Caveat Lector: The News from Kobani

 

Ricochet members are fairly sophisticated consumers of the mainstream media, so perhaps what I’m about to say is already obvious to you. I bring it up because I was speaking yesterday to someone of whom I’d say, usually, “He’s a careful reader.” I was surprised because he remarked, casually–he threw this in, we were talking about something else–that he was delighted to read that the airstrikes were working near Kobani.

“They are?” I said. “What makes you say that?”

“Didn’t you see that in the news?”

I hadn’t seen that at all, I said. Where did he read it? He told me. After I hung up, I looked at the article. Yes, I’d read it–but I had certainly not come to the same conclusion.

Let’s look at it together:

(Reuters) – Two days of heavy air strikes by U.S. warplanes have slowed an advance by Islamic State militants against Kurdish forces defending the Syrian border town of Kobani.

The byline is Humeyra Pamuk’s. I’ve followed her reporting closely for a while and absolutely trust her to get the facts right. I don’t doubt that everything in the article is true in a literal sense.

But first, the headline–for which she’s not responsible–reads:

Ramped-up air strikes stall Islamic State advance on Syrian town

If you read the whole article, you’ll see that in fact it should say:

 US, Turkish officials say air strikes stalling Islamic State advance on Syrian town

That’s quite a big difference. I hardly need to spell out why. Nothing else in the article suggests a good reason to believe this beyond those officials’ assurances.

Let’s continue with the byline:

Mürşitpınar, Turkey

A map might be of use here:

Driving directions to Kobani

I suspect those estimates of the driving times may be inaccurate. I wouldn’t use them in your vacation planning. But more importantly: What’s the first thing a critical reader ought to note about this? Well, unless Humeyra’s developed superpowers, she can’t actually get a close look at what’s happening in Kobani from there. At best, she could have a vague aerial view, through binoculars, by standing on an elevated point.

Now look at the bottom of the article:

Additional reporting Seda Sezer and Dasha Afansieva in Istanbul, Oliver Holmes and Sylvia Westall in Beirut and Lesley Wroughton and David Alexander in Washington.

Get it?

Now, before anyone says, “Well of course they’re not in Kobani, what idiot journalist would go to Kobani right now?” No need to say that. I completely agree. I am not for a second saying that any reporter should be there. I am not criticising Humeyra for reporting from the closest place she can get on the other side of the border. That’s just what she should be doing. A Reuters journalist who tries to go to Kobani right now would be creating even more risk for the special forces who would have to be sent to try to rescue her when she’s kidnapped. That rescue mission would probably fail. Her capture and execution would be not only an inherently terrible thing, but another PR bonanza for ISIS. My complaint is not that no one is doing the reporting in Kobani. My complaint, or my concern, is that many Americans still have no idea how read between the lines of a story like this—which you’d think every American adult would, by now, since the US has been at war for pretty much all of most Americans’ recent memory. But my conversation yesterday suggests that this isn’t the case.

Let’s continue.  

Two days of heavy air strikes by U.S. warplanes have slowed an advance by Islamic State militants against Kurdish forces defending the Syrian border town of Kobani.

The key information is right in the next line. It isn’t hidden at all. It should be read, in one’s mind, thus:

Two days of heavy air strikes by U.S. warplanes have slowed an advance by Islamic State militants against Kurdish forces defending the Syrian border town of Kobani. SOURCE: TURKISH AND US OFFICIALS

Let me repeat: Not one person who wrote or contributed to this article is an eyewitness. The sources seem to be officials of governments with a recent, not a distant, track record of lying their heads off. These officials, moreover, have every good reason to lie. I would wager that these officials, whoever they are, believe that they would be derelict in their duties if they got on the horn and had a very frank chat with Reuters about how well or badly the air campaign is going–and I might even agree with them.

Let’s continue:

The tempo of coalition air strikes has increased dramatically, with U.S. fighter and bomber planes carrying out 14 raids against Islamic State targets near Kobani on Wednesday and Thursday, the U.S. military’s Central Command said.

In other words: SOURCE: THE CENTRAL COMMAND OF A MILITARY THAT IS WAGING A WAR.  If suddenly and in defiance of all human history that sounds like a credible source to you, then you want to believe. I am not faulting anyone for reporting that they said this; of course that should be reported. I have no doubt that the quotes are accurate. I am just pointing out that from this article, we really have no special reason to believe that this is happening.

The strikes had seen the militants’ advance slow, but “the security situation on the ground in Kobani remains tenuous,” the U.S. statement added.

Tenuous? Really? No kidding.

