Patterico's Pontifications

11/25/2006

Milbloggers Weigh in on the Flawed L.A. Times Story on the “Airstrike” in Ramadi

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 pm



As I had hoped, some milbloggers are starting to weigh in on my post about that flawed L.A. Times story about an alleged airstrike in Ramadi. Several milbloggers have questioned the claim by the mysterious “Times correspondent in Ramadi” that 15 houses could have been “pulverized” in the alleged airstrike. They all seem to agree that an airstrike that large would be a massive operation that would be very hard for the military to deny.

Greyhawk from Mudville Gazette says:

I’d add that if it were true [that 15 houses were “pulverized”], this might be the largest air strike ever in Iraq, requiring multiple platforms to achieve that much devastation. A lot of other nearby structures must have been damaged too. It would be awfully gutsy of DoD to deny that any air strike occurred that day at all, since absolutely no one in the city (including the Reuters reporter Patterico cites who did not mention the incident – and every US military member there) would be unaware of it.

Neptunus Lex adds:

There’s no way to “pulverize” 15 structures with one conventional weapon, or even with one aircraft attacking, unless we’re doing urban CAS now with carpet bombing B-52’s or B-1’s, which I don’t believe to be true.

In that environment the bias is towards smaller weapons to reduce the collateral damage risks, and each target is scrutinized to ensure that the effects on surrounding non-targets are minimized.

“Pulverized” is a rather non-specific term, but I’ll take it to mean a target structure that is 80-100% destroyed since that’s the image it evokes. Assuming from a best case in terms of desired weapons effects that the target building was demolished and from the worst case that a nearby non-target was 50% reduced through CD, you’re still talking an airstrike of 21 weapons – 7 to 8 or so against principal targets and another 14 or so which somehow combined to “pulverize” the non-targets.

That’s at least a ten-plane strike for TACAIR – hard to plausibly deny from the military perspective.

A blogger called “Lightning” at Op-for.com says this:

As you read Patterico’s blog entry on this article, take note of the fact that the report is entirely based on the word of an Iraqi stringer employed by the Times. In military intelligence circles, this is known as “single-source reporting”, and is generally considered untrustworthy and unsuitable intelligence for launching an operation. Apparently, it is good enough for mass publication to the American public.

Unfortunately, there are a number of other holes I could blast in their story, but I would have to cross, or at least stray dangerously close to, the OPSEC line in order to do it. Suffice it to say that, as a military forward air controller who recently worked in Al Anbar province, and who read the airstrike summaries Coalition Air Operations Center’s (CAOC) webpage, an airstrike big enough to level 15 houses would require multiple sections of aircraft and enough ordnance to be highly unusual for any city in Iraq.

Add this to the body of evidence suggesting that no such event actually occurred.

UPDATE: Here is Lightning’s profile on his own blog:

I’m a Captain in the Marine Corps, on my fourth deployment since January of 2003. I’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a deployment aboard ship to the Persian Gulf. I’m an infantry officer by trade, having just completed a 3-year tour in an infantry battalion. In my current billet, I am a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) responsible for requesting and directing close air support in support of friendly ground units.

Just to give you a picture of who’s weighing in.

23 Responses to “Milbloggers Weigh in on the Flawed L.A. Times Story on the “Airstrike” in Ramadi”

  1. […] UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit, Power Line, Hot Air, Captains Quarters, Winds of Change, Blackfive, and others for the links. You can bookmark the main page here and subscribe to this site via Bloglines by clicking this button and choosing the first feed: UPDATE x2: Milbloggers weigh in here. Their opinions are not favorable to The Times. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Is the L.A. Times Repeating Enemy Propaganda? Or Is There Another Reason The Paper Is Getting Basic Facts Wrong and Failing to Report the Military’s Side? (421107)

  2. Milbloggers Weigh in on the Flawed L.A. Times Story on the “Airstrike” in Ramadi …

    See previous: L.A. Times reprinting enemy propaganda? Patterico writes: As I had hoped, some milbloggers are starting to weigh in on my post about that flawed L.A. Times story about an alleged airstrike in Ramadi. Several milbloggers have questioned th…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  3. Tank shells and a helcopter gunship could probably punch out walls and destroy a Ramadi block of ramshackle, one-room dwellings in short order. “Pulverize” was too strong.

