fuses lit when our troops arrived, just in time to stop the destruction of the US. And we know that, however implausible and inconsistent the official White House version, it must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
As many commentators on the New York Times comments pointed out, the version by Seymour M. Hersh (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-la... has been completely refuted. How? Because the US government announced it was completely false, and since the US government cannot lie, that is absolutely conclusive proof that a journalist once known for his integrity has become just another tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist. So every reliable reporter, all of whom only believe what the US government tells them to believe, has reiterated that Mr Hersh's version is completely false.
As many commentators on the New York Times comments pointed out, the version by Seymour M. Hersh (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-la... has been completely refuted. How? Because the US government announced it was completely false, and since the US government cannot lie, that is absolutely conclusive proof that a journalist once known for his integrity has become just another tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist. So every reliable reporter, all of whom only believe what the US government tells them to believe, has reiterated that Mr Hersh's version is completely false.
9
What's implausible?
They spend a couple of billion dollars to figure out where this guy was...and even then weren't sure he was there.
They weighed the odds and rolled the dice - then they sent the A team into get him. They got him.
Bin Laden wasn't a warrior commanding armies. He was a murderer killing bus boys and investment bankers. America had plenty of terrorist bombers from the 1970s hiding out in America: Weather underground, FALN, who knows how many others? The only difference is that they didn't crash planes into buildings and kill thousands. They weren't caught for decades either.
As far as Bin Laden goes, Clinton could have done the same thing pre-9/11 and chose not to. The big deal with Bin Laden was finding him.
They spend a couple of billion dollars to figure out where this guy was...and even then weren't sure he was there.
They weighed the odds and rolled the dice - then they sent the A team into get him. They got him.
Bin Laden wasn't a warrior commanding armies. He was a murderer killing bus boys and investment bankers. America had plenty of terrorist bombers from the 1970s hiding out in America: Weather underground, FALN, who knows how many others? The only difference is that they didn't crash planes into buildings and kill thousands. They weren't caught for decades either.
As far as Bin Laden goes, Clinton could have done the same thing pre-9/11 and chose not to. The big deal with Bin Laden was finding him.
3
The best refutation of the Hersh piece is that The New Yorker -- the most scrupulous fact-checkers on the planet -- declined to publish it.
17
No. Far from being the most scrupulous magazine in the land, the New Yorker often publishes erroneous reporting. Famously, the New Yorker published a long story by Jeffrey Goldberg in the run up to the Iraq war which claimed to establish a link between the 9.11 hijackers and Saddam Hussein. entitled The Great Terror. He also claimed that Hussein had a nuclear weapons program and mucho WMD. These claims have been refuted too often for me to waste my time to cite the refutations, but those rightwingers who refuse to believe it still cite Goldberg's article. The New Yorker is not the Bible, but a magazine like any other.
1
If the essence of truth has to do with "the sending of history and its reception by man as fate" then whatever versions of this occurrence gain widespread acceptance have their place. The point is that the vacillation as regards what exactly occurred mirrors the controversial nature of the subject itself. Whether the internet contains a breeding ground, so to speak, for paranoiac speculation is largely irrelevant, as this is as much a source for the "sending" as officialdom and its divers facets. If OSBL was a mythical figure, used by the US intelligence services as a scapegoat for covert operations designed to promote the expansion of US interests, then the question of truth is begged in the extreme. If Afghanistan was simply the base of operations for a radical group's defense of Islam, or if it was and is a strategic point designed to facilitate the flow of oil to the west, the point is that these contingencies mark the dividing line between two radically different views of history, and so the essence of truth, except in the case of hard facts of history, particularly military history, which precludes a delineation of theory and what actually happens, is relegated to subjectivity. That being said, it seems that the reliance on personality characteristics to serve as explanatory matter is quite different from the reliance upon consensus to serve in that capacity, and so we observe the difference between Capitalist and Socialist interpretations of history.
Why should history, writ large, be any simpler than the small-scale version we all live every day? Ask ten people in your extended family how the decision came about to hold the family reunion in Dubuque instead of Sioux City. You will get 10 different versions, guaranteed. And that's with no political egos on the line.
23
"It’s a peculiar assertion to make, that the first draft of history should also be the last — that the only two options available to us, as readers and American citizens, are either the full acceptance of the first officially sourced version of the events or the paranoid assumption that it is all lies and government propaganda." I did understand the intent of the piece you wrote, and found it interesting. However, I ultimately felt it was an irresponsible piece because it left the impression that the only two versions were of equal merit (without it seems investigating the particulars). I do usually land in the middle of a report - assuming that all the facts aren't straight, more will be revealed over time, etc., so in that way the piece was not revelatory. CNN has fallen into weird "maybe this will happen" kind of "reporting" to fill air space and your piece felt like a sophisticated, more nuanced version of that. It's not what I expect in the NYT.