The four-week Islamic State assault has been seen as a test of U.S. President Barack Obama’s air strike strategy …

Yes, actually, now that you mention it, and wait—aren’t there midterms coming up? And hasn’t there been a lot of criticism of this strategy? I wonder if that’s relevant? Well, moving right along:

Kurdish leaders say the town cannot survive without arms and ammunition …

I believe they said this. I believe it’s probably true. But it is also what they would say. Do you think they’re going to say, “Nah, don’t send us weapons, we’ve got it under control?” Do you think they’d say, “Look, this is hopeless, and whatever weapons you send us are just going to end up in ISIS’s hands?” Again, nothing wrong with reporting that someone said this (a source, even one that tells us which Kurdish group or groups the sources claim to lead and roughly their positions on that leadership hierarchy—military? political? deputy? top?—would be nice to have, but perhaps they would only speak on condition this be left completely opaque.)

A defeat in Kobani would be a major setback for the Islamists and a boost for Obama.

It would be, I agree. And whether or not that’s happening—and again don’t get me wrong, it might be—I’d sure want to suggest it might be happening, whether I was Obama or anyone else whose fingerprints were on this plan. Especially before midterms.

Heavy and light weapons fire were audible from across the border in Turkey on Thursday afternoon.

Light weapons fire was audible from 26 miles away? I’ve never tested the acoustic conditions in Mürşitpınar, but I’m guessing this should read:

Rumor in Mürşitpınar was that heavy and light weapons fire were audible from across the border in Turkey on Thursday afternoon,

or

“Damn, what was that? That was loud!”

I should also note: people have been hearing “weapons fire” from “across the border” for a very long time—I can’t remember when I first started seeing Tweets about the sound of something that could be “fire” from “across the border,” but it was a long time ago. I don’t know from this what changed, exactly, on Thursday afternoon. Continuing:

Turkish security forces moved civilians and media away from hills overlooking Kobani as the fighting raged.

Good for them, making sure civilians and the media stay safe. No one familiar with the Turkish security forces could ever be so cynical as to think they might have moved the media because the official line didn’t match up to what was in plain sight. Onward:

Six air strikes hit eastern Kobani and there was fierce fighting between Kurdish and Islamist fighters overnight on Wednesday, but neither side made significant gains, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Again, not that she’s failed to make this clear, but let me rephrase for triple-clarity:

neither side made significant gains, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, WHICH IS BRITISH-BASED. PROBABLY IN LONDON. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THEY DON’T LIST THEIR ADDRESS ON THEIR WEBSITE, BUT NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE IN BRITAIN, IT WOULD BE QUITE HARD TO SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING IN KOBANI.

With that reservation, I’ll also add that over time, I’ve found the SOHR quite reliable, and they may well have many contacts among direct eyewitnesses. But note, again, what they said, and what is written as clearly as the English language permits. I’ll repeat it:

neither side made significant gains

This is compatible with the headline, “Airstrikes stall Islamic State advance.” It is also compatible with the headline,  “Airstrikes fail to stall Islamic State advance.” All depends how fast they’ve been advancing so far and how fast they’re expected to keep advancing. That information isn’t here.

Let’s continue:

Kurdish fighters later managed to seize a street in Kobani that had been held by militants, the Observatory said.

The Observatory offered no further details about what they think Kurdish fighters have managed to do, suggesting to me either that this is all they’ve heard or that this is the most impressive part of what they’ve heard. On the basis of this information, I would not conclude that the air strikes are working, at least by any reasonable man’s definition of “working.” I would have liked to know which street they seized and to see that street on a map. But maybe no one knows.

A journalist in Kobani said air strikes had allowed Kurdish forces to go on the offensive for the first time since Islamic State launched their assault four weeks ago.

I apologize from the heart if this is the world’s bravest and most accurate journalist, which he might be. But my experience of this part of the world has not led me to feel great confidence in the commitment to accuracy of local journalists. Quite the opposite, in fact. So that’s not my default assumption. In the next line, we have a direct quote from this journalist:

“We walked past some (YPG) positions in the east yesterday that were held by IS only two days ago,” Abdulrahman Gok told Reuters by telephone.

I didn’t recognize his name, so I Googled it. I can find no reference to him other than the one in this article. I would understand if he asked for his real name to be concealed for his safety, but that’s not what this says: It says “Abdulrahman Gok.” Beats me what this means.

“Officials here say the air strikes are sufficient but ground action is needed to wipe out IS. YPG is perfectly capable of doing that, but more weapons are needed,” he said, referring to the acronym for the Kurdish People’s Protection Units.

