Earlier today, I reported on an interview with the BBC's Kate Adie and her charges that the Pentagon was adopting a "Who cares? They've been warned" attitude toward independent journalists and sat-phone emissions. An unnamed source in the Pentagon allegedly told her that all sat-phone emissions from behind enemy lines in Iraq would be "targeted down" by U.S. pilots and blown up real good.
Well, I talked to Air Force Lt. Col. Ken McClellan at the DoD tonight to update my previous posting.
"I don't want to say a HARM wouldn't go after those kinds of emissions," he said. "But we're not after reporters."
He advised me to look at the record in Afghanistan. "We had all sorts of reporters running all over the place and they did better than those large antenna facilities," he said. He was referring to the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices and transmitters in Kubul. As murky as the situation was regarding the bombing of Al Jazeera, I couldn't find a single instance of a reporter killed in a missile attack. Presumably, mobile transmitters such as myself, wouldn't necessarily be targeted, but accidents can happen.
"I wouldn't stand on the rubble of a command post and light up," said McClellan echoing Keck's advice from earlier in the day.
The bottom line: I do believe the Pentagon would make every effort to verify that a transmission was hostile before letting hell loose on it. This video from Afghanistan shows the concern gunners in an AC-130 had about not hitting a mosque. McClellan said that any transmissions would be monitored and that if they heard someone speaking in English, it's unlikely they would be targeted. That said, it's possible that some reporters could be put in harms' way by being in the wrong place at the wrong time or doing something stupid. (See: bombed command bunker, phoning from.)
Oh, and a side note of interest: When I mentioned that I was planning on being in Iraqi Kurdistan (more or less true) McClellan said, "That's an excellent place to be." Hmm.
The Kurds in the North can not create their own state. Because if they do then Turkey will do something about it. The Kurds probably fear the Turks more than Saddam. When this war comes it will be interesting what will happen. Also, you’ve been to Northern Iraq? And I assume that everyone there supports the war. But what about the central and southern parts of Iraq? On TV all I see is Iraqi Kurds supporting, but I really haven’t seen any Sunni or Shia. I haven’t seen any Sunni or Shia defectors/dissidents. Anyway, it looks like this war is on hold and that is unfortunate. The longer we wait the bigger the chances that we will have more casualties.
Yiiii! Re: his final comment.
“But what about the central and southern parts of Iraq?”
This might be worth a look:
http://intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837
So it appears that the Iraqi people do support the removal of Saddam’s regime. And I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone. It is almost impossible to speak out in Iraq, because Iraqi minders are always watching. Watching the people and journalists and each other. Saddam rules with an iron fist, he rules by fear.
You’re reading into it what you already expected to see, I think. Not to dispute the idea that Saddam rules by fear, at least partially, but if the minders were that totalitarian you wouldn’t have a “significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it”. The change referred to being the state of war they presently live under. American invasion is hardly the only option that satisifies that condition.
Opie reminds me of that famous cartoon where Hitler and Stalin meet over the dead body of Poland. “The Scum of the Earth, I presume,” says Hitler, bowing gracefully. “The Oppressor of the Masses,” Stalin politely responds.
Do the Iraqi people want Saddam Hussein removed? The answer is probably yes.
Do the Iraqi people want George W. Bush imposing a government on them? The answer is probably no.
We have two oppressors face to face and with their heads in the sand about where the hearts of the people are.
My 1992 experience in Croatia and Serbia gave me a very cynical outlook when it came to help that came from outside. People in the war zones, when asked who was causing the problems, pointed two fingers: one at Belgrade and the other at Zagreb.
—“if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it”. The change referred to being the state of war they presently live under. American invasion is hardly the only option that satisifies that condition.”—
Buermann, I believe that military action is the only way to get rid of the regime in Baghdad. After the first Gulf War, the people tried to rebel…but Saddam quickly crushed it and slaughtered thousands of them. There may be other options to liberate Iraq, but they will probably not work.
Obviously Joel appears to be a leftwinger. :)
Check this website out:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/
Yes, it was unfortunate that we didn’t come and help the rebellion. But, I guess our government had reasons at the time to stay out of it. I watched “Three Kings” many months ago, but I don’t rely on movies to get my facts. The U.S. isn’t going to bomb hospitals, schools or archaeological sites…it’s the Iraqi military who are putting military vehicles/equipment near or at these sites. It’s highly unlikely, that this war will be a “Vietnam”, they said that about Afghanistan etc. Nevertheless, you don’t have to agree with what is going on, but at least support our troops.
Opie,
Where do you get your news/information?
RichW
Chris: what kind of satellite phone do you use? How have the phones worked?