Live From Iraq,
an Un-Embedded Journalist
By Robert Fisk
Broadcast on Tuesday, March
25, 2003 by Democracy Now!
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Host: Set the scene for us in Baghdad right now.
Robert Fisk, The Independent:
Well, its been a relativelyrelatively being the wordquiet
night, theres been quite a lot of explosions about an hour ago.
There have obviously been an awful lot of missiles arriving on some
target, but I would say it was about 4 or 5 miles away. You can hear
the change in air pressure and you can hear this long, low rumble like
drums or like someone banging on a drum deep beneath the ground, but
quite a ways away. There have only been 2 or 3 explosions near the center
of the city, which is where I am, in the last 12 hours. So, I suppose
you could say that, comparatively, to anyone living in central Baghdad,
its been a quiet night.
The strange thing is that
the intensity of the attacks on Baghdad changes quite extraordinarily;
youll get one evening when you can actually sleep through it all,
and the next evening when you see the explosions red hot around you.
As if no one really planning
the things, its like someone wakes up in the morning and says,
Lets target this on the map today, and its something
which sort of characterizes the whole adventure because if you actually
look at whats happening on the ground, youll see that the
American and British armies started off in the border. They started
off at Um Qasr and got stuck, carried on up the road through the desert,
took another right turn and tried to get into Basra, got stuck, took
another right at Nasiriyah, got stuckits almost as if they
keep on saying, Well lets try the next road on the right,
and it has kind of a lack of planning to it. There will be those who
say that, No its been meticulously planned, but it
doesnt feel like it to be here.
Amy Goodman: Can you talk
about the POWs and television- the charge that theyre violating
the Geneva Convention by showing them on television?
Robert Fisk: Well, you know,
the Geneva Convention is meant to protect children, and hospitals are
full of civilians, including many children whove been badly wounded.
It seems to me that this
concentration on whether television should show prisoners or not is
a kind of mischief: its not the point. The issue, of course, is
that both sides are taking prisoners, and that both sides want the other
side to know of the prisoners theyve taken. I watched CNN showing
a British soldier forcing a man to kneel on the ground and put his hands
up and produce his identity card and Ive seen other film on British
television of prisoners near Um Qasr and Basra being forced to march
past a British soldier with their hands in the air. Well, they (the
American soldiers) werent interviewed, its true, although
you heard at one point a man asking questions, clearly to put any prisoner
on air answering questions is against the Geneva Convention. But for
many, many years now, in the Middle East television has been showing
both sides in various wars appearing on television and being asked what
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,
that we now know that 2 prisoners at the US base Bagram were beaten
to death during interrogation. To accuse the Iraqis of breaking the
Geneva Convention by putting American POWs on television in which you
hear them being asked what state theyre from in the states, it
seems a very hypocritical thing to do. But one would have to say, technically,
putting a prisoner of war on television and asking them questions on
television is against the Geneva Convention. It is quite specifically
so. And thus, clearly Iraq broke that convention when it put those men
on television- I watched them on Iraqi TV here. But, as Ive said,
its a pretty hypocritical thing when you realize, this equates
to the way America treats prisoners from Afghanistan- Mr. Bush is not
the person to be teaching anyone about the Geneva Convention.
Jeremy Scahill, Democracy
Now! Correspondent: Robert Fisk, you wrote in one of your most recent
articles, actually, the title of it was "Iraq Will Become a Quagmire
for the Americans" and I think many people within the US administration
were surprised to find the kinds of resistance they have in places like
Nasiriyah. We have the two Apache helicopters that have apparently been
shot down and many US casualties so far. Do you think the Americans
were caught by surprise, particularly by the resistance in the south
where everyone was saying that the people are against Saddam Hussein?
Robert Fisk: Well, they shouldnt
have been caught by surprise; there were plenty of us writing that this
was going to be a disaster and a catastrophe and that they were going
to take casualties. You know, one thing I think the Bush administration
has shown as a characteristic, is that it dreams up moral ideas and
then believes that theyre all true, and characterizes this policy
by assuming that everyone else will then play their roles. In their
attempt to dream up an excuse to invade Iraq, theyve started out,
remember, by saying first of all that there are weapons of mass destruction.