Again, sounds as if that could be true to me, but also exactly what they would say.

Continuing:

Islamic State’s Kobani offensive is one of several it has conducted after a series of lightning advances since June, which have sent shockwaves through the region and sparked alarm in Western capitals. 

I can absolutely vouch for the accuracy of that last clause. As an eyewitness: I am in a Western capital, and I personally have been alarmed.

I’ll let you read the rest of the article for yourselves; suffice to say, I’d read lines like the following with a certain amount of skepticism—or indeed, I’d just read them carefully:

A Pentagon spokesman said on Thursday [that talks with Turkey] had gone “very, very well.” …

” … our team’s coming away with, I think, a general good report here, but I wouldn’t get ahead of anything Turkey may or may not do,” Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters.

One more time: There is nothing wrong with this reporting. There are a few places where, as an editor, I might have said, “We can’t use this—the sourcing is just too vague,” but perhaps the editor knew more about the source than I do, and perhaps it was a reasonable call. This is otherwise a solid, standard Reuters report; it tells us what was said by a particular set of very important sources, such as US military spokesmen. And it’s possible that all of this adds up to good news.

But I just do not see how a careful reader could conclude that we’ve got good news on our hands here. Not from this.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_5186 Inactive
    user_5186
    @LarryKoler

    Thanks, Claire – a tour de force explanation of how to imbibe the news (at least during this weird time in our nation’s history). And thanks very much for the background. I confess I haven’t been watching the news carefully on this. My sister and husband chose this time to move back to Ankara (from Seattle) but because they are both apologists for the Turks and leftists (bad combination) I don’t ask them for information about what is going on. My sister just peddles happy talk so we talk about other things, instead — family stuff and their new digs, etc.

    • #1
  2. user_9474 Member
    user_9474
    @

    Aeschylus “In war, the first casualty is truth.” Aeschylus lived from 456 B.C. to 524 B.C.

    • #2
  3. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    Claire, any second thoughts about leaving the halcyon precincts of ignoring the news and starting to pay attention again?

    • #3
  4. user_5186 Inactive
    user_5186
    @LarryKoler

    Jerry Carroll:Aeschylus “In war, the first casualty is truth.” Aeschylus lived from 456 B.C. to 524 B.C.

    And, of course, what’s especially interesting and germane about this post is that with Obama’s administration we were really already at war with the truth.

    • #4
  5. user_75648 Thatcher
    user_75648
    @JohnHendrix

    Thanks Claire.  I appreciate your demonstration of how to parse the news.

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Jerry Carroll:Aeschylus “In war, the first casualty is truth.” Aeschylus lived from 456 B.C. to 524 B.C.

    A little nuance added a couple of millennia later:

    In wartime, the truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.  – Winston Churchill

    There are a bunch of actors here, and most of them have a motive to tell a stretcher or two.

    • #6
  7. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Claire Berlinski: Ricochet members are fairly sophisticated consumers of the mainstream media,

    Clearly, this isn’t the case.

    1) Kobani is the Kurdish name for the city of Ayn-Al-Arab. It’s located no more than 200m…meters…from Mürşitpınar in Turkey. Your map, showing 26km, is the center of the “district” (or whatever the Syrian equivalent is). It’s not the location of the town.

    So clearly, if you’re sitting 200m away from the fighting, you can not only see what’s going on, and hear, but you also have very close contacts with all the Kurds crossing the border regularly at that point.

    2) I’m not sure I follow any of the “critique” here. What is the problem, specifically? That there are reports from both the US and Kurdish fighters on the ground that they are making headway? And this is not…sufficient…because the sources are biased?

    Can you name me any other military operation, in the history of the US, or any other nation, which did not rely almost exclusively on such sources? I.e., unbiased eyewitness accounts of a…combat situation…are not only almost never existent, but they are also almost always wrong or useless. Civilians, or journalists or whatever, are in no position to know what the situation is.

    3) There are several sources which are following the fighting rather closely in Kobani. It’s not as if all news is coming out of US military announcements of the event. Here, for example, is a map of the current situation there (as of yesterday)

    file_php_id_10677

    4) So it seems to me what we have here is…yet another…attempt to politicize situations, not based on any evidence, facts etc., but rather the need score cheap political points on an audience which clearly isn’t going to be able to distinguish between facts…and fiction.

    One can hope, that after the November elections, we can get back to discussing facts and reality, and not feel the need to fictionalize on how much the…government is lying to us…in order to score political points. One can hope, that this state of affairs that has gripped Ricochet (and much of the conservative media), will be a temporary one.

