Reply
Tue 1 Apr, 2003 06:56 am
THE ISSUES OF THE IRAQI CONFLICT
THIS WAR IS NOT WORKING
Apr 1 2003
By Peter Arnett
I am still in shock and awe at being fired. There is enormous sensitivity within the US government to reports coming out from Baghdad.
They don't want credible news organisations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems.
I reported on the original bombing for NBC and we were half a mile away from those massive explosions. Now I am really shocked that I am no longer reporting this story for the US and awed by the fact that it actually happened.
That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why?
Tariq Aziz told me the US will have to brainwash 25M Iraqis, because these people think exactly the same as Saddam
Because I stated the obvious to Iraqi television; that the US war timetable has fallen by the wayside.
I have made those comments to television stations around the world and now I'm making them again in the Daily Mirror.
I'm not angry. I'm not crying. But I'm also awed by this media phenomenon.
The right-wing media and politicians are looking for any opportunity to be critical of the reporters who are here, whatever their nationality. I made the misjudgment which gave them the opportunity to do so.
I gave an impromptu interview to Iraqi television feeling that after four months of interviewing hundreds of them it was only professional courtesy to give them a few comments.
That was my Waterloo - bang!
I have not yet decided what to do, whether to pack my bags and leave Baghdad or stay on.
I'll decide what to do today, right now I'm chewing on what has happened to me.
American Marines at our checkpoints are suspicious of every man, woman and child because of the suicide bomb
But whatever happens I will never stop reporting on the truth of this war whether I am in Baghdad or somewhere else in the Middle East - or even back in Washington.
I was here in 1991 and the bombing is very similar to that conflict but the reality is very different.
The US and British want to come here, take over the city, upturn the government and take us through to a new era. The troops are in the country and fighting there way up here. It creates a very different atmosphere.
The Ba'ath party, currently led by Saddam Hussein, has been in power for 34 years. Tariq Aziz told me the US will have to brainwash 25 million Iraqis because these people think exactly the same as Saddam does.
Maybe he is wrong, maybe not.
For months, Iraqis have said officially and privately: "We will fight the Americans, we will use guerrilla tactics, we will surprise them."
But the Iraqi opposition has said: "This will be a pushover, everyone wants to rebel against Saddam."
Now the reality is being played out on the battlefield.
We have to watch the reality now and some Iraqis are fighting and the government does seem very determined. For me to see that and to be criticised for saying the obvious is unfair.
As the battle for Baghdad grows, so the potential for civilian casualties grows. This is the spectre rising for the coalition as this war continues
But it has made me a target for my critics in the States who accuse me of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy - I just want to be able to tell the truth.
I came to Baghdad with my crew because the Iraqi side needs to be heard too.
It is clear the original timetable that America would be in Baghdad by the end of March has fallen by the wayside.
There is clearly debate in the US about this, reinforcements are being sent in and there are delays.
This doesn't mean it is going badly. Every casualty is a loss but they have been in limited numbers so far.
Every night and every day I hear the B-52s and the missiles hammering the defences Baghdad.
Just like in Afghanistan and Vietnam, the US is bringing enormous firepower to bear which it believes will grind the Iraqis down. I have seen it before and it has been enormously effective. The US optimism is justified.
On the other hand, at what cost to civilians ?
During the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, I entered a US-held town which had been totally destroyed.
The Viet Cong had taken over and were threatening the commander's building so he called down an artillery strike which killed many of his own men.
The Major with us asked: "How could this happen?" A soldier replied: "Sir, we had to destroy the town to save it."
The Bush and Blair administration does not want that label stuck on this war, it is a liberation for them. But the problem is US Marines at checkpoints are suspicious of every man, woman and child because of the suicide bomb.
Already there is suspicion growing.
And in the south, there have not been popular rebellions and uprisings. As the battle for Baghdad grows, the potential for civilian casualties grows.
Optimists in the Pentagon talk about an internal coup. BNut who would have had believed Umm Qasr would hold out for six days?
This is the spectre rising as this war continues. The US and Britain have to figure this out.
I don't think you can tell how it will end, there are many scenarios. A siege of Baghdad... a special operations strike on Saddam. Optimists in the Pentagon talk about an internal coup.
Who would have had believed Umm Qasr would hold out for six days or US Marines directing traffic would be killed by a suicide bomber? This is more like the West Bank and Gaza and it could become like that in some areas.
The US and Britain must avoid that scenario.
Forces come in, communities resist, then suicide bombing and resistance from guerrillas.
Except the Iraqis will be putting up a stiffer fight than the Palestinians because they are better armed.
We know the world, including many Americans, is ambivalent about this war and I think it is essential to be here.
I'm not here to be a superstar. I have been there in 1991 and could never be bigger than that.
Some reporters make judgements but that is not my style. I present both sides and report what I see with my own eyes.
I don't blame NBC for their decision because they came under great commercial pressure from the outside.
And I certainly don't believe the White House was responsible for my sacking.
But I want to tell the story as best as I can, which makes it so disappointing to be fired.
So if it wasn't the White House, nor NBC, who WAS responsible for this man being sacked?
And what do they gain from this sort of censorship?
Don't know about NBC, but I heard a report on the radio that loads of people were pulling their subscriptions from the National Geographic. That alone would be a great reason to fire Arnett. The Geographic does not need that kind of dissention.
Arnett, in my opinion, was a fool. He talks about "truth". If he would have gone on American TV and said the same things that he did in Iraq, there would probably have not been a problem. If you are smart, you don't go to the enemy camp and willingly offer fodder for propaganda!
I don't know what his agenda was, but as a long term reporter (he was no "cub") he should have known better. Shame on him!