We were then told that al Qaeda had links to Iraq, which, there certainly
isnt an al Qaeda link. Then we were told that there were links
to September 11th, which was rubbish. And in the end, the best the Bush
administration could do was to say, Well, were going to
liberate the people of Iraq. And because it provided this excuse,
it obviously then had to believe that these people wanted to be liberated
by the Americans. And, as the Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said
a few hours ago, I was listening to him in person, the Americans expected
to be greeted with roses and music- and they were greeted with bullets.
I think you see what has
happened is that- and as he pointed out- the American administration
and the US press lectured everybody about how the country would break
apart where Shiites hated Sunnis and Sunnis hated Turkmen and Turkmen
hated Kurds, and so on. And yet, most of the soldiers fighting in southern
Iraq are actually Shiite. Theyre not Sunnis, theyre not
Tikritis, theyre not from Saddams home city. Saddam did
not get knocked off his perch straight away, and I think that, to a
considerable degree, the American administration allowed that little
cabal of advisors around Bush- Im talking about Perle, Wolfowitz,
and these other peoplepeople who have never been to war, never
served their country, never put on a uniform- nor, indeed, has Mr. Bush
ever served his country- they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood
scenario of GIs driving through the streets of Iraqi cities being showered
with roses by a relieved populace who desperately want this offer of
democracy that Mr. Bush has put on offer-as reality. And the truth of
the matter is that Iraq has a very, very strong political tradition
of strong anti-colonial struggle. It doesnt matter whether thats
carried out under the guise of kings or under the guise of the Arab
Socialist Baath party, or under the guise of a total dictator.
There are many people in this country who would love to get rid of Saddam
Hussein, Im sure, but they dont want to live under American
occupation.
The nearest I can describe
it- and again, things can change- maybe the pack of cards will all collapse
tomorrow- but if I can describe it, it would be a bit like the situation
in 1941- and I hate these World War II parallels because I think its
disgusting to constantly dig up the second world war- Hitler is dead
and he died in 1945 and we shouldnt use it, but if you want the
same parallel, youll look at Operation: Barbarosa, where the Germans
invaded Russia in 1941 believing that the Russians would collapse because
Stalin was so hated and Communism was so hated. And at the end of the
day, the Russians preferred to fight the Germans to free their country
from Germany, from Nazi rule, rather than to use the German invasion
to turn against Stalin. And at the end of the day, a population many
of whom had suffered greatly under Communism fought for their motherland
under the leadership of Marshal Stalin against the German invader. A
similar situation occurred in 1980 when Saddam himself invaded Iran.
There had just been, 12 months earlier, a revolution in Iran and the
Islamic Republic had come into being. It was believed here in Baghdad
that if an invasion force crossed the border from Iraq- supported again
in this case by the Americans- that the Islamic Republic would fall
to pieces; that it would collapse under its own volition; that is couldnt
withstand a foreign invasion. I actually crossed the border with the
Iraqi forces in 1980, I was reporting on both sides, and I remember
reaching the first Iranian city called Horam Shar and we came under
tremendous fire; mortar fire, sniper fire, and artillery fire, and I
remember suddenly thinking as I hid in this villa with a number of Iraqi
commandos, My goodness, the Iranians are fighting for their country.
And I think the same thing
is happening now, and, obviously, we know that with the firepower they
have the Americans can batter their way into these cities and they can
take over Baghdad, but the moral ethos behind this war is that you Americans
are supposed to be coming to liberate this place. And, if youre
going to have to smash your way into city after city using armor and
helicopters and aircraft, then the whole underpinning 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 dont want to be liberated
by us. And thats when were going to come down to the
old word: Oil. Whats quite 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 weve had, maybe even more interesting, perhaps, than the
various briefings from military officials about the course of the war.
Amy Goodman: Were 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-
into northern Iraq.
Robert Fisk: I wouldnt
be surprised, I really dont know. Youve got to realize that,
although electricity and communications continue n Baghdad, I only know
what I hear on the radio and television, and, as in all wars, covering
it is an immensely exhausting experience. I simply havent been
able to keep up with whats happening in the north. I rely on people
like you, Amy, to tell me. I have a pretty good idea of whats
happening in the rest of Iraq, but not in the north.
Amy Goodman: Well can you
tell us what is happening and what its like to report there? How
are you getting around and do you agree with the Iraqi General Hazim
Al-Rawi that you quoted that Iraq will become a quagmire for the Americans?