28
Mr. Mahler, please explain to the public what point there is in recounting every dot and tiddle regarding secret and in this case extremely high risk operations that are designed to protect the American people at large. While I can understand accuracy to a point, I do not understand this attempt to suggest that the reporting by our Vice President was "incomplete to the point of being inaccurate" or similar. I think the critics you cite were accurate in that you have dipped into the consipiracy theory dirt pile along with the internet nutballs, Fox News and about 65% of the Republican Party.
Like a lot of people I do not care one bit what actually happened, nor do I call into question the honesty of those who attended the proceedings. Secret operations are by their nature messy and secret.
What I care about is that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Even if the story is fake and he's caputured or gravely injured on life support in some secret location I don't care. He's out.
And I hope our President gets busy on the others on the list including the head of ISIL and completes the job before he leaves office.
Like a lot of people I do not care one bit what actually happened, nor do I call into question the honesty of those who attended the proceedings. Secret operations are by their nature messy and secret.
What I care about is that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Even if the story is fake and he's caputured or gravely injured on life support in some secret location I don't care. He's out.
And I hope our President gets busy on the others on the list including the head of ISIL and completes the job before he leaves office.
16
Thanks for the clarification, but I think we citizens should continue to parse ALL available accounts, think critically, AND consider fiction like "Wag the Dog" when it comes to finding the truth in our government's actions.
2
That picture, of the war council of sorts, depicting everyone watching the bin Laden operation in operations in realtime will no doubt go down in history books. Maybe the title would be something along the line of how the 9/11 revenge would look like.
So many people too have criticized the mouth-covering prose of Hillary Clinton in the picture, that as the only (major) female player at the table, she almost looks timid and worrisome (versus all the "power prose" of almost every other lesser guys in that picture). This is one of those moments in which I remind myself time and again, that as a woman, I would gesture less, I would not speak in some giggly girlie tone of voice, and I would hold my hands down (rather than to my face, as HC did here), that a power prose really can convey a lot of unspoken message about me or even an accomplished woman like HC in order to be taken seriously.
So many people too have criticized the mouth-covering prose of Hillary Clinton in the picture, that as the only (major) female player at the table, she almost looks timid and worrisome (versus all the "power prose" of almost every other lesser guys in that picture). This is one of those moments in which I remind myself time and again, that as a woman, I would gesture less, I would not speak in some giggly girlie tone of voice, and I would hold my hands down (rather than to my face, as HC did here), that a power prose really can convey a lot of unspoken message about me or even an accomplished woman like HC in order to be taken seriously.
9
As a guy, I don't see Hillary Clinton's position in the photo (hand over mouth) as necessarily emotionally reactive or timid at all. She looks concentrated to me, like everyone else in the picture. I often have a hand on my chin or mouth when I'm concentrating on something. The imputation that the photo is of them watching OBL being shot or the helicopter crash is specious; they could just be watching a situation report. They look tense and concentrated, but not startled or expressing strong emotion besides that.
1
The story about Biden is a good example of why he would not make a good president. He manages to come down firmly on both sides of an argument. With all due respect for his personal issues that weighed on his decision not to run, it still took a long time for him to come to that decision despite the fact that it was rather clear that his candidacy would have been difficult, futile, and damaging to the party.
4
I see more an internecine journalistic posturing than hard facts here.
CNN and other media have reported that Vice President Biden stated earlier on several occasions and different ways that he took a cautious approach at the cabinet and thereafter, even omitting to say in one recitation of his subsequent conversation with the President that he told the President to "go for it."
http:///2015/10/20/politics/joe-biden-osama-bin-laden-raid/
In any event, since most politicians assiduously follow Mark Twin's advice to "economize it," we're not likely to learn the truth.
CNN and other media have reported that Vice President Biden stated earlier on several occasions and different ways that he took a cautious approach at the cabinet and thereafter, even omitting to say in one recitation of his subsequent conversation with the President that he told the President to "go for it."
http:///2015/10/20/politics/joe-biden-osama-bin-laden-raid/
In any event, since most politicians assiduously follow Mark Twin's advice to "economize it," we're not likely to learn the truth.
