Syria: a civil war (closed)

[ganulv]

Does Liddle answer [the] question [“What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising”]?

Not close.

Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:

But I still do not see much evidence of burgeoning fury and rebellion among ordinary Syrians; as Hillary Clinton put it: ‘You don’t see uprisings across Syria the way you did in Libya.’

At the very least — the very least — you can say with some certainty that the popular opposition to Assad is far less widespread in Syria than was the opposition to the government in Bahrain, for example.

I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire: “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

[JMA]

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:

Oh he also no doubt believes he has answered his question... as do some around here

To that I respond with my favourite Bertrand Russell quotation:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell

I suggest that our man Liddle (and those who support his view) are ready to clutch at any straw which they see as building a case against intervention in Syria or arming the various opposition groups.

I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire: “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

If I may suggest that you are getting ahead of yourself here (much like Entropy did) by not dealing with the initial question.

I would ask Liddle why he asked the question when he knew (or should have) that he did not have the answer. What was his point? Meeting a blog deadline? He gets paid by the word? What? Did his blog entry inform? I could go on...

I respect Russell for his honesty and moral courage - as apart from the physical (lower level) variety which many of us have displayed in battle at one time or other. I have mentioned this before (around here somewhere) that the need to protect their pensions has made many generals (both Brit and US) moral cowards to the cost of the respective militaries and their countries.

Russell again:

Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. - Bertrand Russell