Robert Fisk: Well, its
not just Rawi, weve had Vice President Ramadan, [and] the Minister
of Defense just over 24 hours ago giving the most detailed briefings.
One of the interesting things is whether or not you believe these various
briefings are correct, the detail is quite extraordinary, and certainly
were being given more information about whats been going
on at the front- accurate or not- than most of the Western correspondents
have been getting in Qatar. I mean, youll see pictures of journalists
saying, Well, Im with the US Marines near a town I cant
name, but were having some problems, heres Nasiriyah and
heres a bridge. If you go to the Iraqi briefing, theyll
tell you its the third corp, 45th Battalion, theyre actually
giving the names of the officers who are in charge of various units
and what position theyre in, and where the battles are taking
place. There is actually more detail being given out by the Iraqis than
by the Americans or the British, which is quite remarkable, its
the first time Ive ever known this. Now, again, it may be plausible
to think that all this 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 theyd
shot down a helicopter, and the journalists here in the briefing sort
of looked at each other and said, Theres another story,
and suddenly were seeing film of a shot down helicopter- then
another film of a shot down helicopter. Then they said they had attacked
and destroyed armored personnel carriers belonging to the US armed forces,
and we all looked at each other and said, Here we go again, more
propaganda, and then we see film on CNN of burning APCs.
So, theres a good deal
of credibility being given to the Iraqi version of events, although
Id have to say that their total version of how many aircraft have
been shot down appears to be an exaggeration. So, we do have a moderately
good idea, in that sense, of whats actually happening. There are
Iraqis moving around inside Iraq and arriving in Baghdad and giving
us accounts of events that appear to be the same as accounts being given
by various authorities. And no journalist can leave Baghdad to go to
the south to check this out, but I do suspect that will happen in due
course, I do think they will get journalists to move around inside Iraq
providing they can produce a scenario that is favorable to Iraq. But
frankly, any scene that a journalist sees that is opposition to the
United States would be favorable to Iraq. But, it may well be that,
with the Americans only about 50 miles away from where I am, if theyre
going to try to enter Baghdad or if a siege of Baghdad begins, of course
the Iraqis have boasted for a long time that this would be a kind of
Stalingrad- here come the World War II references again- we wont
have to go very far to see the Americans fighting the Iraqis, well
see them with our own eyes.
The Americans wont
be arriving close to Baghdad; they already are close. When well
be moving around- you asked me about reporting- its not nearly
as claustrophobic as you might imagine. I can walk out from my hotel
in the evening, and, if I can find a restaurant open, I can get in a
cab and go to dinner, no one stops me. When Im traveling around
during the day, if I want to go and carry out any interviews, if I want
to do anything journalistic, I have a driver and I have what is called
a minder; a person provided by the ministry to travel with me. This
means that nobody I speak to is able to speak freely. Ive gone
up to people in the streets-shopkeepers- and talked to them, but its
quite clear that theres a representative of the authority with
me, and I, in fact, dont do any interviews like that any more,
I think its ridiculous. Many of my colleagues continue to 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 its too intimidating to the person one is talking to,
it is 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 of water, biscuits, vegetables- I dont need to travel
around with a minder in that case and nobody minds. In other words,
its not as though youre under a great oppressive watch.
Television reports now, by
and large, when reporters are making television interviews, or when
theyre being interviewed by the head offices, now require a ministry
minder to sit and listen. It doesnt mean they are being censored,
but it means that they bite their lip occasionally. I will not do any
television interviews with minders present so I dont appear on
television here. The odd thing is that there is no control at all attempted
over written journalism or radio journalism. While Im talking
to you now, Im 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 say anything I want, and I do. And when I write,
Im not worried at all about being critical of the regime here
and I am. So, its really a television thing here that I think
the authorities are more fixated with and the actual presence of the
minder, who, in my case is a pleasant guy who does not have a political
upbringing particularly. Its more of a concern, which I suppose
one could understand if you saw it through Iraqi eyes or the eyes of
the regime, that the reporter is not doing some kind of dual purpose.