7
It is understandable that the US will not want to reveal the actual source who provided the lead to OBL - and perhaps Hersh's version may be correct. But to extrapolate and pronounce the entire event as a charade is a stretch. Just look at all the people who are watching the events in the Situation Room. Imagine trying to "herd them" to play charades. It's also possible that Pakistan was warned just after the attack started - and told not to interfere. Revelation of this advance warning could easily topple the Government in Pakistan and so it is prudent to change the story for "local consumption." Once the US has found OBL, Pakistan's only option is to plead ignorance - using incompetence as an excuse. Their people have heard that explanation before. With the helicopter crashing unexpectedly, the charge of incompetence extended to the military and the intelligence org was a better cover than to make the true facts of the raid public and help the proud Pakistanis understand why the military did not interfere - as the US requested. The veins of skepticism seem to be absent in journalists who cover politics and the public is suffering. We don't want that disease to spread. It is alarming when you see that even someone as famous as Hersh can become infected.
7
In his original article, Mahler could have done some real reporting himself, spoken to officials like Joe Biden, and discovered new discrepancies in the "officially sourced version of events." Such an effort would be unimpeachable.
But Mahler didn't do that. He published an article in which most sources simply speculated about the possibility that the government lied significantly to the public about the raid. Though Mahler hadn't collected any evidence to warrant such a grand revision, he presented the government's story as a "constructed narrative" that had become "accepted truth." And the aritlce's inflammatory title—"What Do We Really Know About Osama Bin Laden's Death?"—strongly implied that almost the entire official story is wrong. That was "quite a leap" for Mahler to make, and that's why Bowden and others considered it illegitimate.
But Mahler didn't do that. He published an article in which most sources simply speculated about the possibility that the government lied significantly to the public about the raid. Though Mahler hadn't collected any evidence to warrant such a grand revision, he presented the government's story as a "constructed narrative" that had become "accepted truth." And the aritlce's inflammatory title—"What Do We Really Know About Osama Bin Laden's Death?"—strongly implied that almost the entire official story is wrong. That was "quite a leap" for Mahler to make, and that's why Bowden and others considered it illegitimate.
43
If Mahler's cover story had been as studiously mild as this blog post, nobody would have objected! Of course the "first draft of history" gets amended over time. But Mahler's article was speculative and insinuating in a way that was jarring to see in the Times.
Without offering evidence, he sneered at "the sheer improbability" of the "government's version of events," which "asked us to believe that Obama sent 23 SEALs on a seemingly suicidal mission." Mahler quoted Robert Baer, a retired spy, dismissing the government's account as sheer fiction. ("It's all sort of hokey, the whole thing.") He promoted Carlotta Gall's unsubstantiated guesses about what the government *might* have lied about: "‘I have no proof, but the more I think about it and the more I talk to Pakistani friends, the more I think it’s probably true that Kayani and Pasha were in on it." Again without evidence, Mahler gave his endorsement to the theory that the raid was initiated not by sustained intelligence but by a secret tipoff, writing, "Intuitively, the notion of a walk-in makes sense." He condescendingly implied that Mark Bowden was a pawn in the "American storytelling machine." Mahler's loaded words—"myth," "mythology," "mythmaking"—suggested that he was dismantling a lie.
The cover story didn't modestly note that history gets "refined" over time. It suggested that Obama's account of the raid was likely a multi-facted "myth" involving many members of his Administration. Yet it offered zero proof.
Without offering evidence, he sneered at "the sheer improbability" of the "government's version of events," which "asked us to believe that Obama sent 23 SEALs on a seemingly suicidal mission." Mahler quoted Robert Baer, a retired spy, dismissing the government's account as sheer fiction. ("It's all sort of hokey, the whole thing.") He promoted Carlotta Gall's unsubstantiated guesses about what the government *might* have lied about: "‘I have no proof, but the more I think about it and the more I talk to Pakistani friends, the more I think it’s probably true that Kayani and Pasha were in on it." Again without evidence, Mahler gave his endorsement to the theory that the raid was initiated not by sustained intelligence but by a secret tipoff, writing, "Intuitively, the notion of a walk-in makes sense." He condescendingly implied that Mark Bowden was a pawn in the "American storytelling machine." Mahler's loaded words—"myth," "mythology," "mythmaking"—suggested that he was dismantling a lie.
The cover story didn't modestly note that history gets "refined" over time. It suggested that Obama's account of the raid was likely a multi-facted "myth" involving many members of his Administration. Yet it offered zero proof.
