Thanks Kaizar for submitting a story on an interesting topic, but I can't call this good journalism, although some people here have judged it as such. The question comes down to trust and to whether arguments are based on logic or polemic. Even if you disagree w. someone's stance, do you think they are fair and accurate, and thus can respect their point of view? The author's total evidence seems to be a report by Martin Bailey. She does not provide any reasonable summary of the limitations of Bailey and her attacks on the other archaeologists seem ad hominem and irrelevant ( because they took a stance against the war they cannot be trusted to be scientific.) Professor Larry Rothfield's response to Bailey makes me think she ... More »

Some very basic research on this author undermines the credibility of her story. Melik Kaylan is an Istanbul born, NY writer whose controversial pieces include arguing the facts of the Armenian genocide and defending Ann Coulter's calling for violence against liberals. While the "facts" about looting of precious artifacts in Iraq are yet to be clarified, this article does not address what actions the US did, or did not, implement to protect these sites. I know, for example, that employees at the museum are credited with having saved the artifacts that survived there. As for Kaylan's contentions that reports of destruction were spread as anti-US propaganda, Kaylan offers no evidence. I'm thrilled that the archeological sites did ... More »

An intereting story that suggests there is some hope that archeological sites in Irag have avoided serious damage during the recent war. The author seems wel informed but stiil is not certain.

This piece highlight's the prevailing narrative about the looting of Iraq's cultural heritage in the wake of the American invasion, and suggests that the current narrative may be wrong, or exaggerated. It leaves more questions than answers, but does a good job of raising questions that should be asked.

So glad to have the record set straight. Every left-leaning friend I have cited early reports on looting, and the subsequent loss of Iraq's heritage, as clear evidence of U.S. incompetence. Some went further and claimed that the U.S. troops DID effectively guard anything having to do with oil, thereby "proving" that Iraq's oil reserves were our only real interest. I wonder now if they will bother to correct the record.

If all journalistic endeavor adhered to this standard, the public would be: 1. Extremely well-informed. 2. Excruciatingly bored. As close to a fair expression of a partisan issue as I've read. Moreover, it lead to an informative half-hour diversion researching the author's contextual use of "a priori." Excellent piece.

This news analysis provides much useful information about the charges that Iraqi historical sites were being looted. It was a major charge of the far-right isolationists in 2003. But it was quickly disproved, as the author points out, as the missing artifacts turned up. The author cites several sources independent of the allied governments and also cites some authors of mistaken claims about looting and destruction.