Inquiring Minds
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on August 6th, 2007 in Iraq War, MediaHere’s what Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said, and WaPo reported with stenographic efficiency:
Rogue Shiite militiamen with Iranian weapons and training launched three-quarters of the attacks that killed or wounded American forces last month in Baghdad, stepping into the void left as Sunni insurgents have been dislodged, a top U.S commander said Sunday.
Attacks against U.S. forces were down sharply last month nationwide, and military officials have expressed cautious optimism that a security crackdown is working. At the same time, the number of attacks launched by breakaway factions of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia has increased, said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. second-in-command.
He did not provide a total number of militia attacks. But he said 73 percent of the attacks that wounded or killed U.S. troops last month in Baghdad were launched by Shiite militiamen, nearly double the figure six months earlier.
Granted it’s an AP story, but WaPo is still responsible for what it chooses to put out under its imprint.
And there really isn’t one single hint of skepticism from WaPo/AP in the entire story
And so I have the following questions, which I will now express in the form of an open letter:
Dear WaPo editors,
I presume you still call yourselves that, editors? And that everyone else in your duplicating operation also retains their old journalistic titles, no matter how hopelessly inappropriate they have come to be?
How the flaming heck do you think the U.S. military knows who is responsible for each militia attack?
Why the flaming heck do you blindly put out whatever the U.S. military professes to know or believe?
Where the flaming heck have you stored away the journalistic skepticism they sent you out from journalism school with?
Is there any hope anytime soon that if they claim to know things that are probably guesswork at best, you might actually point that out at some point in your coverage of this vitally important news from the front?
If not, will you consider changing your name to more honestly reflect your Ministry of Propaganda (Print Division) role? And your titles too, please?
Sincerely,
SarabethP.S. If you want to go with minimal deviation from the present name, may I recommend “The Washington Print-Parrot-Prostitutes”. That has the added advantage of lending itself to memorable abbreviation. People who liked to call you Wapo would now be able to go with Wapppros.
For the record, just so you know who you should or should not trust again in the future, the AP story is credited to Kim Gamel. Though, credit may not exactly be the word I’m looking for.
JimC wrote:
The New York Times article today may have partially answered this (or maybe not, you decide).
In short, the type of weapons used in the attacks can be a fairly good indicator who is using them i.e. Iranians aren’t going to supply Sunnis.
Also, dead attackers (in cases where firefights were involved) can also give clues to who was attacking you…
This doesn’t address the journalistic questions you raised but I’m not trying to answer those, just providing some explanation as to how they know who attacks them.
I know technically you were asking how the WaPo editors thinks the military knows who, so just to be clear, I don’t know how they think but I am offering an independent observation without trying to imply that I am answering or thinking for the WaPo editors.
And now I eagerly await the shredding :-)
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 9:11 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Why the flaming heck didn’t you just have the sense to stay away?
So there’s an honor code among the Sunnis and the Shia whereby victors in a skirmish don’t walk off with the weapons of the losers?
And when U.S. forces look at a dead insurgent, there’s some magic test other than weapons-identification which tells us whether he was Sunni or Shia? Maybe we look at their testicles?
And every attack has a weapons signature that allows the U.S. military to calculate with military precision that 73% of all attacks were by such-and-such group? (Gen. Odierno didn’t just throw out a rough-guess ballpark number, which is about the only thing that would make any sense.)
And I do, of course, really wonder how they classify attacks using U.S.-supplied assault rifles and pistols (you know, the ones that went missing to the tune of 190,000)
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 9:30 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Because you vex me with your sassy ways…
Well, I going to assume, you may not but I will, that our military is reasonably capable in most instances in identifying dead attackers in some form or another. An former Israelli secret service man once explained to me [well to several of us there] how Israelli soldiers have become very good at spotting non-Israellis. My point is, you learn to know your enemies and in most cases you can do so, it’s not 100% fool proof but in most cases, there are ways to figure out who is who.
I don’t doubt there is a margin of error but it is reasonable.
No, like I explained above there is probably a margin of error but once they categorize an attack Shia or Sunni related, it will go into that slot, and in the end if 73% fell into Shia backed, well, you’re correct it is a precise number but the margin of error wasn’t stated, perhaps a good journalist should have asked that question.
Probably under FUBAR….
…but the weapon examples weren’t made by identifying common weapons such AK’s or pistols and can’t be. It is the rare weapons or verifiable weapons that can only be used to give a possible origin of the attack. And yes you are correct that Sunnis could make off with these rare unique weapons but that would also have to be a factor in the margin of error, and again, I’m going to assume and you may not, that these theoretical instances of Sunnis making off with uniquely Iranian weapons later used in attacks against US forces, are very rare if not unlikely, but we’d both be speculating on this point. Iranian Shias would(are) back(ing) Iraqi Shias, therefore it is safe to assume that if Iranian weapons are found, that it is Iraqi Shias who used them.
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 9:56 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
That NYT article JimC quoted in 1 was by Michael Gordon.
Gordon, of course, is known far and wide throughout the land as a bigger print media prostitute than Judy Miller.
Between them, the two were responsible for parroting every “story” about Saddam’s WMDs that the Bushies fed them back when they needed some assistance selling America on the Iraq war.
Inquiring minds spit on everything Gordon writes.
No one in their right minds could take any assertion by him seriously.
Which must be why JimC quotes him so approvingly.
Posted 08 Aug 2007 at 9:17 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
My quoting him has nothing really to do with my point. My point was to illustrate that specific weapons can give a good indication of who is attacking. I just used this source because it was relevant and timely, I could have used other sources which cite Iranian weapons used in various attacks, it is just this one aggregated the examples.
So even if you shoot the messenger, the message is the same. They can with reasonable assurance determine who (which factions) attacks them in most instances.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 8:22 am ¶
matt wrote:
it is neither. i’ve already been over the example of cheney’s office leaking wmd “intel” to judy kneepads, kneepads writing a story about wmd in the times, and then cheney going on meet the press and referencing the kneepads’ nyt article as if it was the product of independent reporting rather than govt propaganda.
i’ve also pointed this out when Barbara Starr did it on the very same subject. if you can’t see a pattern here, it’s wilfull.
this is exactly the same. that it might be true is beside the point. the administration simply has no credibility. the things they say are more than likely either lies, or designed to be technically true but misleading. i know you don’t believe this, but anyone with a functioning brain and access to the news over the last 6 years does know.
even if the keystone cops could, determining and accurately reporting it are two totally different things.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 9:37 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Who are you referring to?
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 10:14 am ¶
matt wrote:
military intel / brass / spokesmen
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 11:13 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What if it is field officers who are giving their assessment of who attacked them? Just trying to find out where your lack of confidence starts. I am going to try to find out who makes these assessments, intel/brass or field officers….
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 2:14 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i think we’ll start at the top and work our way down.
you knock yourself out, champ. we’ll eagerly await your high-level findings. maybe general fluffer can help.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 2:27 pm ¶