    But it surely isn’t a very pleasant development.

    • #7
  8. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Claire!!,

    You are back, thank Gd.

    They think I am in love with the A10.  They just don’t understand the reality of the tactics here.  The bombers are coming from aircraft carriers.  They can’t stay over the target long.  They are firing very big smart weapons but those aren’t what is needed.  An A10 is very devastating weopon on ground troups. The A10 packs a huge array guided smaller weapons ending with its monsterous gatling gun.  It can land on a dirt field.  It is designed to stay over the target for a long time and refuel and reload quickly and go back out and slaughter the enemy some more.

    What the Kurds need is for Turkey to allow us to fly A10s out of Turkey.  The Peshmerga have guts and their backs are against the wall.  An A10 can surgically come in and rip ISIS to shreds street by street if necessary.

    I’m not in love with the A10.  I’m in love with what works!!!

    What do you think?

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #8
  9. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Claire, what is your response to this article in the Telegraph? The title “We are winning in Kobani”, which is supposedly a first hand account by a Kurdish resistance fighter who was in Turkey to deliver the dead bodies of his fellow fighters before returning to Kobani. This was linked at Hotair website this afternoon. I will post the URL just in case.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11171939/Inside-Kobane-We-are-winning.-The-town-will-be-a-cemetery-for-Isil.html

    • #9
  10. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Claire: I think the reason for optimism is that when the fighting in Kobani started I thought the town was going to fall in short order. It hasn’t yet, and the Kurs seem to be hanging on, maybe just barely, but they are hanging on. It is hard to imagine the air strikes aren’t in part responsible for this. Are they sufficient to turn the tide? We will have to see.

    I will grant this, Obama has all political interest to make sure this town does not fall before the first Tuesday in November. My personal summation of the man is that as long as his political interests manage to align with what needs to be done he can be counted on to do what is right. I don’t know what this means for Kobani after the election. Maybe ISIS will not be able to maintain their offensive for that long, but from what I read about them in Syria they are tenacious. Kobani is far from any ground support. They are besieged and so time is on ISIS’ side. Especially if our media loses interest in the story.

    Obama is moved much more by public opinion and political pressure than anything from what I can tell. For the sake of those poor people in that town I hope we can keep it up.

    (This comment has been edited, because I foolishly left off an “n’t” from the word “are” in the third sentence in the first paragraph. I do think our air strikes in Kobani are helping the Kurds fend off ISIS. I’m sorry for any confusion.)

    • #10
  11. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    It is moderately pleasing to know I am not alone in finding the most recent reports regarding Kobane… disturbing.

    Week after week little has emerged from this city but relentless reports of disaster and the inevitable collapse to ISIS and yet now apparently the threat is gone. With little explanation and even less reporting from those on the ground we are suddenly told in the past few days that all has been resolved, the crisis is over.

    I have always had at best modest confidence in the reporting done by news organizations here and abroad ( somewhat more in the former than the latter, a difference which cannot be measured with a razor’s edge ) yet this latest chills my blood.

    Perhaps more will emerge soon which will substantially confirm all I have read in the past few days yet at the moment it is difficult not to be troubled by the rousing choruses of victory that are being reported with little if anything to back them.

    • #11
  12. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Valiuth: It is hard to imagine the air strikes are in part responsible for this.

    Why would that be?

    Valiuth: I will grant this Obama has all political interest to make sure this town does not fall before the first Tuesday in November. My personal summation of the man is that as long as his political interests manage to align with what needs to be done he can be counted on to do what is right. I don’t know what this means for Kobani after the election.

    Is it necessary to turn everything into a political issue?

    Or if it is necessary to turn everything into a political issue, is it also necessary to therefore ignore reality and go so far as to…question the truthfulness of the US military? (or every other observer in the area, for that matter?)

    • #12
  13. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Roberto: I have always had at best modest confidence in the reporting done by news organizations here and abroad ( somewhat more in the former than the latter, a difference which cannot be measured with a razor’s edge ) yet this latest chills my blood.

    A bit of an over-reaction here, don’t you think? Especially considering that apparently no one here even knows where Kobani…is…on a map ;)

    I’d suggest that if you’re really interested in following a story of events 5,000 miles away in a town you never heard off before last Tuesday, and can’t even find on a map…the first place to start might be local media there. They do have them ;) Google translate will help you, if you don’t speak Kurdish.

    Of course, if you’re really so interested as to have your “blood chill” over, and not simply interested in political points.

