US Raid on ISIS in Syria

The presumption of course is that all of these embellishments, exaggerations, tall tales, tub-thumping, necessary ass-covering of irrational actors which for various reasons we must use as allies, surrogates or even useful dupes, are all part of some nefarious scheme by the M.N.

 

Not at all.

As usual, you are way too defensive.

This kind of thing is to be expected in an operation of this nature, regardless of the political party running the WH. Reporters know this. It's been proven time and time again.

Yet, they breathlessly report details, in the early hours after the operation -- likely before all the debriefing has even occurred -- based on anonymous sources who weren't on the scene, but who "have knowledge" of the operation.

They should know better than to do this.

And, at the very least, they should give us some sense of who the source is, or how they know the details of the operation. Otherwise, it's just another "trust us" news report, that we've seen prove false any number of times.

 

YF, the problem with that is that missions are classified, and also follow OPSEC (operational security) principles. Just because a mission is completed doesn't mean the operational details are immediately declassified. People, in particular those in the service, can be punished for divulging details. The same should apply to idiots in DC, whether they be in the Pentagon or in ANY affiliation of any party and/or office in the administration.

 

I read the Washington Post story on this, and nowhere did it mention "hand-to-hand combat." It mentioned "close-quarters combat," and "precise gunfire," which I'd guess is to be expected when storming a building.

at any rate, I'm sure the government was tripping over itself to get this news out ASAP. It is, after all, good news.

It remains good news regardless of whether the weapons of choice were guns or fists, if you ask me. Not sure the story changes substantively either way.

Obviously, that's not to say the media shouldn't strive for 100 percent accuracy. But it's a shame the Sabrina Rubin Erdelys among us have depleted the trust to such a degree.

 

CNN is also referencing "hand-to-hand" combat. That means someone is specifically using that term when talking/leaking to reporters, and reporters are going with it, even though they have no way to confirm it.

And, my point/problem isn't with any particular phrase, it's with the idea that these reporters think they could possibly have definitive details of the raid at this point.

If I was going to pick another bone with the media, it would be with their breathless reporting that this guy was the ISIS "CFO" or "Oil and Gas Emir". The best I can tell, the media has never reported on this guy previously*, and had never heard of him previously. Now, they're all talking about him like he's a huge "get", and they know all about him. If they're so sure he's a huge get, how come they never told us about him previously.

*Many of these guys use nom de plumes. "Abu" means "father of" and is commonly used in place of a given name. I did find a Jordanian Salafist mentioned in the news previously who went by the same nickname, but see no indication that it is the same guy.

 

Well, with the current administration, the days of Most Wanted Terrorists playing cards are almost certainly over. It's very possible they kept a lid on this guy until they got him. It's also very possible they got a "nobody" and are lying about it.

I've been outspoken on the idea that things are reported too soon, or that routine editing takes place in full view of the world these days. But that's the world the digital age made for the media. But if there are going to be discrepancies, I'd much rather see them involve something like the method of combat than the importance of the people targeted, or heaven forbid, the military death toll.

 

The Times also uses "hand-to-hand fighting" but, at least they're honest enough to tell us that they could not conform the report.

The Times and CNN are also reporting that women and children were used as shields. That's another very specific detail, and one that surely has not been confirmed. (Again, the Times states this.)

A Defense Department official said Islamic State fighters who defended their building and Abu Sayyaf tried to use women and children as shields, but that the Delta Force commandos “used very precise fire” and “separated the women and children.” The official said the operation involved close “hand-to-hand fighting.” (The accounts of the raid came from military and government officials and could not be immediately verified through independent sources.)

nyti.ms/1IDX3gI

 

Any time I see "Defense Department official" instead of "Military Official" I figure it's a civilian media person. (See Lynch, Jessica).

 

Such a joke story just days after the Hersh piece, which seems to give credence to what he wrote.

And now -- NOW! -- we're kicking ass using hand to hand combat because what kind of sissy would we be having to rely on walk-in informants, staged missions and hush money to kill a top terrorist?

 

RE who the guy was: If we put boots on the ground to get him, you can probably rest assured he was significant. Otherwise, we'd have dropped a Hellfire from about 10,000 feet.

 

I don't doubt that he was a "high value target".

I just laugh at reporters who speak authoritatively about someone they never heard of five minutes prior to going on air to talk about him.

I heard someone on MSNBC say "most Americans had not heard much about him" (or something very similar).

You never heard of him! Don't act like we're ignorant rubes, who weren't paying attention.

We heard the same thing after we went after the "Khorasan Group". "Most Americans have never heard of this group."

So, what we end up with is reporters, with no independent knowledge of the target, or the raid, telling us what happened, in an authoritative tone, base on an anonymous source, that is second hand at best, and likely even further removed than that.

It's especially laughable only days after so many scoffed at Seymour Hersh's reporting, because it was based on a single, anonymous source.

Oh? And, this reporting is so much better?

 

People scoff at Sy Hersh because he has a history of reporting outlandish, thinly sourced, easily debunked conspiracy theories.

Even still, the reaction to his bin Laden piece was more "I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, but this is not the type of reporting that will prove anything."

By all means, scoff at anyone with a similar track record who's reporting on this.