Obviously, there is a tradition
that journalists sometimes, unfortunately, turned out to work for governments
as well as for newspapers or television, and I think the concern of
the Iraqis is that some vital piece of information doesnt get
out to what is referred to by them as the enemy, and, secondly, that
reporters are what they say they are. But, you know, this happened in
Yugoslavia when I was covering the Serbian war. I was in there from
the beginning of the war and most journalists were thrown out but I
managed to hang on. And at the beginning, one couldnt travel anywhere
in Serbia or Yugoslavia at all without a government official. And, after
days and weeks went by, and you turned out to be who you said you were,
and you were not at all interested in working for anyone but your editor
and your newspaper, a form of trust build up where they know that you
disapprove of their regime, but they vaguely know youre going
to tell the truth, even if its critical towards Britain or America
or whoever. And they leave you alone, by and large. I have been to Iraq
many times and I know a lot of people here, both in authority and civilians.
I think people generally realize that The Independent really is an independent
newspaper. So, theres no great attempt to influence me or force
me to praise the regime, for example, which is kind of a Hollywood version
of what happens in these places.
Ive written very critically,
with condemnation of Saddam and the regime and of all the human rights
abuses here and the use of gas in Halabja and so on. And I think theres
a sort of understanding that as long as youre a real journalist
you will have to say these things, and indeed one has to, one should,
but that doesnt mean that we are laboring under the cruel heelto
use Churchills phraseof some kind of Gestapo. Again, this
is not a free country, this is a dictatorship, this is a regime that
does not believe in the free speech that you and I believe in. One has
to do ones best to get the story out.
Amy Goodman: Do you think
Saddam Hussein is in control?
Robert Fisk: Oh yes, absolutely.
There have been a few incidents, I mean there was a little bit of shooting
last night and there were the rumors that people had come from Saddam
City and there were clashes with security forces or security agents,
and rumors of a railway line being blown up, which was denied by the
authorities, but there is no doubt Saddam is in control. Its very
funny sitting here, in a strange way, I suppose, if you could listen
to some of the things that were said about the United States here, youd
laugh in America, but Ive been listening to this uproariously
funny argument about whether Saddams speech was recorded before
the war and whether they have look-alikes. So, that in fact, the speech
that Saddam made 24 hours ago, less than 24 hours ago, a speech that
was very important if you read the text carefully and understand what
he was trying to do, it has been totally warped in the United States
by a concentration not on what he was saying, but whether it was actually
him that was saying it. The American correspondent was saying to me
yesterday morning, This is ridiculous, we simply cant report
the story, because every time we have to deal with something Saddam
says, the Pentagon claims its not him or its his double
or it was recorded 2 weeks ago. So, the story ceases to be about
what the man says, the story starts to be this totally mythical, fictional
idea that it really isnt Saddam or its his double, etcetera.
I watched this recording
on television, all his television broadcasts are recordings because
hes not so stupid as to do a live broadcast and get bombed by
the Americans while hes doing it. The one thing you learn if youre
a target is not to do live television broadcasts, or radio for that
matter, or, indeed telephone. But if you listen and read the text of
what Saddam said, it has clearly been recorded in the previous few hours,
and I can tell you, having once actually met the man, it absolutely
was Saddam Hussein. But thats the strange thing, you see, that
in the US, the Pentagon only has to say its not Saddam, that its
a fake, it was recorded years ago, or that its a double, and the
Hollywood side of the story, which is quite rubbish, its not true-
it is him, then takes over from the real story, which is What
the hell is this guy actually saying?.
Amy Goodman:What is he saying?
Robert Fisk: There were several
themes. The first one; 14 times he told the Iraqis, Be patient.
Oddly enough, thats what Joseph Stalin told the Russian people
in 1941 and 1942; be patient. He made a point of specifically naming
the army officers in charge of Um Qasr, Basra, and Nasiriyah and the
various other cities in which are holding out against the Americans.
It was important that he kept saying, the army, the army, the
Baath party militia. He was constantly reiterating that
these things were happening; they were opposing the Americans and the
Americans were taking casualties. In some ways, his speech was not unlike
that of George W. Bush, he talked about fighting evil, of fighting the
devil. And, although theres no connection, thats something
that bin Laden used to say a lot. The idea of good versus evil has become
part of kind of a patoire for every warring leader whether it be Bush
or Saddam or anyone else.