    Especially considering that no one is saying the threat is gone, nor was this such a “sudden” turn of events. The US has been bombing there for a while now.

    • #13
  14. user_5186 Inactive
    user_5186
    @LarryKoler

    AIG: One can hope, that after the November elections, we can get back to discussing facts and reality, and not feel the need to fictionalize on how much the…government is lying to us…in order to score political points. One can hope, that this state of affairs that has gripped Ricochet (and much of the conservative media), will be a temporary one. But it surely isn’t a very pleasant development.

    At least admit that there is a difference between Obama’s lies to keep the American electorate (specifically) in the dark and the normal wartime lies to keep the enemy off balance — even while having to lie to the domestic press. Both Turkish and Obama administration officials are mostly trying to keep America out of the skirmish — by any means necessary and at least until after the election.

    We need to keep our eyes on those (like Obama and his minions) who see Americans as the source of the problems in the world. We need to be skeptical all the way up to the next election and then again in the runup to the 2016 elections. Don’t forget how traumatized we are with Obama at the helm.

    But, thanks for the clarification on the proximity of Kobani on the border. Very interesting and very important. If Humeyra Pamuk was that close why did she have to quote officials, I wonder?

    • #14
  15. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Larry Koler: At least admit that there is a difference between Obama’s lies to keep the American electorate (specifically) in the dark and the normal wartime lies to keep the enemy off balance

    You don’t think it necessary to first have some…oh I don’t know…evidence of said lies, before accusing people of lies?

    It helps to make a case.

    Larry Koler: We need to be skeptical all the way up to the next election and then again in the runup to the 2016 elections. Don’t forget how traumatized we are with Obama at the helm.

    We need to be reasonable and be the grown ups in the room. Hysteria and constant crying of wolf…ain’t it. Surely common sense seems to have gone out the window these last few months on the “conservative” side, as the specters of “government lies” seems to be around every corner.

    Larry Koler: But, thanks for the clarification on the proximity of Kobani on the border. Very interesting and very important. If Humeyra Pamuk was that close why did she have to quote officials, I wonder?

    Because as I said, how do you think a journalist is going to be able to figure out the…combat situation…on a front? Combat which involves at most a handful of men fighting in streets or off in distant hills. It isn’t something any civilian, least of all any journalist, is going to be able to gauge visually.

    Also, the YPG headquarters running the war there is located, as far as I know, on the border with Turkey, or even on the Turkish side. She’s talking to those people regularly.

    • #15
  16. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    AIG:

    3) There are several sources which are following the fighting rather closely in Kobani. It’s not as if all news is coming out of US military announcements of the event. Here, for example, is a map of the current situation there (as of yesterday)

    file_php_id_10677

    You have raised so many interesting points AIG, setting the others aside for the moment I am curious as to why you invest some particular weight into the work done my @maroarchy of the “Tripoli Sham”.

    One cannot help but love some of his latest tweets:

    AIG truth

    Oh, those wacky Israelis always looking to the fun joy ride of running over Palestinian children.

    Truly it is a pleasure to have you here, your insightful reflections contribute so much to the broader discussion.

    • #16
  17. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    AIG:

    A bit of an over-reaction here, don’t you think? Especially considering that apparently no one here even knows where Kobani…is…on a map ;)

    I’d suggest that if you’re really interested in following a story of events 5,000 miles away in a town you never heard off before last Tuesday, and can’t even find on a map…

    Speak for yourself sir.

    • #17
  18. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    Things are only clear in retrospect in War.  At the time it happens everything is at risk. Victory is obtained by a combination of cold calculation and a willingness to risk all for principle when the time is right.

    One thing is sure about the Obamites.  If you truly hate your own country’s interests and think it a negative force in the world then you certainly can not lead your country’s forces in battle.

    Well surely not like this.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #18
  19. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Roberto: Oh, those wacky Israelis always looking to the fun joy ride of running over Palestinian children. Truly it is a pleasure to have you here, your insightful reflections contribute so much to the broader discussion.

    You never apparently considered the fact that this is just a map of the current state of affairs in the area, and perhaps one shouldn’t draw any additional… insightful conclusions…from it.

    Nonetheless, you may have just provided more evidence of my point as to the lack of reason in these discussions which seek to turn everything into political cheap points.

    PS: BTW, do you think the people whom the “conservatives” want to arm and support in Syria…are pro-Israel? ;)

    Or did the “conservative” position on arming the “moderates” in Syria change over the last 35 minutes (it usually does)?