    So was Greyhawk’s absurd claim “this might be the largest air strike ever in Iraq.”

    The U.S. military also had denied air power was used in a March assault in Ramadi that produced similar media reports of significant civilian casualties and the images of wailing mourners carrying corpses. Once again, a local physician and an Iraqi police official provided secondary sourcing an airstrike had occurred.

    That’s two almost identical events this year.

    Does Ramadi have some revolving troupe of street actors who stage these demonstrations with freshly expired bodies paraded aloft and graphic quotes from officials? I have to wonder when they rehearse and who pays them to look so convincing.

    steve (d5d31b)

  4. Once again, a local physician and an Iraqi police official provided secondary sourcing an airstrike had occurred.

    But who talked to them? Did they do so face to face. Is this one of these doctors who sees only civilian casualties?

    I have to wonder when they rehearse and who pays them to look so convincing.

    But the newspapers don’t tell us very well exactly who they talked to, who talked to them, and how they know that what they say is true.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. “Pulverize” was too strong.

    How do you know?

    Were you there?

    All we have to go on is the word of the stringer.

    Patterico (de0616)

  6. And what was the level of the police official? The Iraqi government has stated that only the rank of Chief and above will be allowed to talk to the media.

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. US military personnel in Iraq are to dumb to count, to uneducated to understand the nuances of “pulverize” and not trained in structure recognition. Therefore, they cannot deny that 15 structures were pulverised by airstrikes. – J. Kerry.

    Perfectsense (b6ec8c)

  8. Flopping Aces Catches Some More Dodgy Iraq Reporting…

    In the wake of Patterico’s hard look at the LA Times coverage of the Ramadi strike (newest post here), Curt of Flopping Aces digs in and chases down another story from Iraq (this time it’s the AP) getting the Green-Zone……

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  9. The L.A. Times is inventing anti-Bush stories now ?

    What’s next, the New York Times doing the same ?

    Actual (b4a935)

  10. And what was the level of the police official [who confirmed a March airstrike]? The Iraqi government has stated that only the rank of Chief and above will be allowed to talk to the media. – Patterico

    Per your link, “Police Brigadier Hamid Hamad Shuka” was reported confirming that there had been a Ramadi airstrike last March – one ALSO denied by the U.S. military. And once again, “Dr. Kamal al-Ani, a doctor at Ramadi hospital” was the initial confirming source.

    “Asked to clarify whether the US military was referring to the same incident as reported by Iraqi officials, a spokeswoman said there were no reports of airstrikes around dawn on Saturday.”

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=38200

    Please note, the spokeswoman says: “no reports of…”. In the November 13-14 Ramadi raid, the military release stated “there were no reports of civilian casualties,” which various wire reports disputed. Is this a way of claiming the accounts may be verified later but no “reports” have reached them? At this juncture?

    Rumsfeld speak.

    My take is that everyone’s reporting is sloppy, partly because of the situation and fear factor. And the military, not known for candor and prone to update initial reports later, is too cute by half in many of its press releases.

    The homes probably weren’t “pulverized,” but Solomon Moore isn’t wildly off the grid. It’s Ramadi, Jake.

    steve (d5d31b)

  11. If the L.A. Times wants to continue their current vein of sources, I recommend the Iraqi Resistance Reports. They were a fun read at the COP in Jazirah, especially since we could read about attacks on us that we knew didn’t take place. What blew my mind is that they often failed to cover successful attacks.

    Anyway, good catch on this one. Maybe it’s time to compile all of this and write a letter to the Times?

    Lightning (58eec3)

  12. Steve, even if Solomon Moore is only slightly “off the grid,” he and his newspaper owe readers either a response to Patterico, a correction, or both.

    The fact that nothing has been done, plus the dismissive response to Patterico from the Readers’ Rep that in essence says “it’s already in Moore’s report,” tells me that the errors are closer to “wildly off the grid” than they are to “slightly,” and that the paper and Moore are hoping the whole thing just goes away.