37
It is understandable that the US will not want to reveal the actual source who provided the lead to OBL - and perhaps Hersh's version may be correct. But to extrapolate and pronounce the entire event as a charade is a stretch. Just look at all the people who are watching the events in the Situation Room. Imagine trying to "herd them" to play charades. It's also possible that Pakistan was warned just after the attack started - and told not to interfere. Revelation of this advance warning could easily topple the Government in Pakistan and so it is prudent to change the story for "local consumption." Once the US has found OBL, Pakistan's only option is to plead ignorance - using incompetence as an excuse. Their people have heard that explanation before. With the helicopter crashing unexpectedly, the charge of incompetence extended to the military and the intelligence org was a better cover than to make the true facts of the raid public and help the proud Pakistanis understand why the military did not interfere - as the US requested. The veins of skepticism seem to be absent in journalists who cover politics and the public is suffering. We don't want that disease to spread. It is alarming when you see that even someone as famous as Hersh can become infected.
This is strangely like life imitating The West Wing. The difference is that here everyone knows that the President ordered a murder and what is slowly leaking out is how he got the chance to do so.
In reference to the killing of Bin Laden: I thought at the time that it was a good thing, mostly because it would enable the US to leave Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the US missed the opportunity to leave, having avenged itself on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So the killing of Bin Laden proved to be as irrelevant as Bush indicated it was, when he said I paraphrase) that he didn't stay up nights worrying about Bin Laden whereabouts.
1
Not long ago, assassination was illegal, immoral and disgusting. Now that we do it, it has become "OK", but only to the morally blind.
2
It's sad, and often disturbing, how little people know about the methods, goals and ethics of professional journalism. That's been the source of our democracy's great failures in the last quarter-century: a lazy press that creates an uninformed public. And now we have this new Frankenstein's monster: ideological infotainment, of the kind perfected by FOX News to muddy the waters even further. This piece, and the original it's expanding upon, are good examples of what exploratory/explanatory investigative reporting should be.
I must have read a different story. The magazine story I read concerned Seymour Hersh's piece in the London Review of Books, which challenged all previous accounts of the Bin Laden raid -- such as Mark Bowden's -- and declared that these previous accounts have perpetuated an elaborate lie by the U.S. government, from the President on down. The magazine story I read seemed to conclude that we just can't make a fair judgment between Hersh's shocking and sensational conspiracy narrative and the previously reported accounts. But the differences are not just in peripheral details, such as what Biden said to Obama; they are radically at odds at the most basic level. Instead of dismissing this conflict so casually, what the Times should have done, and must do now, is get to the bottom of it.
18
The account of the bombing of the MSF hospital in Kunduz changed a few times in a few days - and from the US general in charge. Its absurd to believe that a government puts out all there is to know - to the contrary, every major story which did not take place in public view is is managed to emphasize the positive and minimize the damaging, within certain limits of course. Mahler's not only right, his view on this matter is simply incontestable.
4
Using Biden's tidbit to justify accepting Sy Hersh's or Carlotta Gall's complete rewrite of overwhelmingly corroborated narrative is beneath contempt. No story that involves more than two people is ever narrated without minor holes and discrepancies that do not change the overall trajectory of the story. Otherwise, every conspiracy nut on the internet can dig up a missing cross on a t to essentially discredit any official story, from the moon landing to 9/11 to the Holocaust.
38
This comment is a perfect example of what the author cautions against in the last paragraph: revisiting the event as if there are only two options, either to accept the initial account as accurate and truthful in every respect, or to indulge in paranoid discounting of it as "propaganda". Please point to the paragraph where Mr. Mahler says that the Biden detail justifies a "complete rewrite". On the contrary, the penultimate paragraph says that "Changing a single detail of the story — albeit an important one — does not undermine the broader narrative of the operation. But it does demonstrate the simple fact that certain parts of this narrative may be less settled than some might have you believe."
Repeat: "does not undermine the broader narrative of the operation". How could Mr. Mahler have stated that any more explicitly or clearly to have avoided misinterpretation?
Repeat: "does not undermine the broader narrative of the operation". How could Mr. Mahler have stated that any more explicitly or clearly to have avoided misinterpretation?
@Wolfe, did you read the original cover story titled "What do we really know about Osama Bin Laden's death"? It completely "undermined the broader narrative of the operation" by elevating Sy Hersh's uncorroborated and unsubstantiated story and Carlotta Gall's, in her own words, speculation about what must really happened. You and I must have a different understanding of the phrase, "undermined the broader narrative of the operation."
1