But there was also this constant
reference to the anti-colonial history of Iraq, the need to remember
this was a battle against an invader; that these people were invading
from another country. This was not Iraq invading the US- this was the
US invading Iraq. It was not a speech that was delivered with a great
deal of passion, and Saddam is capable of emotion. He read from a text,
it wasnt Churchillian- here we go again, World War II grasping
at me like a ghost. But it was an interesting text because of its constant
repetition; wait, we will win eventually. And it was quite clear what
came over from it; Saddam believes Iraqs salvation- at least the
salvation of the regime, shall we say- is just keeping on fighting and
fighting and fighting until the moral foundations and underpinnings
which America has attached to this invasion have collapsed. In other
words, if you can keep holding out week after week, if you can suck
the Americans into the quagmire of Baghdad and make them fight, and
use artillery against them in civilian areas, that will undermine the
whole moral purpose theyve strapped onto this war. Frankly, having
listened to the various meretricious reasons put forward for this war,
I think hes understood one of the main reasons why its taking
place and thus has decided hes going to go on fighting. And, of
course, once you apply unconditional surrender- World War II- isnt
that what Roosevelt did at Casablanca, there is no way out.
It was an interesting moment
last night when Tariq Aziz was asked by a journalist, Can you
see a way out? Is it possible to have another peace? Tariq
Aziz looked at the journalist as if hed seen a ghost and he said,
What are you talking about? There is a war. I asked Tariq
Aziz, I said, Youve given us a very dramatic description
of the last 7 days of the war, can you give us a dramatic description
of the next 7 days? Just stay on here in Baghdad and youll
find out, he said.
Jeremy Scahill: Robert Fisk,
what are you seeing in terms of the preparations for the defense of
Baghdad? The people that weve been interviewing inside of Iraq-
both ordinary Iraqis as well as journalists and others, are saying that
there arent really visible signs that there are any overt preparations
underway. Whats your sense?
Robert Fisk: Well, it doesnt
look like Stalingrad to me, but I guess in Stalingrad there probably
werent a lot of preparations. Ive been more than 20 miles
outside of Baghdad, and you can certainly see troops building big artillery
vetments around the city. I mean, positions for heavy artillery and
mortars, army vehicles hidden under overpasses, the big barracks of
long ago-as in Serbia before the NATO bombardment have long been abandoned.
Most of these cruise missiles that we hear exploding at night are bursting
into government buildings, ministries, offices and barracks that have
long ago been abandoned. Theres nobody inside them; they are empty.
Ive watched ministries take all their computers out, trays- even
the pictures from the walls. That is the degree to which these buildings
are empty; they are shells.
Inside the city, there have
been a lot of trenches dug beside roads, sandbag positions set up. In
some cases, holes dug with sandbags around them to make positions on
road intersections to make positions for snipers and machine gunners.
This is pretty primitive stuff. It might be WW2 in fabrication, but
it doesnt look like the kind of defenses that are going to stop
a modern, mechanized army like that of the United States or Britain-
I think the US is a little more modern than we are. I dont think
it needs to be, because Americas power is in its firepower, its
mechanized state, its sophistication of its technology. Iraqi military
power is insane; these people are invading us and we continue to resist
them- active resistance is a principle element of Iraqs military
defense. Its in the act of resistance, not whether you can stop
this tank or that tank. And, the fact of the matter is, and its
become obvious in the Middle East over the last few years; the West
doesnt want to take casualties. They dont want to die. Nobody
wants to die, but some people out here realize a new form of warfare
has set in where, the United States, if they want to invade a country,
they will bombard it. They will use other peoples soldiers to
do it. Look at the way the Israelis used Lebanese mercenaries of the
South Lebanon army in Lebanon. Look at the way the Americans used the
KLA in Kosovo or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
But here in Iraq there isnt
anyone they can use; the Iraqi opposition appears to be hopeless. The
Iraqis have not risen up against their oppressors as they did in 1991
when they were betrayed by the Americans and the British after being
urged to fight Saddam- theyre staying at home. Theyre letting
the Americans do the liberating. If the Americans want to liberate them,
fine, let the Americans do it- but the Americans arent doing very
well at the moment. You see, weve already got a situation down
in Basra where the British army have admitted firing artillery into
the city of Basra, and then winging on afterward talking about Were
being fired at by soldiers hiding among civilians. Well, Im
sorry; all soldiers defending cities are among civilians. But now the
British are firing artillery shells into the heavily populated city
of Basra. When the British were fired upon with mortars or with snipers
from the cragg on the state or the bogside in Delhi and in Northern
Ireland, they did not use artillery, but here, apparently, it is ok
to use artillery on a crowded city. What on Earth is the British army
doing in Iraq firing artillery into a city after invading the country?