    Maybe it will go away, but so will more subscribers, 8% of whom dropped the paper in the six months ended September 30:
    The Incredible Shrinking 527 Media

    Tom Blumer (5bf0c0)

  13. Patterico isn’t “owed” anything. Moore is a one-man band in Baghdad, in all likelihood, and probably relies on the kindness of military AND indigenous contacts for both his survival and work product.

    There seem to be more similarities than differences in the press dispatches that followed the Ramadi raid.

    I’ve said that Moore should have reported the military’s denial of air power – also part of one other wire story – and that he probably embellished the image of “pulverized” houses.

    steve (d5d31b)

  14. I think Tom was talking about readers being owed something, not me.

    Patterico (de0616)

  15. […] UPDATE: Patterico has received correspondence from a second soldier confirming that there was no air strike. He also has a post on reax from the milblogging community. […]

    BizzyBlog: The Business End of the Blogosphere » Patterico Investigates the LA Times’ Misreporting of an Incident at Ramadi (34f45e)

  16. A serious question that you might ask the public editor (or ombudsman, or whatever they call him) of The Los Angeles Times: does Mr. Moore speak and read Arabic, and if so, how well?

    The answer to those simple questions will tell you if it is even possible for Mr Moore to have done any independent reporting or verification in Iraq.

    Dana (e7aa47)

  17. Patterico is correct that I believe the LA Times owes its readers a correction, and that Moore and the LAT, if he and they don’t want to be seen as shading or hiding the truth, should give Patterico the courtesy of a response that is more than “just read the article.”

    Tom Blumer (5bf0c0)

  18. […] Like Patterico said about that L.A. Times airstrike story that’s imploding at an ever accelerating rate: I learned something important about reporting from Iraq in general. Big Media journalists often rely on sources that are unreliable. They don’t tell you the pressures these sources might be under from insurgents and terrorists. They refuse to tell you who their stringers are, so we can assess their motivations. They get quotes from doctors who seem to see only civilian deaths. If the military has been given insufficient time to respond to an allegation, these journalists don’t check with the military later, to verify that the story they’ve written is accurate. And sometimes, as here, their stories are completely at odds with numerous other accounts reported in other press outlets — and they seem to have no interest in finding out why. […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Bombshell: Centcom says AP’s Iraqi police source isn’t Iraqi police (d4224a)

  19. […] All of this is on top of what Patterico has learned about the airstrike that the military says didn’t happen (with follow-ups here and here). […]

    BizzyBlog » The Burning Question (Figuratively and Literally): Is Reliance on Bogus and Compromised News Sources Slanting Iraq Coverage? (34f45e)

  20. […] Like Patterico said about that L.A. Times airstrike story that’s imploding at an ever accelerating rate: I learned something important about reporting from Iraq in general. Big Media journalists often rely on sources that are unreliable. They don’t tell you the pressures these sources might be under from insurgents and terrorists. They refuse to tell you who their stringers are, so we can assess their motivations. They get quotes from doctors who seem to see only civilian deaths. If the military has been given insufficient time to respond to an allegation, these journalists don’t check with the military later, to verify that the story they’ve written is accurate. And sometimes, as here, their stories are completely at odds with numerous other accounts reported in other press outlets — and they seem to have no interest in finding out why. […]

    Blue Crab Boulevard » Fraud, Writ Large (a177fd)

  21. […] AP defends burned Sunnis story LAT airstrike report Soldier from Ramadi: Bunk Patterico investigates Milbloggers respond Another milblogger responds     […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » The American Press and Enemy Propaganda (d4224a)

  22. […] AP defends burned Sunnis story LAT airstrike report Soldier from Ramadi: Bunk Patterico investigates Milbloggers respond Another milblogger responds […]

    politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » The Liberal Media, Terrorist Pimps (ef3398)

  23. […] Reading over his oeuvre for the year – including a small part to which I myself contributed – I could say that I’m glad 2006 is over. Unfortunately but I have this sneaking suspicion that 2007 may not be an improvement. And 2008? […]

    Neptunus Lex » Cuchulain fighting the sea (f67377)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0780 secs.