The Un-Embedded Journalist

Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Host: Robert, please set the scene for us inBaghdad right now.

Robert Fisk, The Independent: Well, it’s been a relatively—relatively beingthe word—quiet night, there’s been quite a lot of explosions about an hour ago. There have obviously beenan awful lot of missiles arriving on some target, but I would say it was about 4 or 5 miles away. You can hearthe change in air pressure and you can hear this long, low rumble like drums or like someone banging on a drumdeep beneath the ground, but quite a ways away. There have only been 2 or 3 explosions near the center of thecity, which is where I am, in the last 12 hours. So, I suppose you could say that, comparatively, to anyoneliving in central Baghdad, it’s been a quiet night.

The strange thing is that the intensity of the attacks on Baghdad changes quiteextraordinarily; you’ll get one evening when you can actually sleep through it all, and the next eveningwhen you see the explosions red hot around you.

As if no one really planning the things, it’s like someone wakes up in themorning and says, "Let’s target this on the map today", and it’s something which sort of characterizesthe whole adventure because if you actually look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll see that theAmerican and British armies started off in the border. They started off at Um Qasr and got stuck, carried onup the road through the desert, took another right turn and tried to get into Basra, got stuck, took anotherright at Nasiriyah, got stuck—it’s almost as if they keep on saying, "Well let’s try the next road onthe right", and it has kind of a lack of planning to it. There will be those who say that, "No it’s beenmeticulously planned," but it doesn’t feel like it to be here.

Amy Goodman:  Can you talk about the POWs and television - the chargethat they’re violating the Geneva Convention by showing them on television?

Robert Fisk: Well, you know, the Geneva Convention is meant to protectchildren, and hospitals are full of civilians, including many children who’ve been badly wounded.

It seems to me that this concentration on whether television should showprisoners or not is a kind of mischief: it’s not the point. The issue, of course, is that both sides aretaking prisoners, and that both sides want the other side to know of the prisoners they’ve taken. I watchedCNN showing a British soldier forcing a man to kneel on the ground and put his hands up and produce hisidentity card and I’ve seen other film on British television of prisoners near Um Qasr and Basra beingforced to march past a British soldier with their hands in the air. Well, they (the American soldiers)weren’t interviewed, it’s true, although you heard at one point a man asking questions, clearly to put anyprisoner on air answering questions is against the Geneva Convention. But for many, many years now, in theMiddle East television has been showing both sides in various wars appearing on television and being askedwhat their names are and what their home countries are.

And the real issue is that these prisoners should not be maltreated,tortured, or hurt after capture. When you realize that 19 men have tried to commit suicide at Guantanamo, thatwe now know that 2 prisoners at the US base Bagram were beaten to death during interrogation. To accuse theIraqis of breaking the Geneva Convention by putting American POWs on television in which you hear them beingasked what state they’re from in the states, it seems a very hypocritical thing to do. But one would have tosay, technically, putting a prisoner of war on television and asking them questions on television is againstthe Geneva Convention. It is quite specifically so. And thus, clearly Iraq broke that convention when it putthose men on television - I watched them on Iraqi TV here. But, as I’ve said, it’s a pretty hypocriticalthing when you realize, this equates to the way America treats prisoners from Afghanistan - Mr. Bush is notthe person to be teaching anyone about the Geneva Convention.

Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! Correspondent: Robert Fisk, you wrote in oneof your most recent articles, actually, the title of it was "Iraq Will Become a Quagmire for theAmericans" and I think many people within the US administration were surprised to find the kinds ofresistance they have in places like Nasiriyah. We have the two Apache helicopters that have apparently beenshot down and many US casualties so far. Do you think the Americans were caught by surprise, particularly bythe resistance in the south where everyone was saying that the people are against Saddam Hussein?

Robert Fisk: Well, they shouldn’t have been caught by surprise; there wereplenty of us writing that this was going to be a disaster and a catastrophe and that they were going to takecasualties. You know, one thing I think the Bush administration has shown as a characteristic, is that itdreams up moral ideas and then believes that they’re all true, and characterizes this policy by assumingthat everyone else will then play their roles. In their attempt to dream up an excuse to invade Iraq,they’ve started out, remember, by saying first of all that there are weapons of mass destruction. 

We werethen told that al Qaeda had links to Iraq, which, there certainly isn’t an al Qaeda link. Then we were toldthat there were links to September 11th, which was rubbish. And in the end, the best the Bush administrationcould do was to say, "Well, we’re going to liberate the people of Iraq". And because it provided thisexcuse, it obviously then had to believe that these people wanted to be liberated by the Americans. And, asthe Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said a few hours ago, I was listening to him in person, the Americansexpected to be greeted with roses and music - and they were greeted with bullets. 

 think you see what hashappened is that - and as he pointed out - the American administration and the US press lectured everybodyabout how the country would break apart where Shiites hated Sunnis and Sunnis hated Turkmen and Turkmen hatedKurds, and so on. And yet, most of the soldiers fighting in southern Iraq are actually Shiite. They’re notSunnis, they’re not Tikritis, they’re not from Saddam’s home city. 