Is this really about weapons of mass destruction? Is this about al Qaeda?
Its interesting that
in the last few days, not a single reporter has mentioned September
11th. This is supposed to be about September 11th. This is supposed
to be about the war on terror, but nobody calls it that anymore because
deep down, nobody believes it is. So, what is it about? Its interesting
that there are very few stories being written about oil. Were
told about the oil fields being mined and booby-trapped, some oil wells
set on fire- but oil is really not quite the point. Strange enough,
in Baghdad, you dont forget it, because in an attempt to mislead
the guidance system of heat seeking missiles and cruise missiles, Iraqis
are setting fire to large berms of oil around the city. All day, all
you see is this sinister black canopy of oil smoke over Baghdad. It
blocks out the sun, it makes the wind rise and it gets quite cold; here,
you cant forget the word oil. But I dont hear it too much
in news reports.
Amy Goodman: Were talking
to Robert Fisk in Baghdad, Iraq. I wanted to get you comment on Richard
Perles piece in The Guardian where he said Saddam Husseins
reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone.
In a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him.
Robert Fisk: Well, poor old
UN. Very soon, the Americans are going to need the United Nations as
desperately as they wanted to get rid of them. Because if this turns
into the tragedy that it is turning into at the moment, if the Americans
end up, by besieging Baghdad day after day after day, theyll be
looking for a way out, and the only way out is going to be the United
Nations at which point, believe me, the French and the Russians are
going to make sure that George Bush passes through some element of humiliation
to do that. But thats some way away. Remember what I said early
on to you. The Americans can do it- they have the firepower. They may
need more than 250,000 troops, but if theyre willing to sacrifice
lives of their own men, as well as lives of the Iraqis, they can take
Baghdad; they can come in.
But, you know, I look down
from my balcony here next to the Tigris River- does that mean were
going to have an American tank on every intersection in Baghdad? What
are they there for- to occupy? To repress? To run an occupation force
against the wishes of Iraqis? Or are they liberators? Its very
interesting how the reporting has swung from one side to another. Are
these liberating forces or occupying forces? Every time I hear a journalist
say liberation, I know he means occupation.
We come back to the same point again which Mr. Perle will not acknowledge;
because this war does not have a UN sanction behind itI mean not
in the sense of sanctions but that it doesnt have permission behind
it, it is a war without international legitimacy, and the longer it
goes on, the more it hurts Bush and the less it hurts Saddam. And were
now into one week, and there isnt even a single American soldier
who has even approached the city of Baghdad yet. And the strange thing,
looking at it from here in Baghdad, is the ad hoc way in which this
war appears to be carried out. We heard about the air campaign. There
is no air campaign; there was not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky.
This isnt Luftwaffe faces the Battle of Britain or the Royal Air
Force or the USAF- this is aerial bombardment. The fighting is going
on on the ground. There wasnt meant to be any fighting, but there
is. Its the way in which during the first night there was some
distant rumbling, and we were told that the war had begun, but it wasnt
really the bombing of Baghdad, but a one off attempt to kill Saddam.
I guess someone walked into
the White House and said, Mr. President, were not planning
to start until tomorrow, but weve got this opportunity to kill
Saddam. OK, lets have a go, lets try it, lets
try it. Then we have this big blitz the following night, and a
much bigger one the next night, where I was literally standing in the
middle of Baghdad literally watching buildings blow up all over Baghdad
around me- a whole presidential palace went into flames right in front
of me, it was extraordinary. An anarchical sight of red and gold colors
and tremendous explosions and leaves dropping off the trees like autumn
in the spring. And then the next night was quite quiet, and then last
night, for example, most of the attacks by the cruise missiles were
in the suburbs, and it was possible- until you rang, of course, to sleep.