Bush
Bush has given 9 press confrences since 2000. It isno secret that his selection of questioners is scripted. This in it's self is censorship.
I would think that Mr. Arnet is keeping his chin tucked in.
Notice the use of 'probably' in this article .....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82751,00.html
Oil
Published on Saturday, March 29, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
US Army's Desert Filling Stations Add Fuel to Fire
by Oliver Burkeman in Washington
In a war where public perceptions are arguably as important as the military strategy, the US army appears to have handed a huge public relations victory to those who believe the conflict in Iraq is all about oil. The 101st Airborne Division has chosen to name two of its main outposts in the desert Forward Operating Base Exxon and Forward Operating Base Shell.
When US troops seizing the port city of Umm Qasr raised the stars and stripes there last week, they were swiftly ordered to remove it for fear of giving the impression of being conquerors, not liberators.
But Forward Operating Base Shell has caught on so comprehensively that the Washington Post is now carrying it as the dateline in its news reports from the base.
All of which seemed to have baffled representatives of the two oil firms themselves, who only heard about the names when the news reports started to be published.
"Our feeling was that this was clearly not a political statement by the men and women of the 101st Airborne," said Tom Cirigliano, an Exxon spokesman.
"These are desert refueling stations, and they're apparently naming them after oil companies simply because that's what reminds them of filling stations back home. It's a normal practice."
Meanwhile, in southern Iraq, four miles outside Nassiriya, troops have erected a makeshift sign renaming Tallil airfield Bush international airport.
That may, at least, have a satirical intent: Iraq's largest airport, in Baghdad, is called Saddam International.
A spokesman for the Pentagon referred a request for comment to central command's headquarters in Tampa, Florida. A spokesman for its public affairs office claimed, bafflingly, that it was not its policy "to respond to criticisms that people may have".
"This has absolutely nothing to do with the war being about oil, a notion that we think has been debunked by numerous independent analysts - and even in the newspaper Le Monde," Mr Cirigliano insisted.
"Anyway, I'm certain of this: that the restrooms in Camp Exxon are much cleaner than the restrooms in Camp Shell."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
ad phoenix:
Shouldn't the media be neutral in war? Arnett is no American or British soldier, as far as I know. So he, as an independent reporter, should not stand on any side in this war. Because ot this the the terminology "enemy" is in my opinion not appropriate.
owi wrote:
Shouldn't the media be neutral in war? .
I would have thought that's what we'd expect of them, owi.
Welcome to A2K!
Arnett
owi wrote:ad phoenix:
Shouldn't the media be neutral in war? Arnett is no American or British soldier, as far as I know. So he, as an independent reporter, should not stand on any side in this war. Because ot this the the terminology "enemy" is in my opinion not appropriate.
Excellent point ...
It brings to mind the question ... if one is for the troops, against the war, but for the Iraqi people .... what side of the fence do you claim?
Owi- I appreciate your point, and will have to think about it. Arnett IS an American citizen, and America is at war with Iraq.
Gelisgesti- The fact that he was reporting on state run Iraqi TV was what to me was so disturbing.
1968 February
Famous U.S. newsman Walter Cronkite admits that it does not look like we are winning in Vietnam "But America lost the war. On February 28, reporting from Saigon, Walter Cronkite announced "that it was more certain than ever" that the Viet Nam war was not winnable." I dont remember Cronkite being fired for aiding the enemy.
dys- Interesting. But did he say that on an interview on Vietnamese TV?
Phoenix:
"The fact that he was reporting on state run Iraqi TV was what to me was so disturbing."
So the American people should hear such things but not the Iraqi people? Is this a good base for democracy? Isn't one part of democracy, that everybody should have the same rigth? In this case the right to get information.
Still I would think that to report wthout bias, you would have to know both sides of an issue. The source of that information is limited.
The guy was interviewed by a television station and he gave his views.
He had every right to do that -- and the reaction is disingenuous.
Nothing he said was all that bad -- almsot everything he said was true.
The company he worked for had a right to fire him for whatever reasons they saw fit.
The people piling on really are out of line.
It is hard to judge but, in a way, it is slightly anlages with Jane Fonda in Viet Nam. Not quite as bad. Don't think it has anything to do with freedom of speech; but with aiding and abetting the enemy.
Quote:Sacked reporter joins Daily Mirror staff
Peter Arnett, the Baghdad-based war correspondent who was fired by NBC News and National Geographic for giving an unauthorised interview to Iraqi TV and claiming that the US war plan had "failed" has been hired by the Daily Mirror, a UK-based tabloid that has taken a staunch anti-war stance.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1048313358874
Arnett made several professional mistakes.
He stepped on the line between information and opinion. I don't think he crossed it, but in war times, you have to be extra careful.
He did so, appearing on a network who would certainly use his opinions as propaganda, and in times where the US government sensibility is quite high.
No experienced journalist, such as Arnett, would step on quicksand without other intentions. Most probably, his were to have access to more Iraqi information or -I imagine- some top exclusive interview.
NBC first backed Arnett, then fired him. One can easily imagine that there was some goverment pressure between the two moments. We must remember it was not NBC, but National Geographic, who sent Arnett to Baghdad. NBC hired him only after it was left without correspondents in the capital of Iraq.
Arnett is too well known for his independent personal style of reporting, and for being a critic of the US. Arnett is from New Zealand, and I don't know if he is also an American citizen.
Firing Arnett does no good to the US image around the world. It tells that reporters' subordination is not only laboral, but also ideological.
owi wrote:...Arnett is no American or British soldier, as far as I know...
As far as I remember, William Joyce (aka Lord Haw Haw) was not a British soldier either. But he was prosecuted and hanged by the neck for treason, since his verbal activities were in favor of the enemy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace