Truth is out there — and we’ll bomb it
Some time ago I posted about the American military’s dislike of journalists reporting on their activities. I think it’s worth quoting the same passage from Phillip Knightley again:
The BBC was anxious to find out how it was that its correspondent William Reeve, who had just re-opened the corporation’s studio in Kabul and was giving a live, down-the-line TV interview for BBC World, was suddenly blown out of his seat by an American smart missile. The studio was showered with shrapnel but he was not hurt.
Four hours later, a few blocks away, the office and residential compound of al-Jazeera, which had broadcast the Osama bin Laden tapes, was hit by two more American missiles. German ARD and ZDF, Turkish television, the ABC and Reuters had been using the al-Jazeera office to feed material back to their headquarters but fortunately no one was there at the time.
With the Bush administration already gearing up for war on Iraq, the BBC, al-Jazeera and the US Committee to Protect Journalists thought it prudent to find out from the Pentagon what had gone wrong and what steps they could take in the event of another war to protect their correspondents. What they learnt alarmed them.
Basically, nothing had gone wrong. It had been deliberate. The Pentagon explained that it was indifferent to media activity in territory controlled by the enemy, that it made no effort to distinguish between legitimate satellite uplinks for broadcast news communications and enemy radio or satellite communications.
Sadly, Knightley appears not to have been exaggerating. An almost identical sequence of events has occurred in Iraq.
First, the Al Jazeera studio was bombed:
Al-Jazeera correspondent Tarek Ayyoub was broadcasting live to the satellite station’s 7am news bulletin when US aircraft fired two missiles at the bureau building, killing him and injuring a colleague. Two Iraqi staff are missing.
Next, the western media was attacked:
Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, was killed when an American tank fired a shell directly at the Reuters suite on the 15th floor at the Palestine hotel, where many journalists are staying.
Jose Couso, 37, a cameraman for the Spanish television channel Tele 5, was wounded in the same attack and died later in hospital. Samia Nakhoul, the Gulf bureau chief of Reuters, was also injured, along with a British technician, Paul Pasquale, and an Iraqi photographer, Faleh Kheiber.
This time, though, they went one better. They also attacked Abu Dhabi TV:
American forces also opened fire on the offices of Abu Dhabi television, whose identity is spelled out in large blue letters on the roof.
Ken Parish describes these incidents as “reckless stupidity” on the part of the Americans. I’d say they were more than that.
The Americans knew exactly what they were bombing. Abu Dhabi TV’s “identity is spelled out in large blue letters on the roof”. The Palestine Hotel is, to steal Ken’s phrase, “notoriously where nearly all international journalists were headquartered”. Al Jazeera insists that “Our office is in a residential area and even the Pentagon knows its location”.
So were the attacks accidental? Based on the eyewitness accounts: No.
Against Al Jazeera, the US seems to have flown past a couple of times to make sure they hit the right target:
Ibrahim Hilal, al-Jazeera’s chief editor at its headquarters in Qatar, said a US warplane was seen above the building before the attack. “Witnesses saw the plane fly over twice before dropping the bombs…”
Evidence that the attack on the Palestine was deliberate is even more conclusive. With all those journalists inside, it was inevitable that somebody would have filmed it:
The tank’s turret is seen moving toward the Palestine Hotel, where foreign reporters have set up shop, and the gun carriage lifting and waiting at least two minutes before opening up.
The French TV channel had positioned two cameras in two rooms facing the bridge as of 6:30am (11:30 local time).
“It had been very quiet for a moment. There was no shooting at all. Then I saw the turret turning in our direction and the carriage lifting. It faced the target,” said De Ploeg.
“It was not a case of instinctive firing,” he said.
The US used the same excuse for attacks on both Al Jazeera and the Palestine. They claimed to have been shot at, though witnesses dispute the claim:
According to a central command statement, “commanders on the ground reported that coalition forces received significant enemy fire from the hotel and consistent with the inherent right of self-defence, coalition forces returned fire”.
… But journalists in the hotel insisted there had been no Iraqi fire.
Sky’s correspondent, David Chater, said: “I never heard a single shot coming from the area around here, certainly not from the hotel,” he said.
BBC correspondent Rageh Omaar added that none of the other journalists in the hotel had heard any sniper fire.
… In Doha last night al-Jazeera’s chairman, Hamad bin Thamer, said the channel “could not ascertain” if its Baghdad bureau had been targeted by the US. But he dismissed American claims that there had been gunfire coming from the building at the time of the attack.
“This was absolutely and categorically denied by other reporters and our reporters present on the ground,” he said.
Of course, that’s the tactic. See if you can get away with an outrageous claim, and if you get pulled up, retract:
Brooks initially said the hotel was targeted after soldiers were fired on from the lobby. Later, he told reporters, “I may have misspoken.”
Unfortunately, the fall-back explanation is even more ridiculous:
Soldiers fired back with a tank round aimed at the Palestine Hotel after seeing enemy “binoculars”, Perkins said.
More than 50 news cameras were set up on hotel balconies when the tank fired, according to Associated Press photographer Jerome Delay. “How can they spot someone with binoculars and not (see) cameras?” he asked.
Disturbingly, these developments appear to be part of a censorship campaign. Baghdad may be under siege, but so are TV networks covering the war:
Early today, the network announced that it had been unable to broadcast live video from Baghdad overnight, saying American tanks were posted outside its offices. Its live shots are often used by television networks, including those in the United States.