    • #19
  20. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Claire Berlinski:Ricochet members are fairly sophisticated consumers of the mainstream media, so perhaps what I’m about to say is already obvious to you.

    My complaint, or my concern, is that many Americans still have no idea how read between the lines of a story like this…

    Claire,

    We’re fairly sophisticated? Well!

    Fairly or unfairly, I think I’m a sophisticated consumer of the mainstream media, but I sometimes forget this most fundamental point that you raise. I guess I’m like most Americans in that when I try to read between the lines in a story of this nature all I get is ” “.

    As we scan headlines deciding which stories to read, and land on a story of interest, it’s natural to fall into the “read, then analyze” trap. Thanks for reminding us that as readers we must remember to apply analysis to each sentence as we read. And of course, it’s always essential to “consider the source,” particularly when there is no alternative credible source available to assure objectivity.

    • #20
  21. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    PPS: I wonder, how many people here are aware that YPG and PKK are…communist organizations?

    Imagine all the fun that can be had here given that Obama is deploying US air force assets to support them, and “conservatives” are calling for arming and supporting them.

    rico: particularly when there is no alternative credible source available to assure objectivity.

    So the US military has now joined the ranks of “un-credible” sources? I tells ya! Only in Obama’s America! :p

    • #21
  22. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    AIG:

    Roberto: Oh, those wacky Israelis always looking to the fun joy ride of running over Palestinian children. Truly it is a pleasure to have you here, your insightful reflections contribute so much to the broader discussion.

    You never apparently considered the fact that this is just a map of the current state of affairs in the area, and perhaps one shouldn’t draw any additional… insightful conclusions…from it.

    What in the world do you mean by this?

    I have a host of acquaintances who can derive exactly such a map or better on purely a lark. If I was inclined to purchase a copy of Photoshop, as well as certain maps I could create it myself, it is trivial. The veracity of the source is everything, please explain your comments if you can. They are irrational taken as you have thus far presented them.

    AIG:

    PS: BTW, do you think the people whom the “conservatives” want to arm and support in Syria…are pro-Israel? ;)

    Or did the “conservative” position on arming the “moderates” in Syria change over the last 35 minutes (it usually does)?

    These remarks are simply odd and strange, are you perhaps referring to the positions of McCain or Lindsey Graham? If so, while the pair are certainly loud and bellicose I am surprised you believe the two are some champions of Conservatism, if that is the case you might as well dispense with reason and simply declare Olmpia Snowe the champion of Conservatism in your mind.

    • #22
  23. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    AIG:

    rico: particularly when there is no alternative credible source available to assure objectivity.

    So the US military has now joined the ranks of “un-credible” sources? I tells ya! Only in Obama’s America! :p

    I was speaking more generally, but since you raised the point I would say that providing objective, factual information is not the purpose of US military’s reporting. If their statements correspond with the truth, then great. But the important thing is to succeed in the operation they are engaged in. That sometimes necessitates, shall we say, nuance. That’s fine with me, because military success is far more important than providing information to the public. But the fact that accuracy will sometimes be subordinated is useful to remember as a consumer of news.

    This has nothing to do with Obama. I think you’ve gone overboard with your “anti-Obama” accusation here.

    • #23
  24. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    1) Kobani is the Kurdish name for the city of Ayn-Al-Arab. It’s located no more than 200m…meters…from Mürşitpınar in Turkey. Your map, showing 26km, is the center of the “district” (or whatever the Syrian equivalent is). It’s not the location of the town.

    Hi, yes, this is confusing. Kobani (also spelled Kobanê, Kobanî, and Kobane) is called Ayn al-Arab in Arabic, or more properly Ayn al-ʿArab (They say it’s called عين العرب, on my map, but I don’t read Arabic.) But Kobani, the city, is not necessarily identical to Ayn al-Arab district. The city (which they call Kobani or Ayn al-Arab) is the administrative centre of Ayn al-Arab district. Syria’s divided into 14 muhafazat, or governorates, which are subdivided into 60 manatiq, or districts. Ayn al-Arab is the north-easternmost manatiq of the Aleppo muhafazat. If you’re right up against the border on the Mürşitpınar side, you could walk via Gaziantep Şanlıurfa Yolu right to the northern outskirts of Kobani, the city proper, in about 10 minutes. And there are some reasons to think the fighting is happening in the city proper, as you indicate: mortars falling on the Turkish side of the border, for example. But from other reports, I put together a list of places that seem to be the focus of the strikes–they’ve been reported, variously, in the eastern part of Deir al-zor (about 270 km from the border); near Baiji, six or seven hundred km away from the border, depending on the road, and “near Kobani” according to the same article, but it doesn’t say how near. Other sources report “14” strikes, not six, but don’t say exactly where the strikes hit; (they may be referring to two days’  worth of strikes, not one); other sources say “in and around Kobani” but aren’t clear whether they mean the city proper or the district. The most significant strike reportedly hit oil fields in al Shadadi, which is between Deir al-zor and Hasaka, roughly 270 km from the border.


