Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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:
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
I didn’t say that there was clear lie in this case but said there was a different reason for him to lie. It’s that difference that I was commenting on. Claire was voicing skepticism (you call it “this state of affairs that has gripped Ricochet (and much of the conservative media)”) . I think there is ample evidence for skepticism with this president, especially with regards to actions he takes in proximity to elections. You don’t have this skepticism. I lived through the 2008 election and Benghazi and the IRS scandal, the fast and furious stuff — you know all that right-wing agit-prop that distorts the good times when, as you say:
That’s right — it’s us conservatives who get nervous during election season. And for no apparent reason that you can see.
Crying wolf is a figure of speech that points out that there is no wolf but people keep falsely saying there is. Right? In this analogy, you see, Obama is the wolf and we are trying to tell everyone he is one — that’s all. It’s not complicated. You don’t think Obama is a liar nor a bad person (the wolf in the analogy) — fine. We do — he’s a very practiced liar and he is a very bad person. Americans need to learn to not vote for anti-American candidates and this won’t happen. It’ll just be normal and we all can, as you say:
Good point. The very existence of ISIS is predicated on conquest. If they truly perceive themselves as the beginning of a caliphate, then that caliphate will be expanded whenever and however possible. It is unlikely that they will settle for only most of Iraq, no matter how efficiently we stop their progress now.
Perhaps the leadership will lose interest in building an empire when they have cozy palaces like Arab sheikhs. But we must prepare for worst scenarios. In this case, that’s a competent military state which conquers peoples through terror as much as through military might and is committed to periodic, if not perpetual, conquest of its neighbors.
Odds are, if ISIS manages to claim all of Iraq and Syria (which, let’s face it, no longer exist as they are delineated on maps), then the butchers will soon select new targets to invade if they believe themselves powerful enough. ISIS will win or lose, but will not lie dormant for long.
I don’t doubt our military, but I do have reservations about Obama. I am sure our air force is trying to do the most they can within their current operational limits. Limits set by the administration, and whose purpose I believe is more political than strategic. I think politics drives Obama, and we must use politics to drive him in the right direction, because left to his own devices the man is rudderless and uninterested in foreign affairs.
A lot of back-pedaling here to say that the original claim wasn’t one of…not trusting the US military claims here. An accusation of lying, is the only way one can take this statement:
The entire point of the post seems to be that this particular journalist is quoting US military sources, in claiming that ISIS is losing ground in Kobane.
And hence, we can’t…trust…the claims here because they come from the US military.
You don’t have to say the word “lying” here, to imply just that.
Of course, there’s the problem that the Kurdish sources are saying the same thing, as is everyone else who is a first-hand observer to the situation in Kobane.
And of course the motivation for this is quite clear, even if it is not stated.
I just find this all rather disturbing.
Not according to any information we have on what is happening on the ground. The targets are actual ISIS combatants and their vehicles in the city of Kobane.
There’s no oil wells or rafineries in Kobane. And those targets were struck a month ago already by US warplanes, and they are mostly in Eastern Syria.
There’s of course about 500 journalists sitting on the other side of the border in Turkey, within visual distance of what is happening in Kobane, seeing US bombs falling inside the town, or in its surroundings.
So why try to analyze a situation which clearly you have not been following? (Nothing wrong with not following a situation that is totally irrelevant to you, of course). And worst, do so by questioning the “trustworthiness” of the US military?
What’s the purpose here, if not political points?
Every other source from Kobane says the same thing.
Hence, here’s the real question: If you have…no evidence…at all that the reports do not correspond with the situation on the ground…why accuse the US military of lying?
(and yes, you all did accuse them of lying. Even if not in those words. If there wasn’t an accusation of not being truthful here, than there’d be no point to this analysis in the first place)
I’ll let the others speak for themselves, but as far as I’m concerned, your response to my statement indicates that you are sorely lacking in reading comprehension skills.
I made no such accusation. I didn’t even respond to the Kobani situation. You really ought to work on those reading comprehension skills before popping off like this.
Yes, it is silly to have to respond to strawmen. My whole issue is “Obama and his minions” and that might include any military spokesmen who are doing the bidding of their commander in chief. BUT, the whole point here is that it is Obama who is the known liar-in-chief and that has repercussions on all things said during a political football like this.