Hersh titled "The Killing of Osama bin Laden" was published in the London Review of Books. The U.S. account of the killing was that bin Laden had been located through surveillance of his courier; that Pakistan was unaware of the operation; and that he was killed when he did not surrender; Hersh instead reported, based on anonymous sources, that bin Laden had been a prisoner of Pakistan since 2006; that he was given up to the U.S. by a rogue Pakistani official in exchange for the cash reward; that Pakistan had full knowledge of the operation, and that bin Laden was assassinated. Hersh later detailed this alternative account in his 2016 book, The Killing of Osama bin Laden. Hersh's story was criticised by reporters, media commentators, academics and U.S. government officials. Politico's Jack Shafer described the story as "a messy omelet of a piece that offers little of substance for readers or journalists who may want to verify its many claims". Peter Bergen disputed Hersh's contentions, saying they "defy common sense"; Hersh responded that Bergen simply "views himself as the trustee of all things Bin Laden". A similar dismissal of Hersh's account came from former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell. A former intelligence official who had direct knowledge of the operation speculated that the Pakistanis, who were furious that the operation took place without being detected by them, were behind the story as a way to save face. In an article for the Columbia Journalism Review, the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, wrote that "barely any follow-up reporting has been done to corroborate or refute his [Hersh's] claims", and that Slate, for example, "ran five hit jobs on Hersh within 36 hours". On May 12, the Pakistan-based journalist Amir Mir wrote that the "walk-in" who had provided the CIA with the information about bin Laden's whereabouts was Brigadier Usman Khalid of ISI. Syrian Civil War On December 8, 2013, the London Review of Books published "Whose Sarin?", an article rejected by the New Yorker and Washington Post. Hersh wrote that the Obama administration had used "cherry picked intelligence" to try to justify a military strike against Syria after the Ghouta chemical attack and had ignored evidence the Syrian rebels could also have obtained Sarin gas. The White House denied the allegations made in the article, and a number of Syria and chemical weapons experts