Saddam did not get knocked off hisperch straight away, and I think that, to a considerable degree, the American administration allowed thatlittle cabal of advisors around Bush - I’m talking about Perle, Wolfowitz, and these other people - peoplewho have never been to war, never served their country, never put on a uniform - nor, indeed, has Mr. Bushever served his country - they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood scenario of GIs driving through thestreets of Iraqi cities being showered with roses by a relieved populace who desperately want this offer ofdemocracy that Mr. Bush has put on offer-as reality. And the truth of the matter is that Iraq has a very, verystrong political tradition of strong anti-colonial struggle. 

It doesn’t matter whether that’s carried outunder the guise of kings or under the guise of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath party, or under the guise of atotal dictator. There are many people in this country who would love to get rid of Saddam Hussein, I’m sure,but they don’t want to live under American occupation. The nearest I can describe it - and again, things canchange - maybe the pack of cards will all collapse tomorrow - but if I can describe it, it would be a bit likethe situation in 1941- and I hate these World War II parallels because I think it’s disgusting to constantlydig up the second world war - Hitler is dead and he died in 1945 and we shouldn’t use it, but if you wantthe same parallel, you’ll look at Operation: Barbarosa, where the Germans invaded Russia in 1941 believingthat the Russians would collapse because Stalin was so hated and Communism was so hated. 

And at the end of theday, the Russians preferred to fight the Germans to free their country from Germany, from Nazi rule, ratherthan to use the German invasion to turn against Stalin. And at the end of the day, a population many of whomhad suffered greatly under Communism fought for their motherland under the leadership of Marshal Stalinagainst the German invader. A similar situation occurred in 1980 when Saddam himself invaded Iran. There hadjust been, 12 months earlier, a revolution in Iran and the Islamic Republic had come into being. 

It wasbelieved here in Baghdad that if an invasion force crossed the border from Iraq - supported again in this caseby the Americans - that the Islamic Republic would fall to pieces; that it would collapse under its ownvolition; that is couldn’t withstand a foreign invasion. I actually crossed the border with the Iraqi forcesin 1980, I was reporting on both sides, and I remember reaching the first Iranian city called Horam Shar andwe came under tremendous fire; mortar fire, sniper fire, and artillery fire, and I remember suddenly thinkingas I hid in this villa with a number of Iraqi commandos, "My goodness, the Iranians are fighting for theircountry". And I think the same thing is happening now, and, obviously, we know that with the firepower theyhave the Americans can batter their way into these cities and they can take over Baghdad, but the moral ethosbehind this war is that you Americans are supposed to be coming to liberate this place. 

And, if you’re goingto have to smash your way into city after city using armor and helicopters and aircraft, then the wholeunderpinning and purpose of this war just disappears, and, the world - which has not been convinced thus far,who thinks this is a wrong war and an unjust war - are going to say, "Then what is this for? They don’twant to be liberated by us." And that’s when we’re going to come down to the old word: Oil. What’squite significant is in the next few hours the Oil Minister in Iraq is supposed to be addressing the press,and that might turn out to be one of the more interesting press conferences that we’ve had, maybe even moreinteresting, perhaps, than the various briefings from military officials about the course of the war.

Amy Goodman:  We’re speaking to Robert Fisk in Baghdad, Iraq. Robert,we also have word that the Turks have also crossed over the border - thousands of Turkish soldiers - intonorthern Iraq.

Robert Fisk: I wouldn’t be surprised, I really don’t know. You’ve gotto realize that, although electricity and communications continue n Baghdad, I only know what I hear on theradio and television, and, as in all wars, covering it is an immensely exhausting experience. I simplyhaven’t been able to keep up with what’s happening in the north. I rely on people like you, Amy, to tellme. I have a pretty good idea of what’s happening in the rest of Iraq, but not in the north.

Amy Goodman:  Well can you tell us what is happening and what it’slike to report there? How are you getting around and do you agree with the Iraqi General Hazim Al-Rawi thatyou quoted that Iraq will become a quagmire for the Americans?

Robert Fisk:  Well, it’s not just Rawi, we’ve had Vice PresidentRamadan, [and] the Minister of Defense just over 24 hours ago giving the most detailed briefings. One of theinteresting things is whether or not you believe these various briefings are correct, the detail is quiteextraordinary, and certainly we’re being given more information about what’s been going on at the front -accurate or not - than most of the Western correspondents have been getting in Qatar. 