Its as if someone down there in Qatar or in CentCom in Tampa,
Florida, or somewhere is saying, Ok, lets send another 20
tonight, lets send 300 tonight, where should we send them, lets
send them here. Its as if the whole idea of the war was
not planned militarily, it was planned politically, it was planned ideologically,
as if theres an ideological plan behind the war. It started with
al Qaeda, it moved on to weapons of mass destruction, then were
going to liberate the people- and its all going wrong. Whatever
kind of ideological plan there was has fallen to bits. Now, of course,
maybe Saddam falls in the next few days, maybe Baghdad collapses. I
actually believed and wrote in the paper a few days ago that its
possible that one day well all get up and all the militias and
the Iraqi soldiers will be gone and well see American soldiers
walking through the streets. But I dont believe that now.
Amy Goodman: Last question-
have you been to the hospitals of Baghdad?
Robert Fisk: Yes; quite a
few of them. The main visit I made was to one of the main government
hospitals on Saturday morning after a pretty long night of explosions
around the city in which of course quite a lot of these cruise missiles
exploded right on their targets. Others missed them and crashed into
civilian areas. I went to one hospital where-the doctors here are not
Baath party members- the chief doctor I spoke to was trained in
Edinborough where he got his FRCF. He went very coldly down his list
of patients and he had 101, whom he estimated 16 were soldiers 85 were
civilians, and of the 85 civilians, 20 were women, 6 were children.
One child and one man had died in the operating theater during surgery.
Most of the children were pretty badly hurt, one little girl had shrapnel
from an American bomb in her spine and her left leg was paralyzed. Her
mother was, rather pathetically, trying to straighten out her right
leg against it as if both the legs, if pointed in the same direction,
shed somehow regain movement in the left side of her body, which,
of course, she did not. Other children were on drip feeds and had very
serious leg injuries. One little girl had shrapnel in her abdomen, which
had not yet been removed. They were clearly in pain, there was a lot
of tears and crying from the children, less so from the young women
who had been hit- one woman was actually 17, they werent all young.
In one case a woman and her daughter were there. The woman said to me
that she had gone to see a relative and she had gotten out of a taxi,
her daughter, whom I also spoke to, was standing in front of her and
there was a tremendous explosion, noise, and white light, as the woman
said. The girl was hit in the legs and the woman was hit in the chest
and legs by shrapnel. They were lying next to each other in hospital
beds. This is not the worst kind of injuries I have ever seen, and Ive
seen just about every injury in the world including people whove
virtually got no heads left and are still alive, and I didnt see
that. But, if youre going to bomb a country, you will wound and
kill civilians; that is in the nature of warfare. We bomb, they suffer,
and nothing I saw in that hospital surprised me.
Amy Goodman: Well, Robert
Fisk, were going to let you go to sleep. General Colin Powell
said that foreign journalists should leave as the campaign of so-called
shock and awe is initiated- and it has started. Why have
you chosen to remain in Baghdad?
Robert Fisk: Because I dont
work for Colin Powell, I work for a British newspaper called The Independent;
if you read it, youll find that we are. Its not the job
of a journalist to snap to the attention of generals. I wrote a piece
a couple of weeks ago in my newspaper saying that before the war began
in Yugoslavia, the British Foreign Office urged journalists to leave
and then said the British intelligence had uncovered a secret plot to
take all the foreign reporters hostage in Belgrade. I decided this was
a lie and stayedand it was a lie. In Afghanistan, just before
the fall of Khandahar, as I was entering Afghanistan, the British Foreign
Office urged all journalists to stay out of Taliban areas and then said
the British intelligence had uncovered a plot to take all the foreign
reporters hostage. Aware of Yugoslavia, I pressed on to Khandahar and
it proved to be a lie.
Just before the bombardment
here, the British Foreign Office said that all journalists should leave
because British intelligence had uncovered a plot by Saddam to take
all journalists hostages, at which moment I knew Id be safe to
stay because it was, of course, the usual lie. What is sad is how many
journalists did leave. There were a very large number of reporters who
left here voluntarily before the war believing this meretricious nonsense.
I should say that the Iraqis have thrown quite a large number of journalists
out as well. But I dont think its the job of a journalist
to run away when war comes just because it happens to be his own side
doing the bombing. Ive been bombed by the British and Americans
so many times that its not shock and awe anymore,
its shock and bore, frankly.
Amy Goodman: Thank you, Robert.
Good night, be safe.
Robert Fisk: Good night,
Amy, Im going to bed.