The key to understanding this debacle is the hawkish slogan, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” In this case, if you’re not “embedded” with the US army, wearing a military uniform, riding around in tanks and convoys, then you’re an enemy. And, as Phillip Knightley warned us weeks ago, you’ll be treated as such.
(By the way, does Fox have any correspondents that aren’t embedded? Just curious.)
Interesting how some “critics” interpret American operations. If the US hit their own troops, it’s interpreted as “typical” US incompetence; but if the US hit civilians or journalists, these same “critics” suddenly find clear evidence of US “wickedness”.
It saves them the strain of careful analysis though, doesn’t it?
Hey Rob I was wondering if you can help me. My Uncle Jebediah Ward is the finance minister for the Hutt river province and they have been invaded by racist nationalists from northhampton. I need $7,500 so he can pay administrative fees on his bank account to access funds thye can use to safely move innocent Hutt river diplomats to a safer location. Upon their arrival you will be paid $15,000 Hutt River dollars for your assistance. In other news the Hutt river has numerous beautiful bridges all of which for sale for very reasonable prices for more information please email me!
Norman, when the US repeatedly bombs populated areas with merely secondary or tertiary military significance (an electric substation, perhaps), it’s incompetence. When the US strikes British convoys or gets in firefights with its own battalions, it’s incompetence. When the US can’t give an answer as to why it decided to bombard areas with absolutely NO military significance, when it is well known for quite some time their use for civilian roles, it’s still incompetence. You can’t save a city of five million by flattening it. It’s the exact same cowboyism that the Brits were complaining about when that A-10 starts firing on that tank convoy: “I’ve got the guns, whaddaya gonna do?” Whether it’s the subtext of the tank commander or his general, it’s still incompetence.
Come off it Jono: Baghdad has hardly been “flattened”. Look at this for a start to see for yourself the extent of the damage. Then consider the fact that the proportion of innocents killed in the city currently stands (if you accept the most inflated figure at what in my opinion is an agenda driven IraqBodyCount.org) at 0.2278 percent of the population.
Sigh. Fog of war, right?
Gareth, 0.2278 percent is still a number of civilians killed. Maybe you’re ‘willing to accept’ a certain number of civilian casualties, but it pains me and a lot of other people to see it happen at all. That war had to be waged at all.
We can talk all we like about whether or not Baghdad is being razed to the ground, whether the damage is nothing at all, but the truth is, we won’t know unless we are on the streets of the city.
Saw quite a few interviews with CNN journos last night–not exactly raving lefties–and all were very angry. None of them accused the military of a deliberately doing it, but all said there needs to be a very high level and serious inquiry. And they kept saying it. Their anger spoke volumes. So I dunno.
You’ve hit the key point, Tim. Anyone in their position would be angry. There’ll be investigations into this and a whole range of other deaths later; but even if the journalists are satisfied, the “Agent Mulders” of Blogging will still be shouting “Conspiracy!!!”
Uhm, Norman, where is the talk of conspiracy? Saying that the US Military is at best willing to be lax and at worse deliberately targeting non-embedded journalists does not equate to ranting conspiracy mongering. It’s too early to call either way.
If the US hits its own troops…is that not incompetence? What is it? Deliberate? Competent? “We very competently mowed down our own troops.” My understanding of comptence vs. incompetence would require me to say that the accidental shelling or shooting of allied troops would fall under the category of an incompetent act. Granted, human error is always going to occur, but that doesn’t excuse such oversights, or release them from the label of incompetence.
Similarly, if our military is bombing buildings without cause, or because they contain journalists…well, what do we call it? Do we just excuse everything under the old rubric that ‘it’s war, what are we expected to do’ or do we demand that such not be countenanced? I don’t think it makes me one of the Lone Gunmen to expect that we not waste time and resources attacking the press or our allies. We have few of the latter left at this point, and our chances of attracting future ones get worse and worse if we appear (rightly or wrongly) to be willing to kill reporters to keep them from reporting.
Well, at least the TV “Mulders” can understand what they read.
A new perspective on the Palestine Hotel:
Not conclusive, but nothing else is either at this point. Worth considering.
That’s rather far-fetched, since no journalist heard iraqi fire, or any fire for that matter, before the tank showed up. And besides, the Americans, as he said, admitted firing on the hotel. They admitted not hearing fire, not seeing a sniper, and merely seeing “binoculars.”
Yes, Norman, but the TV Mulders don’t have to deal with obstructionist doublespeak to the degree we poor benighted fools in the non-TV reality seem to have to. For instance, the whole we were fired on by snipers…or maybe there was a pair of binoculars trained on us argument, or your own no matter what investigation happens, someone will be screaming conspiracy so let’s not bother argument. Again, no one but you argued for anyone claiming conspiracy here. I believe my exact words were It’s too early to call either way. I don’t assume that we’re targeting journalists…I do, however, want to see an investigation when this is all over.
I do, however, appreciate how you explained that friendly fire incidents are not displays of incompetence. Your argument, while as tangible as a set of Imperial clothing I once read about, did have the merit of innocuousness, I suppose.
PING:
TITLE: Shoot out the lights
BLOG NAME: The Road to Surfdom
Good piece here about the alleged targetting of journalists by US military. Note the retraction by the army spokesmodel about…