Category: Language

In my last post, I noted a difference between a comment by Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby that appeared in the Times last Thursday and a transcript of the briefing at which Kirby made the comment.

The discrepancy appears to reflect a mistake by the reporter, she tells me in an email. According to the reporter, she was typing what Kirby said and “it’s definitely possible” that she entered it incorrectly.

That happens of course. I appreciate her reply, which leaves me feeling better than if I were to learn that the Pentagon edits transcripts, other than to correct typographical errors, without telling the public.

Of course, there may be plenty of other things the Pentagon does without telling the public, but that’s another story.

In a briefing Thursday following U.S.-led airstrikes against 12 of the Islamic State’s oil refineries in Syria, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesperson, acknowledged limits on the effectiveness of the bombardment without plans to follow-up with troops.

As the Times reported:

“We get caught up in the immediacy of these airstrikes,” Admiral Kirby said, “but this is going to take time, and nobody here in this building is not unaware of that.”

Of course, the comment caught my eye. I had to read the sentence several times to make sense of it. Kirby is saying, it seems, that the Pentagon thinks the aerial campaign in Syria will take awhile.

However, that spurred me to want to read Kirby’s comment in context – to know what he had said before and after the those sentences. Here’s what Kirby said, according to a transcript the Defense Department has posted online:

 “We get caught up in the immediacy of these airstrikes. And it’s dramatic, and that footage is pretty cool. But this is going to take – this is going to take time. This is – this is not – this is not a short-term effort. And nobody here in the building is taking anything but a sober, clear-eyed view of the challenge in front of us.

So what did Kirby say? I will ask the Pentagon and the Times and let you know what I learn.

The briefing contained some other comments that, while less strained than Kirby’s comment above, are entertaining nonetheless.

For example, the current campaign in Iraq and Syria is costing taxpayers between $7 million and $10 million a day, according to Kirby, who added:

But, again, I want to remind you, that is an estimate right now. I know we owe you a better answer, and we’re continuing to work on that, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer that we come back after we do the pencil work is different than that.

Pencil work? That makes me wonder whether the Pentagon plans to sketch a picture of a spreadsheet.

Later a reporter asked Kirby about a separate round of airstrikes by the U.S. against leaders of the Khorasan group in and around the Syrian city of Aleppo. According to the Pentagon, the group, which is reported to be an offshoot of al-Qaida, was in the advanced stages of an attack on a target in either the U.S. or Europe.

Specifically, the reporter wanted to know when the Pentagon thought the attack might happen. According to Kirby:

Far better to be [to] the left of a boom than to the right of it. And that’s what we’re trying to do, is get to the left of any boom to prevent the planning from going any further, and certainly to prevent them getting into an execution phase, which we don’t believe they were in yet, and that’s where you want to be.

Apparently when trying to prevent terror attacks, as when driving in some countries, it’s best to stay on the left.