    I’m guessing–I don’t know this, but it’s logical–that the chief targets are oil wells, refineries and depots. In other reports the Observatory has reported “sniper fire” on the eastern and southeastern edge of Kobani proper (the city). Here’s perhaps a better map. I chose that point in the the southeastern part of Kobani because it was the sort of rough midpoint of all this reported activity; on reflection, maybe I should have chosen a point even further south and east.

    2) I’m not sure I follow any of the “critique” here. What is the problem, specifically? That there are reports from both the US and Kurdish fighters on the ground that they are making headway? And this is not…sufficient…because the sources are biased?

    Not criticising the reporting, per se. I think that’s clear from what I wrote. Just saying that we should take that only for what it’s worth, and that it would be an act of faith to conclude much from it.

    Can you name me any other military operation, in the history of the US, or any other nation, which did not rely almost exclusively on such sources? I.e., unbiased eyewitness accounts of a…combat situation…are not only almost never existent, but they are also almost always wrong or useless.

    That’s my point; we agree.

    Civilians, or journalists or whatever, are in no position to know what the situation is.

    That too is my point; we agree.
    3) There are several sources which are following the fighting rather closely in Kobani. It’s not as if all news is coming out of US military announcements of the event. Here, for example, is a map of the current situation there (as of yesterday)

    file_php_id_10677

    I’d love to take a closer look at that, have you got a link?

    4) So it seems to me what we have here is…yet another…attempt to politicize situations, not based on any evidence, facts etc., but rather the need score cheap political points on an audience which clearly isn’t going to be able to distinguish between facts…and fiction.

    I  suppose in the sense that whenever one speaks of something political, you’re “politicizing” the discussion, but my motivation wasn’t to score cheap points, at least not in any conscious way. I wanted to point out what it seems to me you’re saying: That based on what is being reported, very few firm conclusions may be drawn. This seems clear to both of us, but my conversation yesterday suggested that it isn’t, in fact, clear to at least one other person, who may be representative, so I thought it might be helpful to go over that article for people who may, like me, be so busy that all they read these days are headlines.

    One can hope, that after the November elections, we can get back to discussing facts and reality, and not feel the need to fictionalize on how much the…government is lying to us…in order to score political points. One can hope, that this state of affairs that has gripped Ricochet (and much of the conservative media), will be a temporary one.

    I don’t believe that I said, “the government is lying.” I said, “they may be; they certainly have the motivation; they have done so in the past; and they may even be right to be lying, under the circumstances.” (I don’t want the government to hand ISIS a huge morale and propaganda boost by saying, “It’s not working,” even if it isn’t. There are times when candor is not the value the government should prioritize; this may well be one of them.) But I do think it’s useful to read the news carefully, and to keep in mind, when reading something like this, that the story as reported is, at the very least not well-captured by the headline.

    The larger reason for Americans to think about this now is that my guess–it’s just a guess–is that the airstrikes will be “successful” temporarily because ISIS will respond rationally: they’ll fade away and wait until the strikes stop. But at some point, it will–I’m guessing–become obvious that the only way to hold that territory is to go in with ground troops and occupy it. That’s a very unpleasant thought. No one wants to have it. I hope I’m wrong. But the sooner Americans start considering that seriously and debating whether they’re prepared to do it, the better prepared they’ll be if it turns out to be the reality. That’s my concern, not “scoring points.”

    UPDATE: I apologize for the strange mix of fonts here and I know it’s confusing to read. If anyone knows how to fix this, do let me know.

    • #24
  25. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    Nick Stuart:Claire, any second thoughts about leaving the halcyon precincts of ignoring the news and starting to pay attention again?

    Well, self-evidently, I read this. But that was a mistake. I’m still trying to limit my consumption. Reading an article like this about what’s happening in Syria leaves me ill all day, but still just as powerless to fix the situation. So I think it’s best that I do it as rarely as possible. I read this because it was linked from Drudge and because the headline sounded so encouraging that I thought “I really want to know about this,” and read it again because it came up in conversation. But I don’t want to spend as much time as I did this weekend trying to figure out what might really be happening in Kobani–I’m not there; I’m not near; and my doing so serves no purpose.

    • #25
  26. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    AIG:PPS: I wonder, how many people here are aware that YPG and PKK are…communist organizations?

    Yes, it’s been interesting to see the way that’s never reported now, even though it’s true (or was true, I don’t know to what extent they’re really still ideologically committed to doctrinal Maoism–and have seen no recent reporting that would really give me a sense of it. There’s been a lot of revision in PKK thought in recent years, especially since for years Öcalan hasn’t had much to do, in his prison cell, but have a lot of deep, theoretical conversations about politics his mind). More interesting is that it’s rarely reported that State categorises the PKK (and the YPG’s the same thing) as Tier III terrorist groups.  They really didn’t get on that list for no reason; it wasn’t an administrative mistake. I don’t have a problem with the logic, “Okay, yes, they’re terrorists, but there are terrorists and then there are terrorists, and they’re clearly the lesser of two evils.” But I’d rather that people understood this and understood, as well, what this means: Even if they succeed in pushing back ISIS, we’re not going to be seeing a terrific liberal democracy taking hold once they do.

    • #26
  27. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    rico:

    AIG:

    providing objective, factual information is not the purpose of US military’s reporting. If their statements correspond with the truth, then great. But the important thing is to succeed in the operation they are engaged in. That sometimes necessitates, shall we say, nuance. That’s fine with me, because military success is far more important than providing information to the public. But the fact that accuracy will sometimes be subordinated is useful to remember as a consumer of news.

    Yeah, exactly, that’s what I was trying to say.

    • #27
  28. Julia PA Inactive
    Julia PA
    @JulesPA

    Claire Berlinski: This is compatible with the headline, “Airstrikes stall Islamic State advance.” It is also compatible with the headline,  “Airstrikes fail to stall Islamic State advance.” All depends how fast they’ve been advancing so far and how fast they’re expected to keep advancing. That information isn’t here.

    Thank you Claire for analyzing this news story for us. Now, go off to rest with a little poetry. You might find that less nerve-wracking.

    I think you were very fair to the writer in the analysis, and observant to realize how easy it is to infer meaning that is not actually supported.

    Thank you for pointing out that the editor (not the writer) attempts to lead the horse (the reader) to the water they want the horse to drink with the headline they create. The headline frames the editor’s purpose for the story. Of course, ISIS editors using the same facts would have a different headline.

    Thank you also for reminding us that the information present (or absent) in a story and the sources who shared the info, should also shape a reader’s interpretation of a news story.

    • #28
  29. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    cdor:Claire, what is your response to this article in the Telegraph? The title “We are winning in Kobani”, which is supposedly a first hand account by a Kurdish resistance fighter who was in Turkey to deliver the dead bodies of his fellow fighters before returning to Kobani. This was linked at Hotair website this afternoon. I will post the URL just in case.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11171939/Inside-Kobane-We-are-winning.-The-town-will-be-a-cemetery-for-Isil.html

    It’s an interesting article, but it’s not sourced to any old Kurdish resistance fighter. It’s sourced to “the leader of Liwa al-Kassas.” As far as I know, he’s not Kurdish at all, and he used to be tight with ISIS–look for his name in this transcript, for example. I’m guessing, stress, guessing, and someone more familiar with these groups should be your guide, that they meant Liwa al-Jihad, possibly “the Kassas brigade of Liwa al-Jihad.” That would make sense based on other reporting. If my guess is right, I see no reason to doubt the standard analysis of how long this coalition will last.

    I hope this guy has decided that he’d like to be the kind of person we’d like to have as an ally, and I hope that if so, what he says is true. That’s about all I can say.

    • #29
  30. user_645 Member
    user_645
    @Claire

    Larry Koler: . If Humeyra Pamuk was that close why did she have to quote officials, I wonder?

    Well, unless you’re doing a very unusual kind of reporting, it’s part of the job to quote what officials say–the fact that they’ve said it is itself news. Part of what you’re doing with an article like that is just providing a digest of the expected daily statements and briefs from relevant officials. Sometimes that’s all you can do. In other words: she had to quote the officials, that’s mandatory. If I’d been writing the article and had unlimited space and plenty of time to do it (very rare in daily news), I would have wanted to speak to lots of other people with recent and direct experience of the situation and report what they said, too, especially if they could add more detail or a different perspective. (I have no doubt that you could find such people, but I doubt you’d find them between the time the statement from the officials came out and the time the copy had to be filed–you’d have to be incredibly lucky.) Few reporters working for the major wires ever get that kind of time or space, though.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.