Printable View
Great presentation, but who does it serve? Is it wise to spell out what we know about their movements so overtly, particularly when none of Roggio's sources want to be identified?
Will this article, which surely will be read by representatives of Iran's government, result in Iran changing it's strategy in Iraq?
In other words, was this article really a good idea from a strategic point of view, or does it only serve the interests of The Long War Journal?
Someone publishing something that serves their own interest. Novel thought. The real question IMO though, is the issue of its publication Strategic, operational or tactical?
Have you asked Bill Roggio?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffC
I did (via the Comments for that post). He hasn't replied as of yet, although I note that he has put up another post since my query early this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWJED
I'm not really picking on him, per se. I think it's a question that every media outlet needs to ask themselves when it comes to publishing sensitive, or even worse, classified material.
Strategic, operational, or tactical for whom? For the LWJ? Sure, as far as readership numbers go. But certainly not for coalition forces. The people who need to know already know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
the question to see if you thought that the possible routes which most anyone could sort of figure out with a look at a 1:250K map were really strategic in scope as opposed to possibly not being that significant.
As you say, the people who need to know already do know -- which was sort of my point as those who do not need to know probably also already do know...
Note that I didn't even address perishability nor did I cite several other possible reasons for their being published which you're every bit as capable as I am of realizing as possibilities.
If it's so obvious, why would no one go on the record?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
I would imagine the LWJ gets mileage from it, and to say no one would go on the record from a journalistic perspective gives you two things, 1) the perception of credibility, and 2) plausible deniability when the subject of credibility is brought up so I am not usually impressed when a journalist says my sources, "...don't want to be identified, or won't go on the record." I also compare it to the intelligence weenies who use classifications as a substitute for reliability. If it's Top Secret than it has to be credible beyond something from an unclassified source...get my drift?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffC
These so-called Iranian 'rat lines' are not a new discovery and if you look at them you will see they are also major commercial routes used by thousands of motorists a day to transit between the two countries. It is comparable to saying that a lot of illegal contraband flows into the U.S. from Juarez via the El Paso entrance point...duh, thousands and thousands of vehicles flow through there everyday. Much like in the U.S. there are not enough resources sitting on the border to catch every nefarious item or person coming through; and drug dealers, arms dealer, illegal immigrant smugglers, and agents of a hostile state know this and they exploit it...
- PT
Thanks, PT. All good points.
And Roggio still hasn't replied to my query at LWJ.
Spooks and "off the record" are a cliche -- but like most cliches, there's a whole lot of reality there. Not to mention PT is also correct on those being smuggling routes that long predate my time in the area (and that was longer ago than I care to contemplate... :( ). Plus there are a half dozen or more other possible reasons for that graphic to have been pushed out. Which may be why Roggio hasn't answered. Frankly, if I were him, I probably would not -- or would just give you a meaningless platitude.
None of my business but IMO and respectfully, you're creating an issue out of a non-problem.
Bill took the time to reply to my query at The Long War Journal, and also sent me a private email offering to speak on the matter by telephone, which I accepted and enjoyed.
My initial questions about his sources desire for anonymity have been answered, and, while I've always respected Bill's work (and Mike Yon and other self-financed freelance journalists who put themselves in the middle of the action at their own risk and expense), that respect has grown in light of how Bill fielded my concerns.
I do think the issue of publishing sensitive information was, and is, worthy of discussion. Bill clearly does as well, evidenced in his reply to me at LWJ where he writes:
"Finally, there is a difficult balance to this. I have to weigh the public's right to know what Iran is doing to US forces and our Iraqi allies inside Iraq with operational security concerns."
He goes on to say how he has struck that balance. I can now say that I agree, and that all of my original concerns have been answered.
Thanks, Bill, and best of luck.
Good of him to call and good of you to post the result. Thanks.