I mean, you’ll seepictures of journalists saying, "Well, I’m with the US Marines near a town I can’t name, but we’rehaving some problems, here’s Nasiriyah and here’s a bridge". If you go to the Iraqi briefing, they’lltell you it’s the third corp, 45th Battalion, they’re actually giving the names of the officers who are incharge of various units and what position they’re in, and where the battles are taking place. There isactually more detail being given out by the Iraqis than by the Americans or the British, which is quiteremarkable, it’s the first time I’ve ever known this. 

Now, again, it may be plausible to think that allthis information is accurate - when the Iraqis first said they had taken American prisoners, we said, "Oh,more propaganda" - then up comes the film of the prisoners. Then they said they’d shot down a helicopter,and the journalists here in the briefing sort of looked at each other and said, "There’s another story",and suddenly we’re seeing film of a shot down helicopter - then another film of a shot down helicopter. Thenthey said they had attacked and destroyed armored personnel carriers belonging to the US armed forces, and weall looked at each other and said, "Here we go again, more propaganda", and then we see film on CNN ofburning APCs. 

So, there’s a good deal of credibility being given to the Iraqi version of events, althoughI’d have to say that their total version of how many aircraft have been shot down appears to be anexaggeration. So, we do have a moderately good idea, in that sense, of what’s actually happening. There areIraqis moving around inside Iraq and arriving in Baghdad and giving us accounts of events that appear to bethe same as accounts being given by various authorities. And no journalist can leave Baghdad to go to thesouth to check this out, but I do suspect that will happen in due course, I do think they will get journaliststo move around inside Iraq providing they can produce a scenario that is favorable to Iraq. But frankly, anyscene that a journalist sees that is opposition to the United States would be favorable to Iraq. But, it maywell be that, with the Americans only about 50 miles away from where I am, if they’re going to try to enterBaghdad or if a siege of Baghdad begins, of course the Iraqis have boasted for a long time that this would bea kind of Stalingrad - here come the World War II references again - we won’t have to go very far to see theAmericans fighting the Iraqis, we’ll see them with our own eyes.

The Americans won’t be arriving close toBaghdad; they already are close. When we’ll be moving around - you asked me about reporting - it’s notnearly as claustrophobic as you might imagine. I can walk out from my hotel in the evening, and, if I can finda restaurant open, I can get in a cab and go to dinner, no one stops me. When I’m traveling around duringthe day, if I want to go and carry out any interviews, if I want to do anything journalistic, I have a driverand I have what is called a minder; a person provided by the ministry to travel with me. 

This means thatnobody I speak to is able to speak freely. I’ve gone up to people in the streets – shopkeepers - andtalked to them, but it’s quite clear that there’s a representative of the authority with me, and I, infact, don’t do any interviews like that any more, I think it’s ridiculous. Many of my colleagues continueto point microphones at these poor people and ask them questions which they cannot possibly respond to freely.So I simply do not do interview stories, I think it’s too intimidating to the person one is talking to, itis unprofessional and it is unethical to travel with anyone else on an interview of that kind. But, you know,as I say, I can get into a car without a minder and go to a grocery shop and pick up groceries, bottles ofwater, biscuits, vegetables - I don’t need to travel around with a minder in that case and nobody minds. Inother words, it’s not as though you’re under a great oppressive watch. 

Television reports now, by andlarge, when reporters are making television interviews, or when they’re being interviewed by the headoffices, now require a ministry minder to sit and listen. It doesn’t mean they are being censored, but itmeans that they bite their lip occasionally. I will not do any television interviews with minders present so Idon’t appear on television here. The odd thing is that there is no control at all attempted over writtenjournalism or radio journalism. While I’m talking to you now, I’m sure this phone is being listened to,but whether they have the ability to listen to every phone call in Baghdad, but I doubt very much. I can sayanything I want, and I do. 

And when I write, I’m not worried at all about being critical of the regime hereand I am. So, it’s really a television thing here that I think the authorities are more fixated with and theactual presence of the minder, who, in my case is a pleasant guy who does not have a political upbringingparticularly. It’s more of a concern, which I suppose one could understand if you saw it through Iraqi eyesor the eyes of the regime, that the reporter is not doing some kind of dual purpose. Obviously, there is atradition that journalists sometimes, unfortunately, turned out to work for governments as well as fornewspapers or television, and I think the concern of the Iraqis is that some vital piece of informationdoesn’t get out to what is referred to by them as the enemy, and, secondly, that reporters are what they saythey are. 

But, you know, this happened in Yugoslavia when I was covering the Serbian war. I was in there fromthe beginning of the war and most journalists were thrown out but I managed to hang on. And at the beginning,one couldn’t travel anywhere in Serbia or Yugoslavia at all without a government official. And, after daysand weeks went by, and you turned out to be who you said you were, and you were not at all interested inworking for anyone but your editor and your newspaper, a form of trust build up where they know that youdisapprove of their regime, but they vaguely know you’re going to tell the truth, even if it’s criticaltowards Britain or America or whoever. And they leave you alone, by and large. 

I have been to Iraq many timesand I know a lot of people here, both in authority and civilians.